When the House Ceases to Hold Power to Account

UPSC Syllabus: Gs Paper 2- Parliament and State legislatures

Introduction

India’s Parliament and State Legislatures are central to representation, law-making and executive accountability, but their effectiveness has declined sharply. Falling sitting days, frequent disruptions, weak committee scrutiny and hurried law-making have reduced meaningful legislative oversight. As legislatures lose time and capacity to question governments, the democratic link between citizens, elected representatives and the executive becomes weaker. The issue therefore concerns not merely legislative productivity, but the quality of democracy between elections.

Declining Legislative Effectiveness in India

1. Falling Parliamentary Sittings: Parliament met for 127 days in the 1950s and 138 days in the 1960s, but the average fell to just 55 days during the 17th Lok Sabha.
2. Rising Disruptions: More than 25% of parliamentary time can be lost to disruptions, sharply reducing the time available for meaningful legislative and oversight work.
3. Declining State Assembly Sittings: State legislatures have fallen from around 80 days annually in the 1950s and 1960s to about 25 days today.
4. Regional Spread of Decline: Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Punjab, Haryana, Bihar and Tripura have all experienced substantial reductions in annual sittings.
5. Weakening of Question Hour: Disruptions and inadequate preparation have reduced the effectiveness of Question Hour, limiting MPs’ ability to question ministers and demand explanations.
6. Reduced Legislative Discussion: Fewer sitting days leave less time for Call Attention Motions, Demands for Grants, debates and other legislative business.
7. Weak Representative Role: When legislatures rarely meet, MPs and MLAs get fewer opportunities to raise constituency concerns and public issues before the government.

Causes of Declining Legislative Effectiveness

1. Government–Opposition Confrontation: Limited consultation and disagreements over the legislative agenda often create confrontation, reducing opportunities for structured discussion inside the House.
2. Disruption as Political Strategy: Opposition parties may use slogan-shouting, placards and adjournments to highlight issues when they believe normal parliamentary avenues are inadequate.
3. Majoritarian Functioning: Strong government majorities can reduce incentives for wider consultation, creating concerns that legislative numbers may override detailed parliamentary scrutiny.
4. Erosion of Political Trust: Earlier practices such as all-party meetings, back-channel consultations and floor coordination helped manage disagreements but have weakened over time.
5. Growing Political Polarisation: Increasingly adversarial politics and personalised attacks have reduced the mutual trust needed for compromise and constructive legislative work.
6. Media and Political Optics: Disruptions create highly visible moments for television and social media, giving political actors incentives to prioritise public optics.
7. Weak Enforcement of Rules: Presiding officers may hesitate to use suspension and other disciplinary powers consistently, especially without wider political agreement.

Impacts of Dysfunctional Legislatures

1. Weak Executive Accountability: Loss of Question Hour and debates reduces opportunities for legislators to question ministers, weakening an important check on executive power.
2. Poor Legislative Scrutiny: Bills passed with limited debate or committee examination may receive inadequate attention to drafting, rights, financial and federal concerns.
3. Declining Quality of Law-Making: Some Bills have been passed within only two to five minutes, leaving little time for serious discussion of their provisions.
4. Marginalisation of Smaller Voices: Continuous disruption can reduce speaking opportunities for smaller parties, regional interests and individual legislators, narrowing legislative representation.
5. Erosion of Deliberative Democracy: Legislatures increasingly struggle to function as forums for reasoned debate, reducing the role of discussion in shaping public policy.
6. Weakening of Separation of Powers: When legislative scrutiny declines, the executive faces fewer institutional checks, increasing the imbalance between the legislature and government.
7. Judicialisation of Policy Disputes: When legislative deliberation is inadequate, policy conflicts may increasingly reach courts, placing greater pressure on the judiciary.

