Paper: Constitutional Democracy in India

Lesson: Parliamentary Accountability in India

Lesson Developer: Dr. Rajvir Sharma

Advisor, ILLL

University of Delhi

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

Content:

 Objective of the Paper

 Introduction –What is Parliamentary Accountability ?
 Executive –Parliament relation
 Methods of surveilleance over executive
 Parliamentary Committees and executive accountability
 Budgetary Control over the executive
 Conclusion
 Question

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

The Objectives:

The objectives of this paper are (1) to describe the meaning of the executive accountability
to parliament,(2) to explain the need for such accountability in a democratic system of
governance, especially in a parliamentary system of government, (3) to analyse the tools
and techniques of Parliamentary control over the executive and (4) to examine the efficacy
or otherwise of the accountability mechanisms in administering scrutiny of the executive
actions and holding it to account.

Key words: parliamentary accountability of the executive; departmental standing

committees; Public Accounts Committee; budgetary control and ex-post control of budget.

Introduction:

Development and sustenance of a strong, effective and efficient democratic governance is

critically dependent on the component of accountability of the political system. It is through
the continuous system of accountable and responsive governance that peoples‟ faith in
democracy and government as well as the quality of life of the citizens is greatly impacted.
Conversely, the failure of the political and administrative machinery to function and perform
effectively and transparently undermines the achievement and sustainability of the goals
and reforms for good governance. This implies that all the three organs of the government –
Parliament, the executive and the judiciary – while performing their assigned constitutional
roles work consistently in tandem to uphold high democratic values of accountability,
openness, pluralism and representation. The Parliament accordingly is entrusted with the
task of not only of responding to the concerns of the nation‟s citizenry in a communicational
mode and shape laws and policies in the national interest but also to engage in overseeing
the working of the political executive so as to restrain and constrain abuse, misuse or no-
use of authority by the executive branch of the government and to ensure that it functioned
within the constitutional and legal domain of its powers and the methods to exercise them.
This exercise involves responsibility on the part of the Parliament to effectively ensure
righteous implementation of the laws, policies and programmes enacted or approved by it
explicitly or implicitly. Parliament also establishes and ensures executive accountability by
playing a crucial role, at least theoretically, in the area of budget making and overseeing
government finances, economic and development policies etc.

Viewed in this perspective, executive accountability to Parliament can be understood and

analysed with reference to the following matters and methods:

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 A. Executive- Parliament Relations within a Westminster model of government having
implications for parliamentary control over the executive.
B. Parliamentary committees and enforcement of parliamentary accountability
C. Reports of the constitutional and statutory bodies and their instrumentality of
parliamentary accountability
D. Budgetary/financial control over the executive
E. Rules of Procedure and conduct of Business
F. Legislative research and analysis – facilities and performance as an effective
counterbalance to the executive branch.
G. Parliamentary ethics and the ethical components of the political executive with
reference to the constitution of parliament and the executive, electoral reforms and
accountability.

Executive – Parliament Relations:

Executive – legislative relations are the function of the form of government and therefore
vary from one to the other system prevailing in different parts of the globe. For example,
the executive- legislature relations in the United States under Presidential system are not
similar to the ones prevailing in the United Kingdom or the other countries having
parliamentary form of government. The Legislative- executive relations in a Westminster
model, as adopted in India, are largely determined and shaped by the following factors:

1. The Executive is the integral part of the legislature. The executive is constituted from
among the members of parliament belonging the majority party or the coalition
commanding majority in the parliament.
2. The political executive is accountable to the parliament
3. Legislative and policy leadership is with the cabinet
4. Administrative accountability to the parliament is ensured through the minister-in
charge of a ministry/department.

