How effective are parliamentary committees in ensuring executive accountability in India?

Conceptual

~ 6 min read

Of course. Here is a conceptual answer to your doubt, structured for a UPSC aspirant.

Direct Answer

Parliamentary committees are a crucial, though imperfect, instrument for ensuring executive accountability in India. They act as "mini-parliaments," conducting detailed, non-partisan scrutiny of government actions, legislation, and expenditure, which is not possible on the floor of the House due to time constraints. While their recommendations are advisory and not legally binding, their reports carry significant weight and often lead to policy corrections and public debate, thereby holding the executive accountable. However, their effectiveness is limited by factors such as their advisory nature, lack of dedicated research staff, and the increasing tendency to bypass committee scrutiny for key legislation.

Background

The Indian Parliament, like many modern legislatures, is overburdened. The sheer volume and complexity of legislative and financial business make it impossible for the entire House to deliberate on every matter in detail. The committee system is the solution to this problem. The origins of this system in India can be traced back to the British colonial era, with the first Public Accounts Committee being set up in 1921 under the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1919.

The authority for Parliament to establish these committees is derived from Article 118(1) of the Constitution, which allows each House of Parliament to make rules for regulating its procedure and the conduct of its business. The Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha provide for the formation, composition, and functions of these committees.

Core Explanation

Parliamentary committees ensure executive accountability through several mechanisms:

Financial Scrutiny: This is the most potent form of accountability.
- Public Accounts Committee (PAC): Examines the appropriation accounts and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) under Article 151. It scrutinises the government's spending after it has occurred (post-facto), identifying cases of waste, extravagance, or corruption. For example, the PAC's report on the 2G spectrum allocation was instrumental in bringing the issue to national attention.
- Estimates Committee: Examines the estimates included in the budget and suggests "economies" in public expenditure. It is often called a 'continuous economy committee'.
- Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU): Examines the reports and accounts of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to ensure their efficiency and autonomy.
Legislative Scrutiny:
- Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs): Introduced in 1993 and expanded in 2004, there are 24 DRSCs covering all government ministries. They perform a critical function by examining Bills referred to them by the Speaker/Chairman. They provide a forum for detailed, clause-by-clause analysis, inviting expert opinions and public feedback. This improves the quality of legislation and holds the executive accountable for the laws it proposes. For instance, the DRSC on Home Affairs made significant recommendations on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Policy Scrutiny and General Oversight:
- DRSCs also examine the Demands for Grants of their respective ministries, scrutinising budgetary allocations against policy objectives.
- Committees like the Committee on Government Assurances track the promises and assurances made by ministers on the floor of the House, ensuring they are fulfilled.

Timeline of Key Developments

1921: First Public Accounts Committee (PAC) constituted.
1950: The Estimates Committee is established in the post-independence era.
1964: The Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU) is created on the recommendation of the Krishna Menon Committee.
1993: 17 Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs) are set up to scrutinise the budgets and bills of all ministries.
2004: The number of DRSCs is increased from 17 to 24.

Why It Matters

The committee system is vital for the health of India's parliamentary democracy. Without it, parliamentary oversight would be superficial.

Strengths:
- In-depth Analysis: Committees provide detailed scrutiny away from the public glare and party-political posturing common in the House.
- Expertise: They can summon experts, officials, and stakeholders, bringing specialized knowledge into the legislative process.
- Bipartisanship: Deliberations are confidential and less partisan, allowing for more consensus-based recommendations.
Weaknesses:
- Advisory Nature: Their recommendations are not binding on the government. The executive can choose to ignore them, though it must report on the action taken.
- Post-Facto Scrutiny: Most financial scrutiny (e.g., by PAC) is post-mortem, like an autopsy, examining expenditure after it has already happened.
- Bypassing Committees: There is a growing trend of the government passing important legislation without referring it to a committee. For example, the farm laws in 2020 and the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019 were not subjected to committee review.
- Resource Constraints: Committees often lack adequate technical expertise and dedicated research staff, relying heavily on the ministry officials they are supposed to be scrutinising.

Related Concepts

Comparative Analysis: Committee Systems in India vs. UK

Feature	India	United Kingdom
Committee Chairmanship	The chair of the PAC is, by convention since 1967, from the opposition. Other chairs are distributed among parties.	The chair of the powerful Public Accounts Committee is always held by a member of the opposition. Select Committee chairs are elected by MPs.
Scrutiny of Bills	Bills are referred to DRSCs at the discretion of the Speaker/Chairman. This is not mandatory.	Most significant bills automatically go to a Public Bill Committee for detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny.
Nature of Recommendations	Purely advisory.	Recommendations are also advisory but carry immense political weight, and the government is expected to provide a detailed formal response.
Resources & Expertise	Limited dedicated research staff. Heavily dependent on Parliament secretariats and ministries.	Committees are better staffed with specialist advisors, clerks, and researchers, enhancing their independent analytical capacity.

UPSC Angle

Examiners look for a nuanced understanding of the committee system's role. Avoid a one-sided answer.

Balance: Acknowledge both the strengths (in-depth scrutiny, bipartisanship) and the significant weaknesses (advisory nature, being bypassed, resource crunch).
Keywords: Use terms like "mini-parliament," "post-facto scrutiny," "legislative scrutiny," and "financial control."
Constitutional & Statutory Basis: Cite Article 118(1) for the power to make rules and Article 151 for the CAG reports going to the PAC. Mention the "Rules of Procedure" as the source of their operational power.
Contemporary Relevance: Link the concept to current affairs. Mentioning the low percentage of bills referred to committees in recent Lok Sabhas (e.g., 16th and 17th Lok Sabha) demonstrates analytical depth. For example, only 13% of bills were referred in the 17th Lok Sabha as

polity executive judiciary attorney general and public policy executive accountability

Was this helpful?