Governance Model Questions by Mr.

Satveer Singh

Governance

Q1. How does the Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP)
enhance social accountability in land governance? Discuss its limitations. (10 marks, 150
words)

Introduction: The Digital India Land Records Modernisation Programme (DILRMP),

launched by merging earlier schemes like NLRMP (2008), aims to digitize land records, promote
conclusive land titling, and improve transparency in land governance. By leveraging technology,
DILRMP enhances citizen-centric governance, accountability, and dispute resolution in one of
India’s most contested sectors.

How DILRMP Enhances Social Accountability

● Transparency and Accessibility: ULPIN assigns a unique ID to each land parcel,

enabling real-time access to verified land information, thus reducing fraudulent
transactions.
○ NGDRS allows the digital registration of property, facilitating transparency in
property transactions and reducing the influence.
● Reduction in land disputes: Integration with e-courts allows judicial institutions to
access verified records, enabling faster disposal of land-related cases.
○ Standardized and geo-referenced digital maps help clarify ownership, reducing
legal ambiguities.
● Inclusion and Empowerment: Transliteration of land records into multiple Indian
languages improves accessibility for non-English-speaking rural populations.
○ Online access to land data empowers marginalized communities, especially
women, by making property rights verifiable and portable.
● Public recognition and monitoring: The Bhoomi Samman initiative promotes
competitive federalism by recognizing districts excelling in digitisation, incentivizing
good governance practices.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 1

 Limitations and Challenges

● Linguistic and cultural barriers: Many users struggle with digital platforms not
available in local dialects, especially in tribal and rural areas.
● Community ownership complexities: In northeastern states, communal landholding
traditions clash with individual-based digitization frameworks.
● Poor quality of records: Outdated cadastral maps and unclear titles hinder reliable
digitization. Many ownership records are unverified or incomplete.
● Institutional constraints: Fragmented land management across departments leads to
delays and coordination failures. Inadequate staff, training, and funding slow the pace of
implementation.
● Lack of public awareness: Farmers and landowners are often unaware of how to access
or use digitized records, limiting the utility of these reforms.

Conclusion: While the DILRMP marks a transformative step toward transparent and
accountable land governance, its full potential is constrained by institutional, social, and
technological barriers. Going forward, community involvement, targeted awareness
campaigns, public-private partnerships, and adoption of emerging technologies like
blockchain will be vital to ensure that digitization not only improves efficiency but also
empowers citizens and reduces land-related injustices.

Q2. “Think tanks in India are increasingly becoming echo chambers of government
policies.” Critically evaluate with examples. (10 marks, 150 words)

Introduction: Think tanks are independent or semi-independent institutions engaged in

research and advocacy in public policy, governance, and development. In India, they play a
pivotal role in shaping informed policy discourse. However, concerns have emerged that many
think tanks are increasingly echoing government narratives rather than providing objective and
critical perspectives.

Categories and Alignment Patterns

● Government-Funded Think Tanks

○ NITI Aayog: As the government’s apex policy think tank, its alignment with
government goals (e.g., post-COVID economic recovery plans) is part of its
mandate.
○ Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA): Though under the Ministry
of Defence, it provides expert inputs on strategic issues, showing both alignment
and analytical depth.
● Independent Think Tanks:
○ Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF): Often mirrors nationalist and
security-centric positions aligned with the ruling party’s ideology.
○ Observer Research Foundation (ORF): Collaborates with ministries (e.g.,
Raisina Dialogue) but also publishes diverse and critical analyses.
○ Centre for Civil Society (CCS): Advocates market-based reforms, often critiquing
state intervention, showing clear independence.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 2

 Influence of Funding and Government Pressure

● Government Dependence: Reliance on state funds may pressure think tanks to conform
to official lines, as seen in government-affiliated bodies.
● Foreign Funding Restrictions: The Centre for Policy Research (CPR) faced suspension of
its foreign funding license in 2023, seen as curbing dissenting voices. Such actions may
lead to self-censorship or forced alignment.