It is well established that the council of ministers with the Prime Minister at its head is
constituted out of the members of both the Houses of Parliament. However, if any minister
is appointed without being a member of parliament, he/she shall have to acquire
membership of either House of Parliament within a period of six months for retaining the
membership of the council of ministers. The organic integrity between the two is also
evident from the fact the members of the council of ministers are entitled to participate in
the debates, discussions, deliberations and decisions of the parliament.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

Another character of the parliament-executive relations is that the council of ministers
functions as a team and is collectively responsible to the parliament besides following the
principle of individual accountability. Speaking on the issue in the Constituent Assembly, Dr.
BR Ambedker said ,” the parliamentary system differs from a non-parliamentary system in
as much as the former is more responsible than the latter but they also differ as to the time
and agency for assessment of their responsibility. Under the non-parliamentary system,
such as the one that exist in the Unites States of America, the assessment of responsibility
of the executive is periodic. It takes place once in two years. It is done by the electorate. In
England where the parliamentary system prevails, the assessment of the responsibility of
the executive is both daily and periodic. The daily assessment is done by members of
parliament through questions, resolutions, no- confidence motions, adjournment motions
and debates on addresses. Periodic assessment is done by the electorate every five years or
earlier at the time of elections. The daily assessment of responsibility which is not available
under the American system is, it is felt, far more effective than the periodic assessment and
far more necessary in a country like India. The draft constitution in recommending
parliamentary system of executive has preferred more responsibility to more stability.”

In India, the legislative jurisdiction of parliament, including constituent power (i.e., the
power to amend the constitution), is vast in nature and scope and is exercised by it as a
sovereign power of the people on their behalf. However, the legislative initiative lies largely
with the political executive as parliament is mainly concerned with debating, analyzing and
approving/disapproving the legislative proposal emanating from the executive. It can be
easily conceded that the executive has „ almost unlimited right to initiate and formulate
legislative and financial proposals before parliament and to give effect to approved policies,
unfettered and unhindered by parliament and the parliament has unlimited powers to call
for information, to discuss, to scrutinize and to put the seal of approval on the proposals
made by the executive.‟ This view can be better summerised in the opinion of Kevin Murphy
about the Ireland government system. He says,” The notion that the Oireachtas sets policy,
makes the laws and then leaves it to the executive to implement the laws does not fit with
how government operates in practice. The reality is that the government once elected
controls the Houses of Oireachtas with a resulting diminution in the capacity of the Houses
to supervise the executive. For all the practical purposes, it is the government which
decides policy; which proposes legislation and secures its passage through the Oireachtas
and, subsequently, in its Executive capacity ensures that the laws are implemented.”

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

In terms of enforcement of administrative accountability to parliament, it is done through
the minister- in charge of the ministry. It may, however, be mentioned that this does not at
all mean involvement of parliament in the details of administration. Parliament does not
interfere in the day to day functioning of the administration. It undertakes post mortem
activity in relation to administrative acts of omissions and commissions through the minister
who heads the ministry. Parliament brings the minister to account if the civil servant of his
ministry has done something beyond the policy domain set by the minister/ministry. It is
the long standing practice in the administration to execute the laws and policies framed and
the budget approved by the parliament. In the words of S L Sakhdhar,” In a parliamentary
polity, parliament embodies the will of the people and it must, therefore, be able to oversee
the way in which public policy is carried out so as to ensure that it keeps in step with the
objectives of socio-economic progress, efficient administration and aspirations of the people
as a whole. This, in a nutshell, is the rasion d‟etre of parliamentary surveillance of
administration. Parliament has to keep a watch over the behavior of administration. It can
enquire and examine ex-post facto whether the administration has acted in conformity with
its obligations under the approved policies and utilized the powers conferred on it for the
purposes for which they were intended and whether the monies spent were in accordance
with parliamentary sanction. This ensures that the officials function in the healthy
awareness that they would be ultimately subject to parliamentary scrutiny and answerable
for what they do or fail to do. But in order to be able to conduct meaningful scrutiny and call
the administration to account, parliament must have the technical resources and
information wherewithal”.

Methods of surveillance over the executive

As stated earlier, parliamentary democracy provides for a daily assessment of accountability

of the executive to the legislature. This is done through several means such as questions,
motions and resolutions.

