[Answered] The dysfunction of legislatures is linked to the concentration of power in the executive. Critically analyze how this trend challenges parliamentary democracy, accountability, and the principle of separation of powers.

Introduction

Effective legislatures are central to democracy. Yet, growing concentration of power in the executive, both Union and State, has weakened debate, oversight, and institutional balance, challenging parliamentary democracy’s spirit.

Evidence of legislative dysfunction

1. Decline in sittings: According to PRS Legislative Research, the Lok Sabha worked only 29% and Rajya Sabha 34% of scheduled time in the 2025 monsoon session; Assemblies averaged 20 days in 2024 (down from 28 in 2017).
2. Passing Bills without debate: 15 Bills passed in 21 sittings; over 50% of State Bills passed the same day.
3. Weak executive accountability: Starred questions answered orally were only 8% in Lok Sabha and 5% in Rajya Sabha; Question Hour and Zero Hour frequently disrupted.
4. Vacant constitutional posts: No Deputy Speaker in Lok Sabha since 2019; 8 Assemblies without one, weakening bipartisan checks.

Causes and link with executive dominance

1. Centralization of leadership: Prime Minister and Chief Ministers dominate Cabinet and party structures; legislative party discipline ensures minimal dissent.
2. Ordinance route and Money Bills: Frequent ordinances (e.g., Farm Bills 2020) and use of Money Bill route sidestep Rajya Sabha scrutiny, eroding bicameralism.
3. Committee system sidelined: Fewer Bills referred to committees (just 13% in the 17th Lok Sabha vs 60% in 15th), reducing expert and Opposition input.

Impact on democracy and separation of powers

1. Erosion of deliberative democracy: Legislatures, envisioned as arenas for public debate, become “rubber stamps,” weakening representation and policy legitimacy.
2. Accountability deficit: Executive policies escape scrutiny; governance decisions lack transparency, undermining citizens’ trust.
3. Judiciary burdened: As legislatures underperform, courts become arenas for policy disputes (e.g., farm laws, Aadhaar), risking judicial overreach.
4. Federal imbalance: Strong Centre often bypasses State concerns (e.g., GST Council frictions, Article 356 misuse), straining cooperative federalism.

Comparative and constitutional perspective

1. Ambedkar’s caution: While defending strong executives, he stressed the need for checks through questioning and debate.
2. Global parallels: In the U.K., executive dominance via majority party is balanced by robust committee culture and strong opposition traditions; India’s weakening of these norms worsens concentration.
3. Data point: World Bank Governance Indicators highlight that nations with high executive control over legislatures often score low on Voice and Accountability.

Corrective measures

1. Institutional strengthening: Ensure election of Deputy Speaker by consensus; mandatory referral of major Bills to committees.
2. Enhancing sittings: Fix minimum sitting days (e.g., NCRWC recommended 120 for Parliament, 60 for Assemblies).
3. Opposition engagement: All-party meetings before sessions; restoring Question Hour integrity.
4. Technology and transparency: Live committee proceedings, public consultations on Bills.

Conclusion

A legislature subservient to the executive undermines democracy’s checks and balances. Reviving deliberation, accountability, and institutional autonomy is essential to preserve constitutional separation of powers and citizen trust.