Question

To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India?

Answer 1

In India, the Parliament is tasked with ensuring the accountability of the executive branch of government. This accountability is a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy and is achieved through various mechanisms designed to oversee and scrutinize the actions and policies of the executive. However, the effectiveness of these mechanisms can vary depending on several factors, such as the political context, the strength of opposition parties, and the independence of legislative committees. Here is an analysis of the extent to which the Indian Parliament is able to ensure the accountability of the executive:

Mechanisms for Ensuring Executive Accountability

1. Question Hour and Zero Hour

   • Question Hour:

     • This is the first hour of a parliamentary sitting during which Members of Parliament (MPs) can ask questions to ministers about their departments' work. It allows MPs to seek information and hold ministers accountable for their actions.
     • Effectiveness: Question Hour can effectively bring issues to light and force ministers to address concerns publicly, but its impact can be limited by evasive answers and disruptions.

   • Zero Hour:

     • This is an informal session where MPs can raise urgent issues without prior notice. It is an opportunity for MPs to demand accountability on pressing matters.
     • Effectiveness: Zero Hour provides flexibility in addressing urgent matters, though it often lacks structure and can be less impactful than formal debates.

2. Debates and Discussions

   • Policy and Legislative Debates:
     • Parliament debates on bills, budgets, and policies, providing a platform for scrutinizing government decisions and holding the executive accountable for its actions.
     • Effectiveness: Debates are essential for transparency and can influence public opinion, but their effectiveness is often diminished by disruptions and lack of meaningful engagement.

3. Parliamentary Committees

   • Standing Committees:
     • These committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Estimates Committee, and Departmental Standing Committees, play a crucial role in scrutinizing government policies, expenditures, and administration.
     • Effectiveness: Committees allow for detailed examination and bipartisan cooperation, often leading to constructive recommendations. However, their impact is limited by the non-binding nature of their reports and potential lack of follow-up by the executive.

4. No-Confidence Motion

   • Purpose:
     • A no-confidence motion is a parliamentary motion moved by the opposition to express lack of confidence in the government’s ability to govern. If passed, it requires the government to resign.
     • Effectiveness: While it is a powerful tool to hold the government accountable, its practical use is limited in situations where the ruling party has a strong majority.

5. Budgetary Control

   • Examination of Budget:
     • Parliament has the power to approve or reject budgetary allocations, which provides a mechanism for scrutinizing government spending and priorities.
     • Effectiveness: The power of the purse is a key tool for accountability, but time constraints and the complexity of budget documents can limit effective scrutiny.

6. Judicial Oversight

   • Judicial Review:
     • While not directly a parliamentary mechanism, the judiciary can review executive actions and ensure they comply with the Constitution, complementing parliamentary oversight.
     • Effectiveness: Judicial review provides an additional layer of accountability, particularly when Parliament’s mechanisms are constrained by political factors.

Challenges to Executive Accountability

1. Majority Dominance

   • When the ruling party or coalition holds a strong majority in Parliament, it can limit effective scrutiny by reducing the influence of opposition parties and diminishing the impact of debates and committees.

2. Party Discipline

   • Strong party discipline often compels MPs to vote along party lines, which can stifle independent scrutiny and debate, reducing the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight.

3. Disruptions and Adjournments

   • Frequent disruptions and adjournments during parliamentary sessions can hinder effective debates and the timely passage of legislation, impacting accountability.

4. Limited Time for Discussion

   • The limited time allocated for discussing complex legislation and budgets can restrict in-depth examination and informed decision-making.

Conclusion

The Indian Parliament has several mechanisms to ensure the accountability of the executive, including Question Hour, parliamentary debates, committees, and budgetary oversight. These mechanisms provide vital checks on executive power and promote transparency and good governance. However, the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight is often constrained by factors such as majority dominance, party discipline, disruptions, and time limitations. To enhance accountability, it is crucial to strengthen parliamentary procedures, ensure adequate time for debates and committee work, and foster a culture of constructive engagement and bipartisan cooperation. Strengthening these mechanisms will help maintain a robust and responsive democratic system that upholds the principles of accountability and transparency.