Model Answer

Decline in Parliamentary Functioning and its Impact on Lawmaking and Accountability

The effective functioning of Parliament is essential for fulfilling its role in deliberative lawmaking and holding the executive accountable. However, recent trends indicate that a decline in parliamentary operations is undermining these critical responsibilities.

Reduced Time for Discussion and Scrutiny

One of the most significant factors affecting parliamentary functioning is the decreasing number of sitting days. According to the PRS (Public Affairs Centre), the Lok Sabha’s annual sitting days have sharply fallen from 121 days between 1952-70 to just 56 days in 2022. This reduction in sitting time leaves limited opportunities for MPs to debate and scrutinize important legislation or question the executive (PRS, 2022). Furthermore, the rapid passage of bills, with the Lok Sabha passing laws in less than 10 minutes on average, bypasses the necessary scrutiny. This hasty approach diminishes the role of Parliament as a deliberative body and weakens accountability mechanisms.

Overuse of Ordinances and Reduced Committee Scrutiny

Another factor is the increasing reliance on ordinances, which limits Parliament’s ability to debate and hold the executive accountable. Between 2014-2021, 76 ordinances were issued, often circumventing parliamentary processes and reducing opportunities for opposition to question executive actions (PRS, 2021). Additionally, the sidelining of parliamentary committees, such as the Standing Committees, further weakens scrutiny. Only 27% of bills were referred to committees in the 16th Lok Sabha, compared to 71% in the 15th Lok Sabha (PRS, 2019).

Diminished Role of the Opposition and Rajya Sabha

The growing dominance of the ruling party, especially through the use of the money bill route, has further weakened the role of the Rajya Sabha, which traditionally acted as a counterbalance to the Lok Sabha. The lack of short duration discussions—only 6 since 2019—has also stifled the opposition’s ability to raise urgent national issues (PRS, 2019). Moreover, the absence of private members’ bills being passed for over fifty years highlights the diminishing space for non-government voices in lawmaking.

In conclusion, these trends point to a significant erosion of parliamentary functions, limiting its ability to act as a deliberative body and an effective check on the executive. Strengthening parliamentary norms and ensuring adequate time for debates, scrutiny, and opposition involvement are crucial for restoring its accountability role.

Model Answers

Introduction:

Parliamentary oversight in India plays a crucial role in ensuring the accountability of the Executive. Through various mechanisms such as Question Hour, Committees, and motions, Parliament holds the Executive responsible for its actions and policies. However, the effectiveness of these measures has been limited due to various challenges.

Evaluation of Effectiveness:

• Majority Party Rule: The dominance of the ruling party in Parliament often leads to the Executive’s policies being rubber-stamped, despite opposition concerns. This diminishes the impact of parliamentary oversight.
• Disruptions and Reduced Deliberations: Frequent disruptions in Parliament have resulted in lost time for meaningful discussions. For example, the 16th Lok Sabha lost 16% of its scheduled time due to disruptions, as per PRS Legislative Research. This reduces the effectiveness of oversight.
• Lack of Committee Scrutiny: Bills are often passed without adequate scrutiny by Parliamentary Committees. Only 25% of bills were referred to Committees in the 16th Lok Sabha, compared to higher percentages in earlier sessions.
• Guillotine and Delegated Legislation: The frequent use of the guillotine process to pass the Budget reduces financial control, and the increasing reliance on delegated legislation has reduced Parliament’s involvement in detailed lawmaking.

Measures to Strengthen Oversight:

• Greater Role for Opposition: Allowing opposition parties more control over the legislative agenda, similar to practices in the UK and Canada, could make oversight more effective.
• Enhanced Committee System: Strengthening the Committee system by ensuring mandatory Ministerial appearances and increasing transparency through recorded sessions would improve accountability.
• Parliamentary Independence: Allowing Parliament to convene on its own initiative, rather than relying solely on the President’s discretion, would ensure timely discussions on critical issues.

Conclusion:

While parliamentary oversight is vital for Executive accountability, its effectiveness can be significantly improved by addressing current limitations. Strengthening the Committee system, reducing disruptions, and empowering the Opposition are key steps towards better governance.

Model Answer

Introduction

The role of Governors in withholding assent to bills passed by state assemblies has been a contentious issue, with several recent instances highlighting delays in granting assent. The discretion afforded to Governors under the Indian Constitution has raised concerns about its potential for misuse, leading to questions about whether a prescribed time limit should be imposed for Governors to either approve or reject bills.

Instances of Governors Delaying Assent to State Assembly Bills

1. Tamil Nadu NEET Exemption Bill (2023): The Governor withheld assent to this bill for over a year, prompting concerns about political interference and undermining the autonomy of the state government.
2. Kerala Lokayukta Amendment Bill (2022): The Governor refused to assent to this bill, citing concerns about its constitutionality and its impact on the functioning of the anti-corruption watchdog.

Constitutional Veto Powers of the Governor

1. Article 200: This provision grants Governors the power to withhold assent, reserve the bill for the President, or grant assent to bills passed by state legislatures. It offers a significant degree of discretion, which can be exercised based on the Governor’s interpretation of the bill.
2. Article 201: If a bill is presented again after being returned by the Governor, the Governor must give assent if it is passed once more by the state legislature.

Should There Be a Specified Time Limit for Governors to Accept/Reject Bills?

Yes:

1. Promotes Accountability: A time limit ensures Governors act promptly and transparently, preventing arbitrary delays or political interference.
2. Protects Legislative Autonomy: A clear timeframe for decision-making would safeguard state legislatures’ autonomy by ensuring timely responses.
3. Reduces Uncertainty: Setting a deadline for assent would reduce ambiguity in the legislative process.
4. Strengthens Federalism: Time limits can foster a more balanced and functional relationship between state and central governments.
5. Aligns with Democratic Principles: A timely decision from the Governor supports democratic processes by allowing elected representatives to execute their duties without unnecessary delays. The Supreme Court’s Nabam Rebia judgment (2016) emphasized that the Governor’s discretion under Article 163 is not arbitrary.

No:

1. Impeded Deliberation: A time limit might hinder thorough analysis, leading to rushed decisions that could overlook important issues.
2. Limited Need: Instances of delay are relatively rare, and imposing a blanket time limit may not be necessary.
3. Potential for Judicial Intervention: Setting time limits could invite legal challenges, further complicating the legislative process.
4. Discretion by Design: Governors’ discretionary powers are crucial for maintaining federal balance and democratic governance.
5. Respecting the President’s Role: Constitutional provisions provide greater powers to the Centre and the President, which might still override a Governor’s decision.

Conclusion

While the imposition of time limits could streamline the legislative process and enhance the autonomy of state assemblies, the current system respects the Governor’s role in ensuring constitutional stability. As the Rajamannar Committee suggests, Governors should act as constitutional heads of state rather than as agents of the Centre, and any reforms, including time limits, would require constitutional amendments. Until such reforms are considered, maintaining a balance between autonomy and federal integrity remains essential.