In India, the parliamentary system was adopted to ensure executive accountability through daily parliamentary oversight, prioritizing responsibility over stability. However, legislative oversight is often weakened, risking transparency for efficiency.

About Parliamentary Oversight

• Parliamentary Oversight refers to the scrutiny and supervision exercised by the legislature (Parliament) over the executive branch (government) to ensure transparency, accountability, and effective governance.

Importance of Parliamentary Oversight in India

• Ensures Executive Accountability: Parliamentary oversight ensures the Council of Ministers remains answerable to the Lok Sabha, as mandated by Article 75(3) of the Constitution, aligning with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s emphasis on daily accountability over stability.
• Promotes Transparency in Governance: Oversight mechanisms like Question Hour, debates, and CAG reports expose government actions to public and parliamentary scrutiny, fostering trust and openness.
• Prevents Misuse of Power: By scrutinizing executive actions, Parliament checks arbitrary decisions and overreach, maintaining constitutional checks and balances.
• Enhances Legislative Quality: Oversight through committees and debates ensures laws are thoroughly vetted, aligning with public needs and constitutional principles.
• Safeguards Public Funds: Financial oversight ensures efficient and lawful use of public resources, as mandated by Articles 112–114, through budget scrutiny and CAG audits.
• Addresses Public Grievances: Mechanisms like Zero Hour and calling attention motions allow MPs to raise urgent public issues, ensuring government responsiveness to citizen concerns.
• Strengthens Democratic Governance: By holding the executive accountable, oversight upholds democratic principles, ensuring governance reflects the will of the people through elected representatives.

Constitutional Framework of Parliamentary Oversight in India

• Foundation of Oversight
  • Article 75(3): States that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
    • This forms the core of parliamentary accountability in a Westminster-style democracy.
  • B.R. Ambedkar’s View (Constituent Assembly):
    • Supported a parliamentary system because it ensures “more responsibility and less stability”—fitting for a democracy.
    • Advocated daily accountability through parliamentary debates, questions, and motions.
• Legislative Procedure and Control
  • Article 107: Covers the introduction and passage of Bills in Parliament.
  • Article 108: Deals with joint sittings of both Houses to resolve legislative deadlocks.
  • Article 111: The President may give assent, withhold, or return a Bill (other than a Money Bill) for reconsideration.
• Financial Oversight
  • Article 112 (Annual Financial Statement): Mandates the Union Budget presentation by the President to Parliament.
  • Article 113 (Appropriation Bills): Parliament must approve all withdrawals from the Consolidated Fund of India.
  • Article 114: Governs the authorization of expenditure from the Consolidated Fund by law.
  • Article 117: Specifies that Money Bills can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha, with the President’s recommendation.

Mechanisms of Parliamentary Oversight in India

• Parliamentary Questions
  • Question Hour enables Members of Parliament (MPs) to question ministers regarding government policies, actions, and failures. It is a vital mechanism for ensuring daily accountability of the executive. 
    • However, its effectiveness has been declining due to frequent disruptions; for instance, during the 17th Lok Sabha (2019–24), it functioned for only 60% of scheduled time in the Lok Sabha and 52% in the Rajya Sabha.
  • Zero Hour allows MPs to raise urgent public issues without prior notice. 
    • Though informal, it plays a significant role in bringing immediate concerns to the government’s attention.
• Parliamentary Committees
  • Department-related Standing Committees (DRSCs) analyze bills, budget allocations, and policies pertaining to specific ministries. 
    • While they produce detailed reports, these are rarely discussed in Parliament, and their impact on legislation remains limited.
  • The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) examines audit reports prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and ensures the proper use of public funds. 
    • It has exposed several irregularities, including corruption in the 2010 Commonwealth Games. 
    • On average, the PAC has made 180 recommendations annually over the past eight years, with 80% being accepted by the government.
  • The Estimates Committee evaluates the efficiency of budgetary spending and implementation of schemes. 
    • For example, it recommended enhancing domestic uranium production to reduce import dependency.
  • The Committee on Public Undertakings oversees the functioning of public sector enterprises. 
    • It advised the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to start projects only after acquiring 80% of land and obtaining all clearances to avoid delays.
• Debates and Motions: Instruments such as no-confidence motions, censure motions, calling attention notices, and adjournment motions allow MPs to debate urgent or contentious issues and demand explanations from the government.
  • These discussions reinforce the accountability of the Council of Ministers and help in expressing the concerns of citizens.

