Openai/6925d974-1c48-8003-8a9b-d62534f72e94

This conversation was exported from ChatGPT

gpt-5-1

Assistant: Holistic Assessment

Holistic Assessment

The answer shows a basic understanding of the DRSC system and touches upon both its contributions and its limitations. However, the structure is weak, the introduction is missing, and the response becomes descriptive rather than analytical. The content lacks constitutional grounding, authoritative references, and contemporary relevance expected in a 10-mark UPSC Mains answer. Some points are generic, not tied to the question’s demand of improving parliamentary effectiveness, and the conclusion is not well-shaped into a way forward.

Detailed Rubric-Based Analysis

Pillar 1: Structural Integrity (IBC Framework)

• Introduction: Missing. The answer directly starts with factual data about the number of DRSCs. An ideal introduction should briefly define DRSCs and their constitutional/statutory rationale.
• Structure: Lists are present, but the narrative flow is weak. Subsections are not clearly demarcated, especially between role and limitations.
• Conclusion: Present, but it becomes moralistic (“duty to do welfare of people”) and not aligned with a neutral administrative tone.
• Brevity: Within word limits but contains repetitive and loosely written points.

Pillar 2: Addressing the Demand (Cardinal Rule)

• The question demands: Role of DRSCs in improving parliamentary effectiveness.
• Many points (e.g., “MPs are layman”, “cannot intervene in day-to-day business”) belong to limitations, but the role should link each function specifically to parliamentary effectiveness (scrutiny, accountability, deliberation, continuity).
• Subheadings based directly on keywords (“Role”, “Limitations”, “Way Forward”) would improve scannability.
• Some points (e.g., “opposition influencing welfare policies”) drift from the core demand.

Pillar 3: Content & Value-Addition (The Polity Trinity)

• Factual Accuracy: - “There are 24 DRSCs”: Correct. - Role points are broadly correct but lack precision.
• Authority (Articles): No mention of relevant articles such as Art. 107–111 (legislative process) or parliamentary control mechanisms.
• Judgments: None cited. While not mandatory, SC observations on committee systems (e.g., strengthening legislative scrutiny) could elevate analysis.
• Committees/Reports: Missing reference to Nolan Committee, National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), or 2nd ARC, which strongly advocate strengthening parliamentary committees.

Pillar 4: Static–Current Affairs Synthesis

• No linkage to contemporary issues: - Decline in referral of bills to committees in recent Lok Sabhas. - Significant bills passed without committee scrutiny.
• Lacks references to real examples like GST Bill, Data Protection Bill, Farm Bills, etc.

Pillar 5: Presentation & Examiner-Centric Design

• Very little use of underlining or structuring tools.
• Bullet points are present but not logically tiered.
• Language slips into informal handwriting-style expressions; needs bureaucratic neutrality.

Actionable Feedback

Top 3 Strengths:

• Coverage of both roles and limitations of DRSCs.
• Identifies decline in referral of bills—an important contemporary concern.
• Attempts a conclusion with a reform suggestion (mandatory referral).

Top 3 Areas for Improvement:

• Add a crisp introduction and structured subheadings directly drawn from the question.
• Strengthen value-addition: cite parliamentary practices, authoritative committees, and recent data.
• Improve analytical linkage: every point under “role” must explicitly explain how it enhances parliamentary effectiveness.