Contributions to Pluralistic Discourse

● Centre for Science and Environment (CSE): Critiques on environmental governance

have influenced public opinion and forced policy revisions.
● Centre for Equity Studies: Provides alternative perspectives on poverty and rights-
based issues.
● Global Think Tanks: Institutions like Brookings India and Carnegie India offer
internationally informed, often critical views on Indian policy.

Conclusion: While some Indian think tanks may appear to be echo chambers due to institutional
affiliations or ideological leanings, many continue to offer independent, evidence-based, and
critical inputs into policymaking. The landscape remains diverse, but maintaining autonomy
through diversified funding and protection from regulatory overreach is essential. Strengthening
institutional independence is key to ensuring think tanks continue to serve as engines of
informed and democratic policy discourse.

Q3. Analyse the role of citizen-led platforms like Jan Soochna Portal in promoting
transparency and accountability in public service delivery. (10 marks, 150 words)

Introduction: Citizen-led transparency initiatives like the Jan Soochna Portal (JSP) represent a
shift from demand-driven accountability (e.g., RTI requests) to proactive disclosure of public
information. Such platforms aim to bridge the information gap between citizens and the state by
enabling easy access to government data, thus fostering a culture of transparency and
participatory governance.

Conceptual Framework of Citizen-Led Platforms

● Information democracy: JSP actualizes the spirit of the Right to Information Act (2005)
by enabling proactive disclosures, reducing the need for formal RTI applications.
● Digital empowerment: Integrates data from multiple departments (e.g., MGNREGA, PDS,
pensions), allowing real-time access and breaking bureaucratic silos.
● Collaborative Governance: Initiatives like JSP are co-created with civil society actors
and technology experts, ensuring both grassroots legitimacy and institutional efficiency.

Contribution to Transparency and Service Delivery

● Visibility of entitlements: Citizens can check eligibility, application status, and payment

VAJIRAM & RAVI 3

 history under schemes such as MGNREGA or social pensions.
● Curbing corruption: Real-time display of beneficiary lists and fund flows deters
manipulation and diversion.
● Targeted service delivery: Geographic data mapping helps identify service delivery
gaps, facilitating evidence-based policy decisions.

Enabling Accountability Mechanisms

● Social audits: Data made public fuels community-based verification of services,

enhancing grassroots monitoring.
● Grievance redressal: JSP integrates feedback and complaint systems, allowing citizens to
track grievance resolution.
● Performance benchmarking: Publishing departmental performance data incentivizes
administrative efficiency through peer comparison.

Challenges and Limitations

● Digital divide: Poor internet access and low digital literacy limit reach in remote and
rural areas.
● Data quality concerns: Outdated or incorrect information reduces credibility and
usefulness.
● Institutional resistance: Some departments resist full transparency due to fear of
exposure and loss of discretionary control.

Way Forward

● Hybrid access models: Supplement online platforms with physical facilitation centers to
ensure inclusivity.
● Capacity building: Digital literacy campaigns and awareness drives can empower
citizens to use such platforms effectively.
● Legal backing: Statutory recognition of citizen-led platforms can enhance institutional
support and long-term sustainability.

Conclusion: Citizen-led platforms like Jan Soochna Portal exemplify how technology can
transform governance by fostering transparency and accountability. They empower citizens to
actively participate in democratic processes while holding public officials accountable for their
actions. By addressing existing challenges, such initiatives can serve as models for other states,
contributing to a more transparent and accountable governance system across India.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 4

 Q4. “The Right to Service Acts are the backbone of effective Citizen Charters.” Discuss. (10
marks, 150 words)

Introduction: A Citizen Charter (CC) is a public declaration of service standards, timelines, and
grievance redress mechanisms by government departments. While these charters intend to make
governance citizen-centric, they often lack enforceability. In this context, the Right to Service
(RTS) Acts play a pivotal role by giving legal backing to the service commitments outlined in CCs,
thereby transforming intent into enforceable rights.

Citizen Charters: Promise without Enforcement

● Aim to ensure transparency, efficiency, and accountability in service delivery.