Key Supreme Court Cases Supporting Parliamentary Oversight in India

• Ram Jawaya Kapur v. State of Punjab (1955): The case addressed the executive’s powers in relation to parliamentary authority.
  • The Supreme Court clarified that the executive derives its authority from Parliament and must operate under its legislative oversight, reinforcing Article 75(3)’s mandate of collective responsibility to the Lok Sabha.
• Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (2014): Known as the coal block allocation scam case, it involved irregularities flagged by CAG reports.
  • Judicial Backing: The Supreme Court canceled 204 coal block allocations, relying on CAG findings and PAC scrutiny, which exposed mismanagement and financial losses.
• Krishna Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2017): The case examined the validity of repetitive ordinances bypassing legislative scrutiny.
  • The Court ruled that ordinances must be laid before Parliament and cannot substitute regular legislation, curbing executive overreach and supporting parliamentary oversight.
• P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (1998): The case dealt with parliamentary privileges in the context of a bribery scandal.
  • The Court clarified the scope of parliamentary privileges, protecting MPs’ rights to exercise oversight functions like raising motions and debates without external interference.
• Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012): Known as the 2G spectrum scam case, it addressed irregularities identified by CAG and PAC.
  • The Supreme Court canceled 122 telecom licenses, building on CAG reports and PAC investigations that estimated a ₹1.76 lakh crore loss, validating parliamentary oversight efforts.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): Reinforced collective responsibility of the executive to Parliament (Article 75(3)).
  • It strengthened oversight by ensuring executive accountability to Lok Sabha.

Role of the Opposition in Supporting Parliamentary Oversight

• Scrutinizing Government Policies and Actions: The opposition critiques government policies during Question Hour, Zero Hour, and debates, ensuring accountability and highlighting policy lapses.
• Leading Key Oversight Committees: Opposition MPs often chair critical committees like the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), ensuring impartial scrutiny of public funds and executive actions.
• Raising Public Grievances through Motions: The opposition uses motions (e.g., calling attention, adjournment, or no-confidence motions) to address urgent public issues, compelling executive responses.
• Challenging Executive Overreach: The opposition scrutinizes ordinances and executive actions that bypass parliamentary oversight, ensuring constitutional checks.
• Enhancing Legislative Scrutiny: Opposition MPs contribute to committee reviews and debates on bills, ensuring laws align with public interest and constitutional principles.
• Mobilizing Public Opinion: The opposition leverages media and public platforms to highlight oversight findings, increasing pressure on the executive to act.

Role of Media in Supporting Parliamentary Oversight

• Amplifying Oversight Mechanisms: Media reports on Question Hour, Zero Hour, and committee findings, bringing parliamentary scrutiny to public attention and pressuring the executive for accountability.
• Exposing Financial and Policy Irregularities: Media investigates and publicizes CAG reports and Public Accounts Committee (PAC) findings, ensuring irregularities reach a wider audience and prompting executive action.
• Highlighting Committee Recommendations: By reporting committee recommendations, media ensures they gain traction despite their advisory nature, pushing for implementation.
• Raising Public Awareness of Legislative Debates: Media covers debates on ordinances and bills, informing citizens about parliamentary scrutiny and executive accountability, especially when disruptions limit direct oversight.
• Addressing Oversight Gaps: Media fills gaps caused by weak oversight (e.g., only 60% of PAC recommendations implemented, 2014–2019, per PRS Legislative Research) by investigating issues like executive dominance or lack of expertise.
• Facilitating Public Engagement: Media acts as a bridge between Parliament and citizens, encouraging public participation in oversight by reporting on issues like Zero Hour or calling attention motions.
• Holding the Executive Accountable: Investigative journalism exposes executive overreach (e.g., ordinances) and policy failures, complementing parliamentary oversight and pressuring corrective action.

Challenges in Parliamentary Oversight in India

• Frequent Disruptions: Protests, adjournments, and walkouts significantly reduce the time available for effective oversight activities like debates and question hours.
  • In the 16th Lok Sabha (2014–2019), productivity was as low as 40% in some sessions due to disruptions, with the 2018 Monsoon Session losing 34% of its time to adjournments.
• Weak Committee System: Parliamentary committees lack binding authority, and their recommendations are advisory, limiting their impact on executive actions.
  • The Public Accounts Committee’s recommendations on financial irregularities, such as those in the 2G scam, were not fully implemented, with only 60% of PAC suggestions acted upon between 2014–2019.
• Executive Dominance: A strong majority government can influence parliamentary proceedings, reducing objective scrutiny and bypassing oversight through mechanisms like ordinances.
  • Between 2014–2019, the government issued 76 ordinances, with some, like the Triple Talaq Ordinance, criticized for bypassing parliamentary debate.
• Lack of Expertise: MPs often lack technical knowledge to scrutinize complex issues like cyber security, economic reforms, or technological policies effectively.
  • During discussions on the Aadhaar Bill (2016), only 15% of MPs raised technical concerns about data privacy, reflecting limited expertise.
• Partisan Politics: Political polarization leads to disruptions rather than constructive criticism, undermining objective oversight.
  • The 2019 Winter Session saw 20% of Question Hour time lost due to opposition walkouts over political issues like the Citizenship Amendment Act.
• Limited Financial Oversight: Parliament’s role in financial scrutiny is largely post-expenditure, and it cannot alter major budget provisions, limiting proactive oversight.
  • The Union Budget 2020–21 was passed with minimal changes despite opposition demands, and the PAC reviewed only 5% of CAG audit paragraphs due to time constraints, as per CAG reports.
• Reduced Sitting Days: Short parliamentary sessions restrict time for debates, committee sittings, and oversight activities, reducing scrutiny of government actions.
  • The 17th Lok Sabha (2019–2024) averaged 55 sitting days annually, far below the recommended 100 days, leading to rushed bill passages like the Farm Laws (2020).
• Absence of Post-Legislative Scrutiny: India lacks a formal mechanism to evaluate the impact of laws after their enactment.
  • Unlike the UK model, where departments review laws within 3–5 years, Indian laws often go unchecked post-implementation, leading to delayed or no course correction.
• Inadequate Research and Technological Support: MPs operate without specialised staff or data analysis tools, limiting their oversight capacity.
  • In the age of massive budget documents and audit reports, lack of AI and data analytics tools makes it difficult for MPs to flag irregularities or track trends effectively.

