Context

• The framing of the Indian Constitution stands as a monumental achievement in the nation’s history.
• Over nearly three years, the Constituent Assembly convened for 167 days, engaging in profound debates to determine the nation's political architecture.
• Among the most pivotal discussions was the question of governance structure. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, a towering figure in this process, championed the adoption of a parliamentary system, emphasising its unique balance of more responsibility and less stability.

The Challenge of Effective Oversight

• Despite these well-crafted constitutional safeguards, the effectiveness of legislative oversight in India has faced significant challenges.
• While the Constitution enshrines checks and balances, these mechanisms have often been weakened in practice.
• The quest for governance efficiency has, at times, overshadowed the equally critical need for transparency.
• For a democracy aiming at ‘Maximum Governance,’ it is imperative to pursue ‘Maximum Accountability’ simultaneously, beginning with an empowered and active Parliament.

Tools of Accountability and Gaps in Performance

• Tools of Accountability
  • Over the decades, India’s Parliament has developed a robust framework to maintain government accountability.
  • Formal tools like Question Hour and Zero Hour, alongside the critical behind-the-scenes work of Standing Committees, empower Members of Parliament (MPs) to probe policies
  • These tools also demand detailed information, and challenge executive decisions, even to the extent of initiating no-confidence motions.
  • Ideally, these mechanisms serve as vital conduits for legislative scrutiny and ensure the government's adherence to its mandate.
• Gaps in Performance: Where Oversight Falls Short
  • In practice, parliamentary oversight has often fallen short of its potential.
  • Question Hour, designed to cast a daily spotlight on government performance, frequently succumbs to disruptions and adjournments, leaving pressing issues unresolved.
  • For instance, during the 17th Lok Sabha (2019–2024), Question Hour was conducted for only 60% of its scheduled time in the Lok Sabha and 52% in the Rajya Sabha, significantly diluting its effectiveness.
  • Even when operational, MPs tend to focus on isolated, sometimes superficial, queries rather than systematically interrogating complex, cross-ministerial issues.

The Role and Limitations of Parliamentary Committees

• Parliamentary committees, particularly the Department-related Standing Committees (DRSC), do meet regularly and produce in-depth reports.
• Yet, their work often remains confined to paper, seldom translating into tangible parliamentary debates or executive reforms.
• These committees, while valuable, are limited by their temporary structure, lack of diversity in consultations, and insufficient technical support, factors that hinder the development of sustained expertise and reduce their institutional impact.

Notable Success Stories of Parliamentary Oversight

• Despite these inconsistencies, India’s legislative oversight system has had notable successes.
• The Standing Committee on Railways' recommendation to waive dividend payments by Indian Railways in 2015, which was implemented the following year, and the Standing Committee on Transport’s significant influence on the Motor Vehicles Bill amendments in 2017 demonstrate the potential of parliamentary scrutiny.
• Other impactful interventions include addressing delays in National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) projects and advising on increasing domestic uranium production to reduce import dependency.
• The Public Accounts Committee (PAC), too, has played a crucial role, most notably exposing irregularities in the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
• Impressively, the PAC has made around 180 recommendations annually over the past eight years, with 80% of them being accepted by the government.

Necessary Reforms to Strengthen Parliamentary Oversight

• The Need for Post-Legislative Scrutiny
  • To unlock the full potential of legislative oversight, targeted reforms are necessary. One urgent area is the introduction of robust post-legislative scrutiny.
  • Laws are not endpoints; they are starting points that require ongoing assessment to ensure they achieve their intended outcomes.
  • India currently lacks a formal system to monitor the long-term impact of its laws.
  • A promising solution would be to establish subcommittees under each Standing Committee or create a specialised body dedicated to reviewing the implementation of laws.
  • The United Kingdom’s model, where government departments review major legislation within a few years of enactment and submit reports to parliamentary committees, offers a blueprint that India could adapt for timely and meaningful evaluations.
• Strengthening Committees: Enhancing Impact and Visibility
  • Strengthening and institutionalising committee work is also essential.
  • Oversight findings should be made accessible to a broader audience through translations, visual explainers, and short videos.
  • Select DRSC reports should be debated on the parliamentary floor, followed by mandatory ministerial responses.
  • Such steps would ensure that committee work directly informs parliamentary discourse and enhances executive accountability.
  • Furthermore, committees need dedicated research and technical support to move beyond basic administrative functions, allowing them to engage in deeper and more impactful scrutiny.
• Leveraging Technology for Smarter Oversight
  • Technology presents another significant opportunity to modernise parliamentary oversight.
  • Currently, MPs often lack specialised staff and research support, making it difficult to scrutinize complex policy proposals and voluminous budgetary data.
  • By leveraging Artificial Intelligence and data analytics, Parliament could enable members to identify irregularities, track policy trends, and formulate evidence-based questions with greater precision and efficiency.
• The Democratic Mandate: Honouring Citizen Trust
  • As the former Vice-President of India, K.R. Narayanan, eloquently stated during the inauguration of the new Standing Committees in 1993.
  • The purpose of these mechanisms is not to weaken or criticise the administration but to strengthen it by providing meaningful parliamentary support.
  • Legislative oversight is not merely a procedural formality; it is an expression of the democratic mandate, ensuring that governance remains transparent, accountable, and true to the principle of being of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Conclusion

• While India’s parliamentary system has robust oversight mechanisms on paper, their practical application often falls short.
• By adopting targeted reforms, investing in institutional support, and embracing technology, Parliament can fulfil its constitutional promise and reinforce the democratic fabric of the nation.