A historical fact is that over nearly three years, the Constituent Assembly met for 167 days to frame the Constitution of India. Among the many crucial debates that occurred was the question of what form of government India should adopt. Defending the choice of a parliamentary system, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar argued that it offered more responsibility and less stability which is a necessary trade-off for a functioning democracy. He emphasised the point that such a system allows for the daily accountability of the executive through questions, motions and debates in Parliament, and periodic accountability through elections.
A diminishing of oversight
While the Constitution enshrines checks and balances, legislative oversight has often been diminished. Efficiency in governance is important, but not at the cost of transparency. Strengthening the role of Parliament in scrutinising executive action is essential in not just making laws but also ensuring their effective implementation and accountability. If India seeks ‘Maximum Governance’, it must also commit to ‘Maximum Accountability’, starting with an empowered and effective Parliament.
Over decades, Parliament has developed an array of mechanisms to fulfil this mandate — some formal, some by convention. From the daily scrutiny of Question Hour and the spontaneity of Zero Hour, to the behind-the-scenes workings of Standing Committees, these tools form the framework of accountability. In theory, they empower Members of Parliament (MP) to ask probing questions, seek detailed information, and even move a no-confidence motion if necessary.
Despite its strong framework, parliamentary oversight often falls short. Question Hour, intended as a daily spotlight on government accountability, is frequently disrupted by noisy protests, leading to adjournments where important issues remain unaddressed. During the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24), Question Hour functioned for 60% of its scheduled time in the Lok Sabha and 52% in Rajya Sabha, significantly reducing its effectiveness. Even when it operates, individual MPs tend to focus on isolated queries rather than a systematic scrutiny of complex, cross-ministerial problems.
Parliamentary committees, including the Department-related Standing Committees (DRSC), meet regularly and generate detailed reports, though these are often not taken up for discussion on the floor. Consequently, despite their detailed evaluations of policies and schemes, committee findings have had limited influence on legislation or executive action. Despite their mandate for detailed scrutiny, committee consultations tend to engage a relatively small group of stakeholders, raising concerns about diversity and the breadth of input. Moreover, their inherently temporary structure limits the ability of members to develop both expertise and institutional standing.
Some successes
Even with its inconsistencies, Indian legislative oversight has had notable successes. The Standing Committee on Railways recommended waiving dividend payments by Indian Railways in 2015 to improve its financial health, which was implemented in 2016. The Standing Committee on Transport influenced the Motor Vehicles Bill amendments in 2017, removing caps on third-party insurance and establishing a National Road Safety Board.
Other significant interventions include the Committee on Public Undertakings addressing delays in National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)-managed highway projects, recommending that projects commence only after acquiring 80% of land and necessary clearances. Similarly, the Estimates Committee advised increasing domestic uranium production by opening new mines, reducing dependency on imports. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) exposed critical delays, opaque appointments, and corrupt practices during the Commonwealth Games in 2010. On average, the PAC has made 180 recommendations every year in the past eight years, out of which 80% were accepted by the government.
To make oversight truly effective, Parliament must adopt targeted reforms, beginning with robust post-legislative scrutiny. Laws do not end with their passage; they begin there. Yet, India lacks a formal process to track whether laws are achieving their intended impact. This gap can be addressed by creating subcommittees under each Standing Committee or a specialised body to review implementation. The United Kingdom offers a useful model: government departments submit reviews of major laws within three to five years, which are then examined by parliamentary committees — enabling timely course correction and ensuring that laws deliver on their promises.
Strengthening and institutionalising committee work must also be a priority. One way to do this is by making oversight findings more accessible; through translations in local languages, visual explainers, or short videos. At the same time, select DRSC reports should be brought to the floor for debate, followed by a mandatory response from the Minister concerned. This would ensure that committee work informs parliamentary discourse and enhances executive accountability. Committees must also be strengthened with dedicated research and technical support, thus moving beyond mere administrative assistance.
Adopt technology
Technology offers a powerful opportunity to modernise and strengthen parliamentary oversight. MPs in India often operate without specialised staff or professional research support, making it harder to scrutinise complex policies or spending data. Faced with massive volumes of budget documents, audit reports, and policy reviews, they are at a disadvantage. By leveraging Artificial Intelligence and data analytics, Parliament can help members swiftly flag irregularities, track policy trends, and frame sharper, evidence-based questions.
While delivering the inaugural address held to formally inaugurate the new Standing Committees in 1993, the then Vice-President K.R. Narayanan said that the main purpose of the system was not to weaken or criticise the administration but to strengthen it by investing it with more meaningful parliamentary support. Strengthening legislative oversight means honouring the mandate citizens have given their representatives; to make sure the machinery of government stays transparent, accountable, and truly “of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Mitul Jhaveri is a public policy professional and a research scholar at Carnegie Mellon University. Aatman Shah is a public policy professional and a research scholar at the National University of Singapore
Published – May 03, 2025 12:08 am IST