Answer

Parliamentary oversight is a foundational pillar of democracy, ensuring that the Executive remains accountable to the Legislature. In India, the Constitution envisages a robust system of checks and balances through instruments like debates, question hours, and committees, but their effectiveness has been declining.

Constitutional Vision of Parliamentary Oversight

• Collective Responsibility of Executive: Article 75(3) mandates that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, forming the basis for legislative control.
• Instruments of Oversight: Constitutional tools such as Question Hour, CAG reports (Article 149), Budget approval (Article 110), and Parliamentary Committees (Rules of Procedure) empower Parliament to scrutinise executive actions.
• Financial Accountability: The ‘power of the purse’ lies with the Parliament, requiring all government expenditures to be approved via budgetary mechanisms and grants.

Limitations of Parliamentary Oversight

• Declining Parliamentary Sittings: There has been a sharp fall in the number of days Parliament meets annually, reducing scope for meaningful scrutiny.
  For example: The 17th Lok Sabha met for an average of only 55 days per year, compared to over 120 days in the 1950s.
• Dilution of Question Hour and Debates: Suspension of Question Hour or limited time for meaningful debate reduces opportunities for accountability.
  For example: Question Hour was suspended in the Monsoon Session 2020 citing COVID-19, despite being a critical tool of executive scrutiny.
• Ordinance Route and Bypassing Committees: Frequent use of ordinances and passing of bills without referring them to Standing Committees weakens legislative scrutiny.
• Weakening of Committee System: Parliamentary Committees lack resources, transparency, and follow-up mechanisms, reducing their effectiveness.
• Rushed Budget Approval and Financial Oversight: Lack of detailed scrutiny during budget discussions dilutes Parliament’s power over public expenditure.
  

Reforms Needed to Strengthen Oversight

• Mandatory Referral to Committees: All bills should be mandatorily referred to Standing or Select Committees for detailed scrutiny and stakeholder consultation.
  Recommendation: 2nd ARC and NITI Aayog advocate stronger committee-based review.
• Fixed Parliamentary Calendar: Introduce legislation to mandate a minimum of 100 sitting days per year to ensure adequate time for oversight.
  Recommendation: NCRWC (2002) and civil society groups have long supported this reform.
• Empowering Parliamentary Committees: Enhance technical staff, make committee proceedings more transparent, and enforce mandatory government responses to recommendations.
• Reforming Whip System: Allow conscience votes or partial whips, especially for non-financial matters and private member bills, to restore deliberative democracy.
• Revitalising Question Hour and Zero Hour: Protect these tools from suspension and ensure adequate time allocation for all members to raise questions.
  For example: Use digital dashboards and time-bound responses to improve effectiveness.
• Strengthening Financial Oversight Mechanisms: Ensure post-budget discussions through Standing Committees and timely examination of CAG reports.
  

Parliamentary oversight is indispensable for a healthy democracy, but its effectiveness in India has diminished due to procedural erosion, executive dominance, and politicisation. Strengthening institutional mechanisms like committees, debates, and financial scrutiny, while embracing reforms to improve efficiency and accountability, is essential to restore public trust and uphold constitutional governance.

DOWNLOAD PDF