● Include elements like vision, mission, client expectations, services provided, and
grievance redressal systems.
● However, they are non-justiciable and often lack measurable standards, public
awareness, and monitoring mechanisms.

Right to Service Acts: Enforcing Accountability

RTS Acts, enacted by over 20 Indian states, mandate time-bound delivery of public services and
impose penalties on erring officials.
They complement CCs in several ways:

Citizen Charter Issue RTS Act Support

No legal enforceability Makes services legally binding and justiciable

Vague service timelines Defines clear deadlines for each service

Lack of accountability for Provides penalties and ensures responsibility of public

delay officials
Ineffective grievance redressal Sets up appellate authorities for timely resolution

Case Examples

● Madhya Pradesh RTS Act (2010): This covers over 100 services and penalizes officials
for delays.
● Delhi’s RTS Act enables citizens to track their service requests online, increasing
transparency.

Sevottam Framework and RTS Synergy

The Sevottam Model, comprising Citizen Charters, Grievance Redress, and Service Excellence, is
best realized when backed by an RTS law. The legal force of RTS ensures that promises made in
CCs are honored through structured institutional mechanisms.

Conclusion: While Citizen Charters reflect intent, Right to Service Acts ensure
implementation. The two must work in tandem—where CCs set service standards, RTS laws
make them binding. For meaningful governance reform, India must further strengthen RTS

VAJIRAM & RAVI 5

 laws, ensure decentralised charter formulation, and build institutional capacity to deliver.
Only then can public service truly become responsive, accountable, and citizen-driven

Q5. Evaluate the success of the Unified Health Interface (UHI) under Ayushman Bharat in
achieving “Digital Health for All” by 2025. (15 marks, 250 words)

Introduction: The Unified Health Interface (UHI) is a flagship initiative under the Ayushman
Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM), aiming to democratise access to digital healthcare by enabling
interoperability, transparency, and inclusivity. Modeled on the success of UPI in fintech, UHI
envisions a “Digital Health for All” ecosystem by 2025, aligned with the goals of the National
Health Policy (2017) and Digital India.

Key Features of UHI

● Open, interoperable network connecting patients, health service providers (HSPs), and
technology providers (TSPs).
● Core components: Health Facility Registry, Health Professional Registry, Drug
Registry, Personal Health Record (PHR) system.
● Enabled through ABHA (Ayushman Bharat Health Account) with patient-controlled
consent mechanisms.

Achievements so far

● Over 73 crore ABHA IDs have been created, with nearly 50% women beneficiaries.
● More than 5 lakh professionals registered; integrated with e-Sanjeevani, Aarogya Setu,
and e-Hospital.
● Encouraged startups and private players to innovate, fostering a growing health-tech
ecosystem.
● U-WIN portal integration for immunization digitization and record-keeping.
● Tele MANAS and mental health integration expanding UHI’s scope.

Successes

● Increased accessibility through teleconsultation, online booking, and record portability.

● Cost reduction by digitizing records and reducing paperwork.
● Interoperability and inclusivity are promoted via open architecture and multi-language
support.
● Enhanced data-driven policy-making and health surveillance.

Challenges

● Digital divide in rural and under-connected regions.

● Fragmented infrastructure and resistance to digital adoption by traditional providers.
● Cybersecurity and data privacy concerns despite Health Data Management Policy.
● Need for behavioral change and digital literacy among users and providers.

Conclusion: UHI has laid the foundation for transformative digital health delivery in India.
While structural, technological, and behavioral challenges remain, the initiative has shown strong
early promise. With continued policy support, robust data governance, and public-private

VAJIRAM & RAVI 6

 collaboration, UHI is well-positioned to fulfill the vision of “Digital Health for All” by 2025,
potentially setting a global benchmark for inclusive digital healthcare transformation.

