India must strengthen parliamentary oversight for accountable governance

Source: The post India must strengthen parliamentary oversight for accountable governance has been created, based on the article “Strengthening parliamentary oversight in India” published in “The Hindu” on 3 May 2025. India must strengthen parliamentary oversight for accountable governance.

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2-Polity- Parliament and State Legislatures – structure, functioning, conduct of business, powers & privileges and issues arising out of these.

Context: India has a long tradition of parliamentary democracy, but concerns are rising over the weakening of legislative oversight. Frequent disruptions, limited committee influence, and absence of post-legislative review have triggered renewed debate. The article calls for strengthening Parliament’s role in ensuring accountability, transparency, and effective governance as envisioned by the Constitution.

For detailed information on Decline of Indian Parliament read this article here

Foundational Vision for Parliamentary Accountability

1. Ambedkar’s Defence of the Parliamentary System: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar advocated for parliamentary democracy, stressing that it enables daily accountability through debates and questions, and periodic accountability via elections. He believed this system offered more responsibility even if less stability.
2. Efficiency Must Not Undermine Accountability: Governance must be efficient but also transparent. A strong Parliament is essential not just for making laws but for overseeing their implementation and holding the executive accountable.

Oversight Mechanisms: Potential and Pitfalls

1. Formal and Conventional Tools of Scrutiny: Parliament uses Question Hour, Zero Hour, and Standing Committees to scrutinise the executive. These tools empower MPs to raise questions, seek data, and move motions like no-confidence if necessary.
2. Frequent Disruptions Weaken Effectiveness: Question Hour is often disrupted by protests. In the 17th Lok Sabha, it functioned for only 60% of its scheduled time; in Rajya Sabha, just 52%. Even when it runs, MPs rarely coordinate questions for deeper scrutiny.
3. Committees Lack Influence and Continuity: Standing Committees prepare detailed reports, but their findings are rarely discussed in Parliament. Consultations are limited in scope, and rotating membership hinders the development of expertise and institutional memory.

Demonstrated Impact of Parliamentary Committees

1. Policy Reforms Based on Committee Inputs: The Railways Committee recommended waiving dividend payments, which was implemented in 2016. The Transport Committee influenced key amendments to the Motor Vehicles Bill in 2017.
2. Improved Project Management and Energy Planning: The Committee on Public Undertakings advised starting highway projects only after 80% land and clearances were secured. The Estimates Committee suggested boosting uranium mining to reduce imports.
3. PAC’s Role in Exposing Irregularities: The PAC flagged major issues in the 2010 Commonwealth Games, including delays and corruption. Over eight years, it made 180 annual recommendations, with 80% accepted by the government.

Leveraging Technology for Stronger Scrutiny

1. Use of AI and Data Analytics: MPs lack support staff to process complex data. Tools like Artificial Intelligence and analytics can help identify trends, spot anomalies, and frame better questions.
2. Modernising Parliamentary Capacity: Technology can reduce dependence on manual document analysis, enhancing the quality of questions and debates.

Reforms to Strengthen Legislative Oversight

1. Institutionalise Post-Legislative Scrutiny: India lacks a system to assess law implementation. Subcommittees under Standing Committees or a dedicated body can be created. The UK requires department reviews 3–5 years post-enactment, which are reviewed by Parliament.
2. Enhance Committee Visibility and Response: Key reports should be translated, visually explained, and debated in Parliament with mandatory ministerial replies. This will strengthen accountability and public engagement.
3. Oversight as Democratic Fulfilment: As K.R. Narayanan noted in 1993, committees are meant to support, not weaken, the executive. Strengthening oversight honours the public trust and upholds democratic governance.

Question for practice:

Evaluate the effectiveness of India’s parliamentary oversight mechanisms and suggest how they can be strengthened to ensure greater executive accountability.