The system of questions implies two basic things in the context of executive accountability
to the parliament: one, Parliament‟s right to know what is happening where and why and
whether something is going wrong and how to prevent future occurrence of that wrong;
second, an obligation and duty of the executive to „inform and explain.‟ This process is
complete through the prerogative of members of Parliament to ask
questions/supplementary questions to the members of the political executive on matters
falling within the domain of the minister. The question can be asked in the written form
(unstarred questions) as well as orally (starred questions) or can be put as short notice

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

questions. Through the questions, the members either seek information or action. It relates
only to the matter for which the minister is responsible as a minister. For instance, a
minister cannot be put to a question pertaining to a matter within the purview of his party.
Further no minister can be asked to deny or confirm a rumour or a media report or to
answer a question regarding a matter under sub judice. Similarly, a question should be fact
based instead of some hypotheses. Thus, seeking information through questions may aim at
seeking end to the environment of secrecy in government .It means promoting practice of
open government. Question time is considered to be an effective accountability instrument
by fetching information from the government in order to hold it to account.

In short, the questions in parliament are important in so far as they may impact negatively
or positively the policy, transparency in government and absorbs time and energy of the
ministers. However, there is found a tendency on the part of the ministers to withhold
information from the parliament and thereby compromise the effectiveness of the
parliament to enforce executive accountability. Sometimes one doubts whether minister was
really genuine in refusing supply of information on a matter in national interest. Giving
accurate and truthful information to Parliament by the ministers is of paramount significance
, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly
mislead Parliament will be expected to own responsibility and resign.

Debate is another accountability or scrutiny mechanism available with the Parliament. There
are no constraints on the freedom of speech and expression of the parliament members
when a matter is presented for discussion, deliberation and debate. The members enjoy
immunity under the constitution against any action for what a member says inside the
parliament.

Motions and resolutions also provide another handle to Parliament to bring the executive to
book. It can be forced by motions like call attention, adjournment and censure to put its
acts together to further public interest and improve performance and methods of work.
Parliament may draw attention of the executive as well as warn against apathy,
indifference, staleness or any such tendency or attitudes in government. Such motions,
however, should be guided not by partisan behaviours alone since such a behavior might
reduce the quality and focus of the debate or discussion in the House. Resolutions and
motions give the executive a chance to review and rethink about its ways and means of
work and output with reference to development, change and social reengineering as well as
an opportunity to respond positively to the criticism and suggestions to improve

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

governance. The executive by responding positively to the saner advices of the parliament
can also effectively revise its efforts at reddressal of public grievances. Finally, parliament
can remove from office by passing a no-confidence motion if it arrives at the conclusion that
the executive is continuously unresponsive to the warnings and corrections in so far as
empathetic, responsive and accountable governance and performance was concerned.

Parliamentary committees and executive accountability

Parliament is the key player, as per the constitutional scheme, in legislative and policy areas
and exercises control over the executive through a number of committees- standing
committees, select committees and adhoc committees. These committees help maximize
the parliamentary capacity to hold the political and administrative officials in the
government to account. Thse committees perform both the legislative and oversight
functions. For example, the select committee of parliament examines and scrutinizes the
Bill/s sent to it by the parliament. Most recent examples being the Lok Pal Bill or the Food
Security Bill that were referred to the select committees respectively. The Public Accounts
Committee or the committees on the welfare and empowerment of the weaker sections or
the committee on subordinate legislation can be taken as examples of the second category.
It can not be denied that parliamentary committees have carved out a special place for
themselves in the democratic systems in view of the growing complexities of government,
governance and politics. Committees can be rightly described as the essential suppliers of
professional inputs to legislative needs and demands involved in the process of complex law
and policy making issues. This system facilitates thorough scrutiny of the actions and
activities of the executive.‟ It is committees where the performance and contents and
intents of the policy can be to deeper analysis and test by asking the administrative
executive questions and clarifications, financial reviews and investigation concerning them.
Thus, the committee devices are ultimately geared to to securing government
accountability‟.

The select committees consider major policy initiatives; consider the government‟s response to major
emerging issues; propose changes where evidence persuades the committee that present policy
requires amendment; conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills; examine and report on main
estimates, annual expenditure plans and annual resource accounts; monitor performance against
targets in the public service agreements; take evidence from each Minister at least annually; take

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

evidence from independent regulators and inspectorates; consider the reports of executive agencies.
The powers of the other select committees include:
to call for oral and written evidence (the power “to send for persons,
Papers and records”)
To meet whenever they choose, irrespective of sittings of the House (the
Power “to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House”);
To travel away from Delhi (the power “to adjourn from place to
Place”);
To set their own agenda and report at their discretion (the power “to
report from time to time”;
V. to exchange evidence with other committees;
To appoint specialist advisers (“to supply information which is not
readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity”); and
To appoint a sub-committee.