Q6.“E-governance without cybersecurity is a governance failure.” Analyse in the context of

the Aadhaar data breach controversy. (15 marks, 250 words)

Introduction: E-governance refers to the digital transformation of government processes for

efficiency, accessibility, and transparency. However, without robust cybersecurity safeguards,
such systems become vulnerable to data breaches, eroding public trust. The Aadhaar data
breach, affecting over 81 crore citizens, exemplifies this threat, exposing critical lapses in India’s
digital governance framework.

Nature of the Aadhaar Data Breach

● The Parliamentary Standing Committee on IT flagged fraudulent activities in

Aadhaar-enabled Payment Systems (AePS).
● A dark web post claimed access to 815 million Aadhaar and passport records,
allegedly linked to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).
● Personally Identifiable Information (PII) such as Aadhaar numbers, voter IDs, and
biometric data were exposed, raising risks of digital identity theft and financial fraud.

Implications for E-Governance

● Loss of Trust: The breach undermines public confidence in digital public infrastructure,
especially Aadhaar-linked services.
● Governance breakdown: The government’s denial of breach, limited transparency, and
inadequate public disclosure of audit mechanisms reflect governance failure.
● Undermining Digital India: Without securing citizen data, flagship initiatives like
Digital India, DBT, and e-health risk being derailed.

Inadequacies in Cybersecurity Framework

● Lack of proactive implementation of CERT-In recommendations.

● Biometric cloning in AePS not mandatorily reported to law enforcement.
● MeitY’s denial of database compromise contrasted with independent reports pointing to
UIDAI references in leaked data.
● Poor regulatory oversight on malicious financial apps and data aggregators.

Legal and Policy Gaps

● Absence of a comprehensive Data Protection Law; reliance on outdated IT Act, 2000

and its 2008 amendments.
● The Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) judgment upheld the right to privacy, but the

VAJIRAM & RAVI 7

 Aadhaar ecosystem still lacks independent oversight.
● The Digital India Act (proposed) remains in drafting stages, offering no immediate
remedies.

Conclusion: The Aadhaar data breach starkly demonstrates that technological adoption
without adequate cybersecurity leads to a crisis of governance. E-governance systems must not
only deliver services but also protect citizen data with constitutional fidelity.

To ensure resilient digital governance:

● Independent audits of data systems should be mandated.

● Aadhaar use must be limited and accountable, with alternative authentication methods.
● Fast-tracking a robust Data Protection Law, establishing a Data Protection Authority,
and ensuring public transparency are vital.

Cybersecurity is no longer a backend issue—it is central to democratic and secure governance

in a digital age.

Q7. Analyse the role of CSOs in the Assam flood relief efforts. What challenges did they face
in coordinating with state agencies? (15 marks, 250 words)

Introduction: Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have emerged as pivotal actors in disaster
response and humanitarian relief in India. In Assam—frequently ravaged by annual floods—CSOs
have been instrumental in supplementing state capacity by delivering aid, mobilizing
communities, and providing innovative, last-mile solutions.

Role of CSOs in Assam Flood Relief Efforts

● Emergency relief and service delivery: CSOs such as North East Network, Goonj, and
NEADS distributed essential items, including food, clean water, medicines, and sanitary
products, to displaced populations.
○ Temporary shelters and mobile health camps were organized for marginalized
and remote communities.
● Community Mobilisation and Awareness: Trained local volunteers disseminated early
warning messages and promoted community-based disaster preparedness.
○ Raised awareness on hygiene and sanitation, particularly during disease
outbreaks post-floods.
● Bridging governance gaps: CSOs filled gaps in government outreach, especially in
interior flood-prone districts like Dhemaji, Barpeta, and Majuli.
○ Partnered with grassroots workers to document damage and facilitate access to
state compensation schemes.
● Innovation and Inclusion: The Use of local boats for rescue, GIS-mapping of flood zones,
and the emphasis on gender-sensitive relief marked a progressive approach.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 8

 Challenges in Coordination with State Agencies

● Lack of institutional mechanisms: The Absence of formal frameworks for CSO-

government collaboration leads to fragmented efforts.
● Regulatory hurdles and bureaucracy: Delays in approvals, especially under FCRA
regulations, restricted the flow of foreign aid to NGOs.
● Data sharing and communication gaps: Poor integration of CSO-collected data into
state disaster management systems hampered relief planning.
● Overlapping jurisdictions and turf wars: Coordination was hindered by unclear roles
between district administrations and non-state actors.
● Limited recognition and trust: In some instances, CSOs faced mistrust or accusations of
political bias, affecting field operations and credibility.

