IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

03 May 2025 : Strengthening parliamentary oversight in India

Editorial 2: Strengthening parliamentary oversight in India

Context

Along with 'maximum governance', there must be 'maximum accountability', which should begin with an empowered and effective Parliament.

 

Introduction

Over nearly three years, the Constituent Assembly met for 167 days to draft the Constitution of India, debating the form of government. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar defended the parliamentary system, highlighting its balance of responsibility and stability as vital for a functioning democracy. He emphasized the system's ability to ensure daily accountability through Parliament and periodic accountability via elections.

 

A diminishing of oversight

Issue

Details

Checks and Balances

While the Constitution enshrines checks and balances, legislative oversight has often been diminished.

Efficiency vs Transparency

Efficiency in governance is crucial, but not at the cost of transparency.

Strengthening Parliament's Role

Strengthening Parliament's role in scrutinising executive action is key to making laws and ensuring their effective implementation and accountability.

Maximum Governance and Accountability

If India seeks ‘Maximum Governance’, it must also commit to ‘Maximum Accountability’, starting with an empowered and effective Parliament.

Mechanisms of Accountability

Parliament has developed mechanisms like Question Hour, Zero Hour, and Standing Committees for scrutiny and accountability.

Question Hour and Zero Hour

Question Hour and Zero Hour are vital for daily scrutiny, but often disrupted by protests, limiting their effectiveness.

Effectiveness of Question Hour

In the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24), Question Hour functioned for 60% of its scheduled time in the Lok Sabha and 52% in the Rajya Sabha.

Focus of MPs

MPs often focus on isolated queries rather than on systematic scrutiny of complex, cross-ministerial issues.

Parliamentary Committees

Standing Committees generate detailed reports but these are often not discussed on the floor of the house, reducing their impact.

Limitations of Committees

Committee findings have limited influence on legislation or executive action despite detailed evaluations.

Diversity and Stakeholder Engagement

Committee consultations tend to engage a small group of stakeholders, raising concerns about diversity and the breadth of input.

Temporary Structure of Committees

The temporary nature of committees limits members' ability to develop expertise and institutional standing.

 

Some successes

  • Indian legislative oversight has had notable successes despite its inconsistencies:
    • The Standing Committee on Railways recommended waiving dividend payments by Indian Railways in 2015, improving its financial health, which was implemented in 2016.
    • The Standing Committee on Transport influenced amendments to the Motor Vehicles Bill in 2017, including removing caps on third-party insurance and establishing a National Road Safety Board.
    • The Committee on Public Undertakings addressed delays in National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)-managed projects, recommending that projects start only after acquiring 80% of land and necessary clearances.
    • The Estimates Committee advised increasing domestic uranium production by opening new mines to reduce dependency on imports.
    • The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) exposed delays, opaque appointments, and corruption during the Commonwealth Games (2010). Over the past eight years, the PAC made 180 recommendations annually, with 80% accepted by the government.
  • To make oversight more effective, Parliament must implement targeted reforms:
    • Start with post-legislative scrutiny to track whether laws are achieving their intended impact.
    • India currently lacks a formal process to track the impact of laws after their passage.
    • This gap can be addressed by creating subcommittees under each Standing Committee or a specialised body to review implementation.
  • The United Kingdom provides a useful model:
    • Government departments review major laws within three to five years, which are then examined by parliamentary committees, enabling timely course correction and ensuring laws deliver on their promises.
  • Strengthening and institutionalising committee work should be a priority:
    • Make oversight findings more accessible through translations in local languages, visual explainers, or short videos.
    • Select DRSC reports should be brought to the floor for debate, followed by a mandatory response from the Minister concerned.
    • This would ensure committee work informs parliamentary discourse and enhances executive accountability.
    • Committees must be strengthened with dedicated research and technical support, moving beyond administrative assistance.

 

Adopt technology

  • Technology presents a significant opportunity to modernise and enhance parliamentary oversight.
  • MPs in India frequently work without specialised staff or professional research support, hindering their ability to scrutinise complex policies or spending data.
  • The sheer volume of budget documents, audit reports, and policy reviews puts them at a disadvantage.
  • By utilising Artificial Intelligence and data analytics, Parliament can help members quickly identify irregularities, monitor policy trends, and craft more focused, evidence-based questions.

 

Conclusion

While delivering the inaugural address held to formally inaugurate the new Standing Committees in 1993, the then Vice-President K.R. Narayanan said that the main purpose of the system was not to weaken or criticise the administration but to strengthen it by investing it with more meaningful parliamentary support. Strengthening legislative oversight means honouring the mandate citizens have given their representatives; to make sure the machinery of government stays transparent, accountable, and truly "of the people, by the people, and for the people."