The 'guillotine' is a procedural device used in parliamentary systems, including India, to expedite the passage of the budget and ensure its timely completion within the stipulated financial year. It is applied during the discussion and voting on Demands for Grants in the Lok Sabha.

Mechanism of the Guillotine: After the general discussion on the Union Budget, the Lok Sabha takes up the discussion and voting on the Demands for Grants of various ministries and departments. Due to the sheer volume of these demands and the limited time available, it is practically impossible for Parliament to discuss every single demand in detail. Therefore, on the last day allotted for the discussion of Demands for Grants, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha applies the 'guillotine'. This means that all the remaining undiscussed Demands for Grants are put to vote simultaneously, without any further debate. Once passed, these demands are consolidated into an Appropriation Bill, which then authorizes the government to withdraw funds from the Consolidated Fund of India.

Evaluation of the Procedure:

Advantages (How it Hastens the Process):

1. Timely Completion: The primary benefit of the guillotine is that it ensures the budget, particularly the authorization of expenditure, is passed before the commencement of the new financial year (April 1st). This prevents a government shutdown or financial paralysis, allowing the administration to continue its operations without interruption.
2. Efficiency and Predictability: It provides a clear timeline for the budgetary process, preventing endless debates and filibustering tactics that could otherwise delay the passage of crucial financial legislation.
3. Government Functioning: It allows the executive to secure the necessary funds to run the country, ensuring continuity of governance and public services.

Disadvantages (Criticisms and Concerns):

1. Lack of Parliamentary Scrutiny: This is the most significant drawback. A substantial portion of government expenditure, often covering several ministries, goes undiscussed and unscrutinized by Parliament. This undermines the principle of parliamentary control over the executive's finances.
2. Reduced Accountability: When demands are passed without debate, the executive is not adequately held accountable for its spending proposals. This can lead to a lack of transparency and potentially inefficient or wasteful expenditure.
3. Democratic Deficit: Members of Parliament, especially from the opposition, are denied the opportunity to raise questions, seek clarifications, and propose cuts on crucial financial matters, thereby limiting their role as representatives of the people.
4. Potential for Misuse: A government with a strong majority might strategically allocate time for discussion, ensuring that certain sensitive or controversial demands are left for the guillotine, thus avoiding detailed scrutiny.
5. Impact on Opposition: It curtails the opposition's ability to effectively challenge government policies and financial decisions, which is a vital function in a parliamentary democracy.

Conclusion: The 'guillotine' is a necessary procedural evil in the Indian parliamentary system. While it effectively ensures the timely passage of the budget and the continuity of government operations, it comes at a significant cost to parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The procedure highlights a tension between the need for administrative efficiency and the democratic imperative of legislative oversight. To mitigate its negative impacts, suggestions often include strengthening the departmental standing committees to scrutinize demands more thoroughly, allocating more time for budget discussions, or exploring alternative mechanisms for ensuring comprehensive parliamentary review of public finances.