Conclusion: The Assam flood crisis highlighted both the indispensable role of CSOs in disaster
response and the institutional gaps in state-CSO collaboration. Initiatives like a centralized CSO-
ASDMA digital platform for resource mapping and adopting the NITI Aayog’s recommendation for
CSO inclusion in disaster task forces could bridge existing gaps, ensuring synergized efforts for
resilient flood governance.

Q8. “Citizen Charters in India lack enforceability and public awareness.” Examine with
reference to the One Nation, One Citizen Charter proposal. (15 marks, 250 words)

Introduction: A Citizen’s Charter is a public document that outlines the commitment of

government organizations toward time-bound, transparent, and accountable service
delivery. However, in India, despite the adoption of charters in various departments, their
impact has been limited due to lack of enforceability, awareness, and institutional capacity.

Key Issues with Citizen Charters in India

● Lack of legal backing: Charters are not enforceable by law, leading to no accountability
for service delivery failures.
● Poor public awareness: Citizens are often unaware of their entitlements, due to
limited publicity and language barriers.
● Generic design & poor customization: Charters follow a “one-size-fits-all” approach,
ignoring department-specific needs and local realities.
● Weak grievance redress mechanism: Most charters lack effective redressal systems,
reducing citizen confidence.
● Lack of monitoring & feedback: There is no institutional mechanism to regularly
assess, revise, or update the charter’s effectiveness.
● Limited participation: Civil society and stakeholders are rarely consulted in charter
formulation, weakening ownership.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 9

 One Nation, One Citizen Charter

The proposal envisions a single integrated digital platform for all government departments’
Citizen Charters, promoting:

● Standardisation of service quality across levels of government.

● Digital grievance redressal and real-time tracking.
● Greater transparency and cross-departmental coordination.
● Enhanced citizen-centric governance through accessible formats and multi-lingual
support.

However, challenges remain:

● There is a need for inter-agency coordination across the Centre and States.
● Absence of a legislative framework to ensure compliance.
● Risks of centralisation overshadowing federal diversity in service requirements.

Conclusion: While Citizen Charters are crucial tools for responsive and accountable
governance, their efficacy in India is hindered by weak implementation and low public
interface. The One Nation, One Citizen Charter initiative, if backed by legal mandates, digital
integration, and inclusive design, can help revive public trust and institutionalize service
guarantees in governance.

Q9. How has the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment on balancing RTI and privacy rights
impacted access to information in cases like electoral bonds? (15 marks, 250 words)

Introduction: The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling on the Electoral Bond Scheme (EBS) marks a
watershed moment in balancing two fundamental rights—the right to information (RTI) and
the right to privacy. By striking down the scheme and related legal amendments, the Court re-
emphasised that transparency in political funding is crucial for participatory democracy.

What was the Electoral Bond Scheme?

Introduced in 2018, the scheme allowed anonymous donations to political parties via bonds
issued by the State Bank of India (SBI). It bypassed prior disclosure requirements under the
Representation of the People Act (1951), the Income Tax Act (1961), and the Companies Act
(2013).

Supreme Court Ruling and Key Observations

● Declared the EBS and enabling amendments unconstitutional.

● Restored the pre-2017 legal framework mandating disclosure of contributions above
₹20,000.
● Struck down:

VAJIRAM & RAVI 10

 ○ Corporate donation cap removal
○ Anonymity of donors
○ Record-keeping exemption under Income Tax laws

Balancing RTI and Privacy: The Proportionality Test

The Court applied the proportionality test from the Puttaswamy (2017) judgment, used to
balance fundamental rights.