It would not be out of place to mention some of the important committees through which
parliament exercises supervision over the acts of the executive..
These committees are:
Estimates committee: The committee consists of 30 members elected from among the
members of the Lok Sabha each year. A minister can not be a member of this committee.
Its main functions are –
A.to report what economies, improvement in organization, efficiency or administrative
reforms consistent with the policy underlying the estimates may be effected
B. to suggest alternative policies in order to bring about efficiency and economy in
administration
C. to select, from time to time, such of the estimates pertaining to a ministry or group of
ministries or the statutory or other government bodies as it deems fit and
D. to examine matters of special interest which may arise or come to light in the course of
its work or which are specifically assigned to it by the Speaker or the House.
Committee on Public Undertakings: This committee consisting of 15 members from the
Lok Sabha and 7 members from the Rajya Sabha plays a critical role in the assessment and
review of the health of the public sector undertakings. It performs the following functions:
1. Examination of the reports and accounts of public undertakings
2. Examination of the reports, if any, of the comptroller and Auditor General of India on
the public undertakings.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 3. To examine in the context of the autonomy and efficiency of the public undertakings
whether the affairs of public undertakings are being managed in accordance with
sound business principles and prudent commercial practices.
4. Such other functions vested in the committee on public accounts and the committee
on estimates in relation to the public undertakings as are not covered by 1,2 and 3
above and as may be allotted to the committee by the Speaker from time to time.
The committee, however, does not concern with scrutiny of matters of major government
policy and matters of day-to-day administration of the undertakings.

Public Accounts Committee: This committee can be described as the most effective tool
of surveillance over the executive by the parliament, if it functions in a bi-partisan and
efficient manner. The committee consists of 22 members of parliament (15 members from
the Lok Sabha and 7 from the Rajya Sabha) without any right to a minister to be member
on it. The chairman of the committee is conventionally a leader of opposition party. The idea
behind this practice is perhaps to enable the committee and through it the parliament to go
deeper into the issues before it in the most critical manner to arrive at its conclusions. This
is specifically pertinent when it investigates the cases of corruption against the minister or
ministry or when it examines the cases of economy and efficient use of resources by the
ministry. In brief, the committee, though does not examine the questions of government
policy, concerned with the matters of execution of the policy as laid down by parliament and
also of its outcome or the results. Further, it examines whether the money granted by the
parliament has been spent by the government within „the scope of the Demand‟ on the
basis of mainly the Appropriation Accounts of the government of India and Audit Reports
submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Cases involving losses, nugatory
expenditure and financial irregularities are also subject to the scrutiny of this committee.
However, this role will remain largely formal until the the committee acquires the status of a
judicious, impartial, specialist and neutral machine of the parliament. This has to be
particularly so when there is an issues involving accountability of the ministers in matters of
propriety of the use of power and when it examines whether the minister, including the
prime minster, acted or not as a trustee of public money, confidence and interests. The role
of the members of both the ruling majority party as well as of the opposition has to be to
assist each other in unfolding the truth and exposing the misdeeds, if any, of the executive
so as to subserve the national interest and democratic ethos.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

Committee on Papers Laid on the Table:
The executive lays a number of papers on the Table of the House informing it about the
action taken on the number of reports submitted by a number of committees. Commissions
and agencies like the Comptroller and Auditor-General. For these reports to be meaningful,
it is imperative that the executive takes timely action on them and reports the same to the
parliament. The delays without any plausible reason/s speak not only about the casual
approach of the executive toward the matters of governance, it also means depriving
parliament from its legitimate right to know about the measures initiated or not initiated on
the matter under its consideration. The examination of all papers ( other than those falling
within the purview of the committee on Subordinate legislation or any other parliamentary
committee) laid on the Table of the House by the Ministers and prepares a report to be
presented to the House on the following matters:
1. Whether there has been a compliance of the provisions of the constitution, Act, Rules
or Regulation under which the paper has been laid;
2. Whether there has been any unreasonable delay in laying the paper;
3. Whether a statement explaining the reasons for delay has also been laid on the Table
of the House and whether these reasons are satisfactory;
4. Whether the Hindi and English version of the paper laid on the Table is there;
The committee is also concerned with such other functions in respect of the papers laid
on the Table of the House as may be assigned to it by the Speaker from time to time.

