Q7 · UPSC Civil Services Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks · 2 min read

← Q6 Q8 →

e-governance projects have a built-in bias towards technology and back-end integration than user-centric designs. Examine.

Topic: Transparency and e-Governance. Syllabus: Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability, e-governance — applications, models, successes, limitations, and potential; citizens charters, transparency and accountability and institutional and other measures. Same official PYQ from year-wise 2025 and Transparency and e-Governance.

Revision summary

User-centric e-governance starts from the citizen’s journey; many projects start from ID, ledger and dashboard. NeGP, GSTN, Aadhaar and PFMS are strong backs; language, OTP-on-one-phone and failed biometrics are weak fronts. 2nd ARC, Sevottam and public-service guarantee laws already asked for time-bound citizen outcomes. DPDP and RPwD add consent and accessibility duties. Correction: assisted kiosks, local language, offline fallback, and the same data for the ward as for the secretary.

Model answer

Introduction

E-governance is the use of digital systems to deliver public authority — licences, rations, taxes, police complaints. A user-centric design starts from the person at the kiosk or on a slow phone. Many Indian projects have started from the server, the unique ID, and the ministry’s reporting dashboard. The bias is real, and it is not an argument against digital government. It is an argument against building the warehouse before the door.

Body

The built-in bias

NeGP, Digital India, GSTN, UIDAI, PFMS and state service-delivery gateways are triumphs of back-end integration: one ledger, one identity, one payment pipe. Engineers and secretaries share a language of APIs, de-duplication and leak-proofing. 2nd ARC already warned that e-governance fails when it is computerisation of the clerk’s desk rather than redesign of the citizen’s journey.

  • Symptoms: portals that need English and a captcha; apps that assume OTP on a personal phone in a household where the handset belongs to a man; Aadhaar authentication that fails for the old and the outdoor worker; dashboards that glow green while the Anganwadi still runs a paper register. Sevottam and the Right to Public Services laws asked for time-bound delivery; many e-tools measure departmental SLA, not whether a migrant actually got a ration in the destination city.

Why it happens

Procurement rewards large systems integrators. Ministries are accountable upward to Parliament and NITI dashboards, not sideways to a user researcher. India Stack (Aadhaar, UPI, DigiLocker, Account Aggregator) is a powerful public good; its first customers were regulators and banks. DPDP Act, 2023, and accessibility under the RPwD Act are still catching up with consent screens and screen-readers.

  • COVID-19 CoWIN showed both faces: a national back end that worked, and urban-first slots that rural connectivity and language did not.

Correction

Keep the back end — leak-proof PDS and GST need it — but design the front end first: local language, assisted kiosks, offline fallback, grievance that a human reads (CPGRAMS with teeth), and once-only data so the citizen is not the integration layer. UMANG and MyGov point that way when they are not just app stores. Parliamentary standing committees on IT and on personnel have said the same in plainer Hindi: the test is the last mile, not the data centre.

User-centric e-governance is subsidiarity in software. The Gram Sabha and the ward office should see the same screen the secretary sees, not a thinner version.

Flow diagram

flowchart LR
  B[Back-end stack] --> D[Dashboard]
  U[User journey] --> S[Service actually received]
  B -.->|bias| D
  U --> S

Conclusion

Indian e-governance has integrated ministries better than it has integrated the citizen’s day. Technology bias is a design order problem. Flip the order: journey first, stack second, with language, assistance and a human appeal.

Quick related

Students also ask

PYQ trend

When UPSC asked this

Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.

  1. 2024 · Q16 · GS II · 15 marks

    The Citizens' charter has been a landmark initiative in ensuring citizen-centric administration. But it is yet to reach its full potential. Identify the factors hindering the realisation of its promise and suggest measures to overcome them.

    View answer →

  2. 2024 · Q18 · GS II · 15 marks

    e-governance is not just about the routine application of digital technology in service delivery process. It is as much about multifarious interactions for ensuring transparency and accountability. In this context, evaluate the role of the 'Interactive Service Model' of e-governance.

    View answer →

  3. 2023 · Q8 · GS II · 10 marks

    E-governance, as a critical tool of governance, has ushered in effectiveness, transparency and accountability in governments. What inadequacies hamper the enhancement of these features?

    View answer →

  4. 2022 · Q2 · GS II · 10 marks

    "Right of movement and residence throughout the territory of India are freely available to the Indian citizens, but these rights are not absolute. " Comment.

    View answer →

  5. 2020 · Q8 · GS II · 10 marks

    "The emergence of Fourth Industrial Revolution (Digital Revolution) has initiated e-Governance as an integral part of government". Discuss.

    View answer →

  6. 2018 · Q8 · GS II · 10 marks

    E-governance in not only about utilization of the power of new technology, but also much about critical importance of the 'use value' of information. Explain.

    View answer →

  7. 2018 · Q18 · GS II · 15 marks

    The Citizen's Charter is an ideal instrument of organisational transparency and accountability, but it has its own limitations. Identify the limitations and suggest measures for greater effectiveness of the Citizen's Charters. (15).

    View answer →

  8. 2017 · Q5 · GS II · 10 marks

    Discuss the role of Public Accounts Committee in establishing accountability of the government to the people.

    View answer →

More from this paper

Q1 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks

Discuss the 'corrupt practices' for the purpose of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Analyze whether the increase in the assets of the legislators and/or their associates, disproportionate to their known sources of income, would constitute 'undue influence' and consequently a corrupt practice.

Representation of the People Act

Section 123 RPA lists corrupt practices for election petitions: bribery, undue influence, communal appeal, false statements, booth capturing and related heads. Undue influence is interference with the free exercise of an electoral right, not every unfair gain. ADR and PUCL made asset affidavits part of an informed vote; false disclosure can be litigated. A legislator’s unexplained wealth is primarily a Prevention of Corruption Act and ethics issue. It is not, by itself, undue influence under the 1951 Act unless tied to bribery or intimidation of electors.

Q2 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks

Comment on the need of administrative tribunals as compared to the court system. Assess the impact of the recent tribunal reforms through rationalization of tribunals made in 2021.

Governance and Policy

Articles 323A and 323B create tribunals for mass specialised disputes; L. Chandra Kumar keeps High Court judicial review. The need is expertise and volume, not ouster of courts. The Tribunals Reforms Act, 2021, abolished several appellate bodies and restated short tenure and a high minimum age. Madras Bar Association cases (2020–21) insisted on CJI-linked selection and real tenure for judicial members. Rationalisation reduced forums; it did not, by itself, produce independent or faster justice.

Q3 · UPSC Mains 2025 · GS II · 10 marks

Compare and contrast the President's power to pardon in India and in the USA. Are there any limits to it in both the countries? What are 'preemptive pardons'?

Indian Constitution

Article 72 (and 161) are exercised on aid and advice; Maru Ram, Kehar Singh, Epuru Sudhakar and Shatrughan Chauhan frame Indian limits and delay. The US Article II pardon is personal, federal-only, and barred in impeachment. Judicial review is stronger in India; political cost is the main US brake. A preemptive pardon forgives before conviction, as in Ford–Nixon. India has no working doctrine of preemptive pardon for the untried.

Toppers' copies

Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.