In India, which of the following review the independent regulators in sectors like telecommunications, insurance, electricity, etc.? 1. Ad Hoc Committees set up by the Parliament 2. Parliamentary Department Related Standing Committees 3. Finance Commission 4. Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Commission 5. NITI Aayog Select the correct answer using the code given below.

Defines ad hoc committees as Inquiry or Advisory Committees constituted to inquire into and report on specific subjects.

A student could infer that Parliament could constitute an ad hoc inquiry into regulatory bodies (telecom/insurance/electricity) when a specific issue arises and then check historical examples.

Explains that Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) can be set up for discussing particular bills or matters and that standing committees supervise departments and related work.

Use this pattern (special committees for particular matters) to hypothesize that Parliament might use ad hoc or joint committees to review independent regulators and then look for such committee reports.

Describes Department-Related Standing Committees (DRSCs) whose remit is to secure accountability of the Executive and to cover ministries/departments.

Since DRSCs supervise departments, a student could compare whether regulators fall under departmental oversight or are instead dealt with by ad hoc committees in specific cases.

Shows that Parliament has a Committee on Subordinate Legislation which scrutinizes exercise of delegated powers and regulations.

Because regulators issue rules/regs under delegated powers, one could extend that parliamentary committees (standing or ad hoc) concerned with subordinate legislation might review regulator actions; check instances involving sectoral regulators.

Presents a multiple-choice question listing 'Ad Hoc Committees set up by the Parliament' and 'Parliamentary Department Related Standing Committees' as possible reviewers of independent regulators.

Treat this as an example showing the topic is debated in study material; a student could use it to guide targeted searches for case examples where ad hoc committees examined sectoral regulators.

States that department-related standing committees supervise the work of various departments, their budget, expenditure and bills related to the department.

A student could infer that if regulators report to or are linked with specific ministries, DRSCs might scrutinize those regulators' budgets, reports or bills affecting them.

Explains DRSCs cover all ministries/departments and their main objective is to secure accountability of the Executive, particularly financial accountability.

Using knowledge of which ministry oversees a regulator (e.g., telecom under a ministry), one could test whether the corresponding DRSC has remit to examine that regulator.

Lists specific functions of DRSCs such as examining bills pertaining to concerned ministries/departments and considering annual reports of ministries/departments.

A student could check whether independent regulators produce annual reports or are subject to bills/regulations tied to a ministry, which would bring them within DRSC scrutiny.

Identifies the Committee on Subordinate Legislation as the body that scrutinizes whether delegated powers (rules, by-laws, etc.) are properly exercised by the Executive.

Since independent regulators often make subordinate regulations, one could extend this to examine whether such regulation-making is reviewed by this committee alongside or instead of DRSCs.

Contains a multiple-choice question asking which bodies review independent regulators and lists 'Parliamentary Department Related Standing Committees' as an option.

A student could take this as an indicator that DRSCs are considered by some sources as potential reviewers and then verify against the jurisdictions of specific DRSCs and regulators.

This is an examination question that explicitly lists the Finance Commission among possible bodies that 'review the independent regulators in sectors like telecom, municipalities, insurance, electricity, etc.' — indicating an association in teaching materials.

A student could treat this as a hint to check the Finance Commission's Terms of Reference (ToR) or past reports to see if they include review of sectoral regulators.

Describes the Finance Commission as a constitutional, quasi‑judicial body with an advisory role and as the 'balancing wheel of fiscal federalism' — suggesting its remit is fiscal and policy‑related.

One could infer that reviews it performs would likely be fiscal or federal‑relation focused and then examine whether sectoral regulator reviews fit that fiscal remit.

Punchhi Commission excerpts recommend referring certain matters to the next Finance Commission or expert committees and that ToRs of the Finance Commission should be even‑handed — implying the Finance Commission can be assigned review tasks by mandate.

A student could check whether parliamentary/official ToRs given to specific Finance Commissions have included reviews of regulators.

Shows existence of an independent sectoral regulator (CERC for electricity) as a fact example of the type of bodies mentioned in the statement.

Knowing regulators like CERC exist, a student could look into whether Finance Commission reports reference CERC or its financial/fiscal interactions with states/centre.

Describes the establishment of a sectoral regulator (IRDA) for insurance — another concrete example of independent regulators referenced in the statement.

A student might search Finance Commission reports or ToRs for mentions of IRDA or insurance‑sector fiscal issues to test whether the Commission conducts such reviews.

This exam-style snippet lists 'Financial Sector Legislative Reforms Committee' among items in a question asking which bodies 'review the independent regulators in sectors like telecom, municipalities, insurance, electricity, etc.' — directly linking the FSLRC to the topic of reviewing independent regulators.

A student could use this to suspect FSLRC's relevance and then check the FSLRC mandate to see whether it explicitly covers non-financial regulators (telecom, electricity) or is limited to financial-sector regulators.

Describes the Financial Stability and Development Council (FSDC) as dealing with 'inter-regulatory coordination' and respecting 'autonomy of regulators', showing a pattern where financial-sector bodies focus on coordination among regulators.

A student could infer that bodies with financial-sector names (like FSLRC) might primarily target financial regulators, and thus check whether telecom/electricity fall within its scope or are excluded.

Lists domestic financial regulators (RBI, SEBI, PFRDA, IRDAI), signalling that insurance regulation (IRDAI) is conventionally treated as part of the financial-regulatory domain.

A student could reasonably extend that FSLRC, by its name, would be expected to review regulators such as IRDAI (insurance) and other financial regulators, and should verify whether insurance was explicitly included in its review.

Explains the existence and reform of the insurance regulator (IRDA), demonstrating that insurance is a clearly defined regulatory domain.

A student could use this to separate insurance (a financial regulator) from telecom/electricity (non-financial) and thereby test whether FSLRC's remit logically aligns with including insurance but not necessarily telecom/electricity.

Describes precedent of high-level committees (e.g., Narasimhan Committee) constituted to review and recommend reforms for the financial sector, showing the common practice of forming sector-specific review bodies.

A student could infer that FSLRC, as a sector-specific reform commission, most likely focused on financial regulators; they should therefore check whether it extended its review to non-financial independent regulators like telecom and electricity.