GS Paper II 2024 · Q18
15 marks · 250 words Governance, transparency & e-governance X-Ray · Core #37e-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.
Approach · directive: “evaluate”
What it asks · Evaluate how the Interactive Service Model enables two-way government–citizen interaction for transparency and accountability, with Indian examples and limits.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Explain the premise: e-governance as interaction for transparency and accountability, and what the Interactive Service Model is
- Evaluate the model's role: strengths with Indian examples, limitations, and a verdict with the way forward
Open with · E-governance matures from broadcasting through critical flow, comparative analysis and mobilisation to the Interactive Service Model, where citizen and government transact and talk directly.
Cover
- Five models (flowchart): broadcasting, critical flow, comparative analysis, mobilisation, interactive service; the last allows one-to-one requests and tracking.
- Transparency: Passport Seva tracking, open data portals, dashboards.
- Accountability: CPGRAMS (average redressal 13 days, Jan–Nov 2024); GeM e-procurement; DBT through the JAM trinity.
- Participation: MyGov consultations and surveys; UMANG brings many services onto one app.
- Limits: only 50% of citizens satisfied with grievance resolution (Nov 2024); digital divide; privacy risks; back-end inertia.
- Way forward: Common Service Centres, vernacular interfaces, the 2023 data protection framework, audit of grievance closures.
Close with · The 2nd ARC asked that services be benchmarked on end-user feedback; the Interactive Service Model makes that possible at scale if the citizen's voice changes how government works.
Add value (verified)
- CPGRAMS: average grievance redressal time for all ministries was 13 days (1 Jan–30 Nov 2024).CPGRAMS Monthly Report, November 2024 - DARPG (PIB) ↗“The Average Grievance Redressal for all Ministries/Departments in the year 2024, from 1st January, 2024 to 30th November, 2024 stood at 13 days.”
- DARPG feedback call centre: 50% of citizens satisfied with grievance resolution by central ministries (November 2024).CPGRAMS Monthly Report, November 2024 - DARPG (PIB) ↗“50% citizens expressed satisfaction on the resolution provided”
- The Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 balances individuals' data rights with lawful processing.Salient Features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2023 - PIB (9 Aug 2023) ↗“The Bill provides for the processing of digital personal data in a manner that recognizes both the rights of the individuals to”
- 2nd ARC: services should be benchmarked using end-user feedback.Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 12th Report: Citizen Centric Administration – The Heart of Governance (2009) ↗“vii. Periodic evaluation of Citizens’ Charters. viii. Benchmark using end-user feedback.”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2024, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 293words · Minimalist IAS
E-governance has been described through models, from broadcasting information to the Interactive Service Model, where citizen and government transact and talk directly. The question rightly places its value in this interaction, not in digitisation alone.
- Broadcasting
- Critical flow
- Comparative analysis
- Mobilisation
- Interactive service
What the Interactive Service Model means
- Two-way channel: citizens apply, pay, track, complain and rate services online, and government must respond.
- One-to-one relationship: the queue and the middleman give way to a direct, recorded interaction.
Its role in transparency and accountability
- Visible processes: Passport Seva tracking, open data portals and dashboards show where a file stands.
- Less discretion: GeM e-procurement and direct benefit transfer through the JAM trinity cut intermediaries and leakage.
- Answerable officers: CPGRAMS time-stamps every grievance; average redressal time across ministries was 13 days (January–November 2024).
- Participation: MyGov consultations and surveys bring citizens into policy-making; UMANG puts many services on one app.
Limits of the model
- Satisfaction gap: only 50% of citizens contacted by DARPG's feedback call centre were satisfied with grievance resolution (November 2024).
- Digital divide: region, gender, age and language barriers; low digital literacy revives intermediaries.
- Privacy and security: large citizen databases risk breaches, and exclusion when authentication fails.
- Back-end inertia: a portal is only as good as the department behind it; complaints are often closed unresolved.
Way forward
- Assisted access: Common Service Centres, vernacular and voice interfaces.
- Data protection: apply the 2023 Digital Personal Data Protection framework, which balances individuals' rights with lawful processing.
- Audit closures: publish office-wise satisfaction ratings and re-open grievances closed without remedy.
The 2nd ARC asked that public services be benchmarked on end-user feedback; the Interactive Service Model makes that possible at scale. Its real test is whether the citizen's voice changes how government works, turning digitised delivery into digital democracy.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