Besides these committees, several others also help the parliament in enforcing executive
accountability. For instance, the committee on Subordinate Legislation examines
whether the executive has exercised its powers to make regulations, rules, sub-rules,
by-laws, orders etc. conferred on it by the constitution or delegated by parliament
properly and within the boundary of such delegation. Similarly, one notes a very
significant role of the committee on Government Assurances in ensuring that the
executive follows its commitment given to the parliament. It is common that the
ministers give assurances, make promises or undertaking while replying to questions in
the house or during discussions on Bills, Resolutions, Motions etc to either consider a
matter or to take action or furnish further information to the House later. The committee
on Government Assurances scrutinizes such assurances, promises or undertaking in
terms of implementation and makes report to the House whether these have been
complied with through action and within minimum time frame necessary for the
purpose.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

 The Department related standing committees, created in 1993, are now 24 in
number and play multiple role to strengthen parliamentary oversight over the executive.
These committees perform following functions:
1. Consideration of Demands for Grants;
2. Examination of Bills referred to it by the chairman of the Rajya Sabha or the Speaker
of the Lok Sabha as the case may be.
3. Consideration of the annual reports of the ministry/ies
4. Consideration of national basic long term policy documents submitted to the House
and referred to the committee by the Chaiman, Rajya Sabha or the Speaker, Lok
Sabha as the case may be;
The criticality of the role of the committees can be summerised in the following
observation in this context: “ The departmentally related standing committee system is
a pathbreaking endeavor of the parliamentary surveillance over administration. With the
emphasis of their functioning to concentrate on long term plans, policies and
philosophies guiding the working of the executive, these committees will be in a very
privileged position to provide necessary direction, guidance and inputs for broad policy
formulations and in achievement of long term national perspective by the Executive.”
Still, the committee system suffers from some weaknesses and fails to deliver its
expected important role of enabling parliament in exercising effective control over the
exe4dcutive. These weaknesses can be pointed out as follows:
1. The committees are dominated by the majority members of the ruling majority
party/coalition
2. The members lack in the required expertise in the subject dealt by the committee;
3. The members are not provided with adequate research and analysis support to
enable them to make meaningful contribution;
4. The members do not attend the meetings of the committee regularly;
5. The committees have not been able to develop a bi-partisan approach to discussions,
debates and decisions and there is growing politicization of the recommendations.
For instance, the recommendations of the PAC on the 2G scam were not only mired
in controversy on party lines but they were turned down by the Speaker.
6. The duration of the term of members is too short to generate any real interest in the
subject matter of the committee to which he/she has been elected or nominated.
In the end, it might be suggested that the committees like the Public Accounts or the
committee on Public undertakings need to be made more independent and powerful. These

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

committees might be given constitutional status along with the term coterminous with the
life of the Lok Sabha and clearly defined functions.

The effectiveness of parliament in ensuring executive accountability is dependent to

a large extent on the capacity building of the parliament members to be not only well
informed on the subjects of governance but also well versed with different dimensional
analysis and implications of the issue/s under consideration of the parliament or its
committees. This is possible by way of enhancing the reach of each Member of Parliament to
the research and analysis facilities to be made available to them in the required manner.
This need was very well articulated by KR Narayanan, the then chairman of the Rajya Sabha
, while inaugurating the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees on 31
March 1993.He had said, “I also feel that apart from the secretarial and research assistance
to be given to the Committees, we should have for the whole of Parliament, indeed for
every Member of Parliament, research and secretarial assistance made available… so that
they can fulfill the mandate of the people efficiently and effectively”.

