[Answered] Examine how mandating 100 minimum sitting days for Parliament can reinvigorate parliamentary democracy. Justify its role in strengthening checks and balances and ensuring legislative scrutiny.

Introduction

India’s Parliament averaged only 55 sitting days in the 17th Lok Sabha, sharply below global democracies. Declining sittings, hurried legislations, weak scrutiny and rising executive dominance underscore the urgency of mandating a minimum 100 sitting days annually.

Why Minimum Sitting Days Matter for Parliamentary Democracy

(a) Restoring Executive Accountability: A parliamentary system works on continuous executive responsibility to the legislature (Art. 75). When sittings fall, Question Hour, Zero Hour and debates shrink, weakening real-time accountability. PRS data shows Question Hour productivity fell to 7% in some sessions (2023)—a sign of declining oversight.

(b) Strengthening Deliberation and Quality of Law-making: 35% of Bills in 17th Lok Sabha passed with less than one hour of debate, reflecting “fast-track legislation.” Only 16% bills were referred to Standing Committees, against the ideal of 60% recommended by the NCRWC (2002). More sittings enable: Deeper clause-by-clause discussion, Wider participation and reduced legislative errors (e.g., hurried passage of the Aadhaar Act, Farm Laws)

(c) Reviving Parliamentary Committees and Pre-legislative Scrutiny: Committees are Parliament’s “mini think tanks.” More sittings allow committee reports to be tabled, debated and implemented. The UK and Australian Parliaments ensure fixed, intensive committee periods ensuring robust scrutiny—India lags far behind.

How 100 Sitting Days Strengthen Checks & Balances

(a) Reinforcing the Separation of Powers: As the executive dominates agenda-setting, reduced sittings invert the constitutional balance. More sittings restore Parliament’s role as the counter-majoritarian check on executive overreach.

(b) Enhancing Federal Oversight: Centralisation of fiscal powers (GST Council dominance, declining tax devolution) demands stronger parliamentary debates on federal issues. A structured calendar gives Opposition-ruled states a forum for redress.

(c) Preventing Abuse of Parliamentary Procedures: Rising suspensions of MPs and frequent disruptions undermine deliberative democracy. A mandated minimum reduces the incentive to rush business through short or “special” sessions.

Institutional and Comparative Justifications

Global practice

1. UK House of Commons: ~150 sitting days/year.
2. US Congress: ~165 days/year.
3. Japan Diet: ~150 days/year. India’s ~60 days is an outlier for a major democracy.

Indian institutional recommendations

1. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) → minimum 120 days.
2. Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) → structured parliamentary calendar.
3. Sri Krishna Committee (2010) → more sittings essential to reduce “ordinance raj.”

Mandated Sitting Days-

It is a path to democratic renewal it enables:

1. Thorough legislative scrutiny and reduced judicial litigation over poorly drafted laws.
2. Deliberative democracy in line with Ambedkar’s vision of “constitutional methods.”
3. Reduced dependence on ordinances (Art. 123), ensuring Parliament—not the executive—makes laws.
4. Greater transparency through televised debates, committee reports, and public participation.

Conclusion

Mandating 100 sitting days revives Ambedkar’s deliberative vision and fortifies democratic checks. As emphasised in the NCRWC report, sustained legislative engagement is indispensable to counter executive dominance and uphold constitutional accountability.