Successes of Parliamentary Oversight in India

• Railways Dividend Waiver (2016): The Standing Committee on Railways recommended waiving the dividend payment obligation, which was implemented in 2016.
• Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2017: The Standing Committee on Transport influenced key changes like removal of caps on third-party insurance and creation of a National Road Safety Board.
• Streamlining Highway Projects: The Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU) recommended that NHAI projects begin only after 80% land acquisition and all clearances, ensuring efficiency.
• Land Acquisition Ordinance (2014): The Land Acquisition Ordinance (2014) faced intense parliamentary scrutiny, leading to its withdrawal and the introduction of a revised bill with greater stakeholder consultation
• Reducing Import Dependency in Nuclear Sector: The Estimates Committee suggested boosting domestic uranium production by opening new mines — a move to reduce reliance on imports.
• Commonwealth Games Corruption Exposure (2010): The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) exposed delays, irregular appointments, and corruption related to the 2010 Commonwealth Games.
• Consistent Performance of PAC: Institutional accountability across ministries.
  • Over the past 8 years, PAC has made an average of 180 recommendations annually, with ~80% being accepted by the government — reflecting executive responsiveness.
• Holding the Executive Accountable via Question Hour: In 2019, over 15,000 questions were raised during Question Hour in Lok Sabha, with 20% leading to policy clarifications, such as on MGNREGA fund delays.

Global Standards in Parliamentary Oversight

• United Kingdom – Post-Legislative Scrutiny: The UK mandates that government departments conduct reviews of major laws within 3 to 5 years of their enactment.
  • Parliamentary committees thoroughly examine these review reports and recommend necessary amendments.
• United States – Congressional Hearings: Congressional committees regularly conduct hearings with sworn testimony from executive officials and independent experts.
  • Committees possess subpoena powers to compel document production and witness attendance.
• Germany – Research-Based Oversight: Bundestag committees maintain a permanent staff of subject matter experts across various policy domains.
  • Specialized committees originate approximately 60% of all legislation through detailed examination.
• Sweden – Transparency Mechanisms: Sweden’s Principle of Public Access guarantees citizens and parliamentarians access to nearly all government documents.
  • Parliamentary committees routinely examine ministerial correspondence and decision-making records.
• Canada – Fiscal Accountability: Canada’s independent Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) provides objective analysis of government spending.
  • The office directly supports committee scrutiny through non-partisan research and analysis.

Way Forward for Strengthening Parliamentary Oversight in India

• Empower Parliamentary Committees: Grant committees like PAC and Estimates Committee binding powers for select recommendations and subpoena authority.
  • Amend Rules of Procedure and ensure dedicated funding and research staff.
• Institutionalize Post-Legislative Scrutiny: Mandate ministries to review laws within 3–5 years of enactment; set up a Parliamentary Evaluation Office.
  • Formalize review timelines and link them to committee-based oversight.
• Strengthen Financial Oversight: Create an independent Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) under Parliament.
  • Enact legislation for PBO and mandate budget scrutiny of major schemes.
• Increase Parliamentary Sitting Days: Mandate minimum 100 sitting days/year, compared to the UK’s 140–160 days.
  • Amend Article 85 or frame a parliamentary rule to ensure longer and regular sessions.
• Reduce Disruptions and Empower the Opposition: Allocate “Opposition Days”, formalize Shadow Cabinet, and enforce decorum rules.
  • Update rules to assign agenda-setting powers and debate time to opposition.
• Enhance Research Support for MPs: Establish a Parliamentary Research Service with domain experts and policy analysts.
  • Institutionalize research teams under Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariats and train MPs.
• Promote Public Engagement and Use of Technology: Livestream committee proceedings, invite public submissions, and use AI tools for tracking.
  • Build a public dashboard for real-time tracking and partially livestream committee meetings.

Conclusion

Parliamentary oversight in India, rooted in constitutional mandates and mechanisms like Question Hour and committees, is vital for executive accountability but faces challenges like disruptions and weak committee authority. By adopting global best practices—such as binding committee powers, post-legislative scrutiny, and enhanced research support—India can strengthen its oversight framework, ensuring transparency and effective governance.

DOWNLOAD PDF