● While donor privacy was acknowledged, it did not qualify as a legitimate state interest
in the context of public political financing.
● The Court introduced a "double proportionality" standard to balance two competing
fundamental rights—RTI of voters vs. privacy of donors.
● It held that voters’ right to know outweighs the right to anonymous political
donations, given the risk of quid pro quo.

Impact on Access to Information and Governance

● Transparency restored: Voters can now access details of political contributions.

● Corporate accountability ensured: Limits on company donations reinstated.
● Precedent for balancing rights: The ruling refines constitutional jurisprudence on
competing rights.
● Institutional checks strengthened: ECI directed to publish full donor-recipient
information.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court’s 2024 verdict marks a pivotal moment in enhancing
transparency in electoral funding. By prioritising the citizen’s right to know over the donor’s
anonymity, the Court has upheld the democratic principle of informed electoral choice. The
judgment not only deepens accountability in political finance but also refines India’s
constitutional approach to balancing fundamental rights through judicial scrutiny.

Q10. "Examine how blockchain technology adoption in land records under the SWAMITVA
Scheme can reduce corruption while potentially creating exclusion risks. Suggest
measures to ensure inclusive implementation of such technological interventions. (15
marks, 250 words)"

Introduction: The SVAMITVA Scheme (Survey of Villages and Mapping with Improvised
Technology in Village Areas) aims to provide legal ownership rights to rural residents using
modern technology such as drones. Integrating blockchain technology into land records under
this scheme can enhance transparency and security, but it may also introduce new forms of
exclusion if not implemented inclusively.

Blockchain and its Role in Land Records

VAJIRAM & RAVI 11

 ● Decentralised & immutable ledger: This ensures tamper-proof land records,
reducing scope for manipulation by intermediaries and officials.
● Transparency: Each transaction is recorded chronologically, creating a verifiable audit
trail, which curbs corruption.
● Smart contracts: Facilitate automated, rule-based land transfers, minimizing human
intervention and discretionary power.
● Security: Cryptographic protocols make data theft or forgery nearly impossible.

Reduction in Corruption through Blockchain Integration

● Eliminates middlemen: Reduces bureaucratic red tape in accessing and modifying land
records.
● Disincentivises fraud: Land encroachments, double registration, and benami
transactions become traceable and legally contestable.
● Boosts legal certainty: With authentic, tamper-proof digital titles, disputes over
ownership decline.
● Enables DBT and Credit: Clear titles allow direct benefit transfers and access to
formal credit, curbing exploitative practices.

Risks of Exclusion

● Digital divide: Rural residents with limited digital literacy or connectivity may
struggle to access or update records.
● Language barriers: The Absence of multilingual interfaces in blockchain applications
may hinder understanding.
● Technological complexity: The technical nature of blockchain may alienate

VAJIRAM & RAVI 12

 marginalized communities unfamiliar with digital governance.
● Gendered exclusion: In patriarchal setups, women may be excluded from digital
titling due to existing informal land tenure arrangements.

Measures to Ensure Inclusive Implementation

● Multilingual, user-friendly interfaces: As initiated by DoLR, language support in

Eighth Schedule languages must be standard.
● Capacity building: Conduct awareness drives, digital literacy workshops for
Panchayati Raj Institutions and citizens.
● Hybrid access models: Offer both digital and assisted physical services for
verification, dispute redressal, and record retrieval.
● Legal safeguards: Ensure legal aid and grievance redressal mechanisms for wrongful
exclusions or misclassification.
● Data privacy and security: Protect personal and property data under robust data
protection laws and blockchain protocols.

Conclusion: The adoption of blockchain in land records under SVAMITVA represents a

transformative step in land governance, promising transparency, efficiency, and justice.
However, technological empowerment must not lead to social exclusion. A citizen-centric,
inclusive, and multilingual approach, supported by legal and institutional safeguards, is
essential to ensure that digital innovations genuinely serve rural India's aspirations.

VAJIRAM & RAVI 13