Budgetary control over the executive: One of the cardinal principles of parliamentary
democracy is that the political executive raises the resources and proposes the expenditure
before the parliament without whose authorization it is not possible for the executive to do
so. No taxation without representation as it goes. In that process it is the duty of the
parliament to ensure that income and expenditure both are planned in a well-conceived and
well thought out manner by the executive. This function is performed by way of debate,
authorization and information. The constitution upholds this power of parliament to monitor
and control through several provisions. For instance, Art. 265 and Art. 266 respectively
state that no tax shall be levied or collected except by the authority of law and that no
expenditure can be incurred except with the authority of the legislature. Article 112 provides
that the President shall, in respect of every financial year, cause to be laid before parliament
Annual Financial statement.
Budgetary procedure involving adoption and execution itself is subject to control.
Parliament, though in general passes the demands for grants or the Approprition Bill in the
form presented by the executive, has the power to rejector modify the budget. It can move
several cut motions like financial, policy or token cut to convey its dispproval of the
budgetary approach of the executive. If any of these motions is carried in the Lok Sabha , it
would mean defeat of the executive and the loss of confidence of the Lok Sabha in the
executive. The implication of such a situation would be resignation of the government.
It is known that the budget power is the foundation of the modern parliamentarianism.
Budget is presented in the Lok Sabha by the Finance Minister followed by a general

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

discussion for 4-5 days in relation to general principles and policies and thereafter the
budget of the ministry/ies is referred to the departmental standing committees for detailed
and deeper examination and the report there on. Then the parliament meets again to
debate and discuss and approve the budget.
Besides exercising control over the passage and implementation of the budget, parliament
does carry the Ex-post control of budget as well. The purpose of ex-post surveillance over
the budget is :
a. To see whether public funds were assigned and implemented in the desired manner;
b. To suggest improvements in the use and managing of public funds;
c. To scrutinize governmental accounts for reliability, accuracy, completeness and
conformity with applicable rules/laws;
d. To make an assessment of the extent to which the budget was used for the purpose
as indicated at the time of the passage of the budget and
e. To ensure effectiveness and efficiency of public expenditure with reference to value
for money and realization of intended goals.
This ex-post examination of budget is carried through various mechanisms like the
estimates committee, the public accounts committee and the comptroller and Auditor-
General.
In sum, one can say that though parliament seems to be quite empowered to hold the
political executive to account, there are several limitations and constrains over this power in
practice that make parliamentary control more theoretical than real. Some such constraints
may be recalled as follows:
1. Dominance of the majority party or majority coalition in the parliament
2. The compulsions of anti-defection law and the role of party whips
3. Lack of time and professional competence with the parliament in general
4. Complex and technically complicated presentation of policies, laws and the budgets
5. Bypassing the parliament by the executive through the frequent use of exceptional
provisions of the constitution like ordinance making power.

Conclusion: In some it may be stated that the constitutional and procedural norms to
ensure accountability of the political executive to the parliament have been deliberately and
adequately provided in india yet over a period of time the development of fractured and
partition politics has contributed to a large erosion of the power of parliament . To enforce
effectively parliamentary accountability it is there for imperative to introduce and enforce
extensive political reforms . Such reforms will go away in a strengthening parliamentary

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi

democracy .It is required to make the committee system function effectively , efficaciously
by observing ensuring that the member of the committee are nominated on the basic of
domain knowledge and on a longer assured term then what it is today they should be
encourage to develope expertise , commitment and interest in the working and
performance of the committee of which he /she is a member .

Questions to answer:
1. Explain the need for parliamentary control over the executive.
2. What are the methods of holding the executive to account?
3. Explain the role of the departmental standing committees in ensuring parliamentary
accountability.
4. What are major weaknesses in the functioning of the committees of parliament?
5. What is the ex-post examination of the budget and what are its objectives?
6. What are the major limitations over effective parliamentary control over the
executive?
References :
 Report of the national commission for the review of the working of the constitution
 Subhash kashyap , Indian parliament
 D.D.Basu ,An introduction to the constitution of india
 Devesh Kapoor & Partap Banu Mehta “Parliament accountability”.

Institute of Lifelong Learning, University of Delhi