Institutional Weaknesses and Accountability Costs

1. Declining Committee Participation: Departmentally-Related Standing Committees have faced around 50% attendance in many cases, despite allowances provided to MPs for participation.
2. Reduced Committee Scrutiny: Bills referred to parliamentary committees fell from 60% in the 15th Lok Sabha to 13% in the 17th Lok Sabha, reducing expert examination.
3. Party Control Over MPs: Parliamentary parties often prioritise compliance with the party whip and leadership directions, leaving limited space for independent legislative engagement.
4. Rising Cost of Parliament: The estimated daily cost rose from ₹36,000 in the 1950s to ₹1.23 crore in 2004, ₹2 crore in 2012 and about ₹9 crore today, even as legislative productivity declined.
5. Perquisites Amid Declining Duties: High salaries, allowances and other privileges raise concerns when legislative participation and accountability remain weak.
6. Constitutional Minimum for States: Article 174(1) requires that not more than six months should intervene between two sessions of a State Legislature, but this does not ensure adequate legislative work.
7. Accountability Gap: Low sitting days, weak scrutiny and disruptions together create a gap between the resources provided to legislators and their actual legislative performance.

Existing Institutional Initiatives

1. Standing Committee System: The Departmentally-Related Standing Committee system was introduced in 1993 to allow MPs to examine public policy and legislation in greater detail.
2. Presiding Officers’ Powers: Parliamentary rules provide presiding officers with disciplinary powers, including action against members who repeatedly disrupt proceedings.
3. All-Party Consultations: Meetings among political parties and floor coordination provide existing mechanisms for resolving disagreements and facilitating smoother legislative functioning.
4. Pre-Legislative Consultation: Consultation before introducing major Bills can provide stakeholders and political parties greater opportunity to examine proposals and reduce legislative surprises.
5. Constitutional Session Requirement: Article 174 provides a constitutional limit between State Legislature sessions, ensuring that governments cannot indefinitely avoid summoning their legislatures.
6. NCRWC Recommendation: The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended 120 sitting days for Parliament and 60 days for State Legislatures.
7. Unimplemented Sitting-Day Proposal: In 2012, Sitaram Yechury proposed making at least 100 annual sitting days mandatory for Parliament, but the proposal was not implemented.
8. Parliamentary Accountability Mechanisms: Question Hour, debates, committee scrutiny and discussions on government expenditure already provide institutional tools for holding the executive accountable.

Way Forward

1. Minimum Sitting Days: Parliament and State Legislatures should follow a clear annual calendar with adequate sitting days, ensuring sufficient time for legislation and executive scrutiny.
2. Mandatory Committee Scrutiny: Important, complex and rights-sensitive Bills should normally undergo detailed examination by standing or select committees before final passage.
3. Protect Question Hour: Question Hour should be protected from routine disruption so ministers remain answerable and legislators can raise issues affecting citizens.
4. Guaranteed Opposition Space: Fixed time or sessions for Opposition-led issues can provide political space for scrutiny while reducing incentives to disrupt other legislative business.
5. All-Party Code of Conduct: A written code should clearly regulate entry into the Well, slogan-shouting and repeated adjournment tactics, with predictable penalties.
6. Strengthen Committee Functioning: Better attendance, stronger research support and greater party discipline can improve the quality and seriousness of parliamentary committee work.
7. Restore Parliamentary Conventions: Regular all-party consultations, pre-legislative briefings and cooperative floor management can rebuild trust and reduce avoidable confrontation.

Conclusion

Democracy requires effective legislatures between elections, not merely regular elections. Parliament and State Assemblies must regain adequate sitting time, meaningful debate, committee scrutiny and Opposition participation. Strengthening these institutions is essential for executive accountability, quality law-making, representation and separation of powers. A functioning legislature is therefore vital to preserve public trust and ensure that government remains answerable to citizens.

Question for practice:

Examine the declining effectiveness of Parliament and State Legislatures in ensuring executive accountability and suggest measures to strengthen their functioning.

Source: Indian Express