Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Accountability, in a democratic framework, signifies the obligation of the executive to explain its actions and decisions to the legislature and, ultimately, to the people. In India, the Parliament is constitutionally mandated to oversee the executive. While the Indian Constitution provides a robust framework for executive accountability through various mechanisms, the extent to which Parliament effectively fulfills this role is a subject of ongoing debate. Recent instances of executive decisions bypassing traditional parliamentary scrutiny, coupled with concerns about declining parliamentary standards, necessitate a critical evaluation of the Parliament’s ability to ensure executive accountability.
Parliamentary Mechanisms for Executive Accountability
The Indian Parliament employs several tools to ensure the executive remains accountable. These can be broadly categorized as legislative, financial, and oversight mechanisms.
Legislative Control
- Lawmaking Process: Parliament’s power to legislate provides a check on executive action. However, the executive often dominates the legislative agenda, and the passage of bills is frequently expedited, reducing meaningful debate. The recent passage of the farm laws (2020) – later repealed – exemplifies this, with concerns raised about insufficient parliamentary scrutiny.
- Ordinances: The President’s power to promulgate ordinances (Article 123) allows the executive to bypass Parliament temporarily. While intended for urgent matters, their frequent use can undermine parliamentary sovereignty.
Financial Control
- Budgetary Control: The most potent instrument of parliamentary control is its power over the budget (Article 112-119). Parliament scrutinizes government spending and can reject or modify budgetary proposals. However, the ‘guillotine’ – a procedure to pass the budget quickly – often limits detailed examination.
- Demands for Grants: These allow Parliament to discuss specific expenditures of each ministry. However, debates are often curtailed due to time constraints and party discipline.
Oversight Mechanisms
- Question Hour: This is a crucial mechanism for seeking information from ministers. However, its effectiveness is hampered by frequent disruptions and a decline in the quality of questions asked.
- Parliamentary Committees: These committees (e.g., Public Accounts Committee, Estimates Committee, Standing Committees) provide detailed scrutiny of government policies and expenditures. They are considered more effective than floor debates due to their focused nature and expert participation. The Standing Committee on Finance played a crucial role in reviewing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) amendments.
- Debates: Discussions on important issues provide a platform for holding the executive accountable. However, disruptions and lack of constructive debate often render them ineffective.
- Motion of No Confidence: This is a powerful tool to remove the government, but its success depends on securing a majority in the House.
Limitations and Challenges
- Party Discipline: Strong party discipline often overrides individual MPs’ ability to hold the executive accountable.
- Coalition Politics: Coalition governments can weaken parliamentary control as the executive needs to maintain the support of multiple parties.
- Increasing Executive Dominance: The executive increasingly relies on executive orders, rules, and regulations, reducing the role of Parliament in policymaking.
- Declining Parliamentary Standards: Frequent disruptions, low attendance, and a decline in the quality of debates erode the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight.
- Lack of Independent Research Support: MPs often lack adequate resources and independent research support to effectively scrutinize government policies.
| Mechanism | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
| Question Hour | Provides immediate information; highlights executive lapses | Disruptions; quality of questions declining |
| Parliamentary Committees | Detailed scrutiny; expert participation | Recommendations not always implemented; limited public visibility |
| Budgetary Control | Ultimate financial power; can reject proposals | Guillotine procedure; limited detailed examination |
Conclusion
While the Indian Parliament possesses a comprehensive framework for ensuring executive accountability, its effectiveness is often constrained by political realities, procedural limitations, and declining parliamentary standards. Strengthening parliamentary committees, enhancing research support for MPs, promoting constructive debate, and reducing disruptions are crucial steps towards improving accountability. A more assertive and independent Parliament is essential for upholding democratic principles and ensuring responsible governance in India. The need for greater transparency and responsiveness from the executive is also paramount.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.