Q. To what extent, in your view, the Parliament is able to ensure accountability of the executive in India? Examine the institutional mechanisms and inherent challenges in fulfilling this role.

Introduction:
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar strongly advocated for the parliamentary system, emphasizing its ability to strike a balance between stability and accountability, as both are essential for a vibrant democracy. He underscored its strength in enabling continuous oversight through Parliament, making it a vital mechanism for checking executive power.

Body:
Institutional Mechanisms to Ensure Executive Accountability
1.Question Hour
-MPs ask direct questions to Ministers on governance issues, policies, and expenditures.
-Example: MPs have questioned schemes like PMAY, NREGS, and defence procurement, compelling the executive to clarify actions.

2. Zero Hour
-It is an Indian innovation which enables MPs to raise urgent public issues without notice, forcing real-time responses.
-Example: MPs have raised issues like price rise, caste violence, and natural disasters.

3. Standing Committees (Departmentally Related Standing Committees – DRSCs)
-Examine bills, budgets, and policies of Ministries in detail.
-Example: Railway Committee’s 2015 suggestion to waive dividend payments was accepted to improve Railways’ finances.
4. Public Accounts Committee (PAC)
-Scrutinizes CAG reports and government expenditure to ensure efficient use of public funds.
-Example: Exposed corruption in Commonwealth Games 2010, prompting reforms.

5. Estimates Committee
-Evaluates budgetary allocations, cost-effectiveness, and implementation efficiency of policies.
-Helps ensure fiscal discipline and outcome-oriented spending.

6. No-Confidence Motion (Article 75(3)
-A direct tool to test government’s majority and enforce collective accountability.
-Though rarely successful, it triggers nationwide scrutiny of executive actions.

7. Legislative Procedures (Articles 107–111)
-Provides for bill scrutiny, joint sittings (Article 108), and Presidential assent/referral, ensuring procedural checks on executive bills.

8. Budgetary Oversight (Articles 112–117)
-Annual Financial Statement (Budget) and Money Bills require Parliamentary approval, giving the legislature power to control public expenditure.

Parliamentary Oversight in India:
1. Oversight Weakening Despite Constitutional Provisions
-Though the Constitution ensures checks and balances (Articles 74–75, 107–117), actual legislative oversight has eroded due to frequent disruptions, low committee referral, and executive dominance.

-PRS Legislative Research shows that only 13% of bills were referred to committees in the 17th Lok Sabha, down from 71% in the 15th Lok Sabha.

2. Efficiency vs. Accountability
-While administrative speed is crucial, transparency must not be sacrificed. The push for “Maximum Governance” must be matched with “Maximum Accountability,” requiring a stronger, functional Parliament.

3. Instances of Effective Oversight
a. Railways Committee (2015): Recommended waiving Indian Railways' dividend payments, implemented in 2016, improving fiscal space.

b. Public Undertakings Committee: Recommended 80% land acquisition and clearance before starting NHAI projects, speeding up execution timelines.

c. Transport Committee (2017): Influenced Motor Vehicles Bill by removing insurance caps and setting up the National Road Safety Board.

d. Estimates Committee: Urged increased domestic uranium production, aiding energy security.

e. Public Accounts Committee (PAC):
-Exposed CWG 2010 corruption involving delays and opaque appointments.
-Has made ~180 recommendations/year, with 80% acceptance rate by the government (Lok Sabha Secretariat, 2021).

Challenges in Parliamentary Oversight of the Executive
1. Diminishing Role of Question Hour
-Once a pillar of daily executive scrutiny, Question Hour is increasingly disrupted.
-In the 17th Lok Sabha, it functioned only 60% of the time in Lok Sabha and 52% in Rajya Sabha.
-Disruptions and superficial questions limit its ability to generate sustained accountability.

2. Limited Impact of Parliamentary Committees
-DRSCs generate detailed reports, but their recommendations rarely influence legislation or policy decisions.
-Consultations involve limited stakeholder diversity, raising concerns about inclusiveness and legitimacy.

3. Executive Dominance in Budgetary Processes
-The Union Finance Ministry prepares the Budget with minimal input from MPs, curtailing deliberative engagement.
-Rajya Sabha has no voting power on money bills, reducing its role to symbolic participation.

4. Weak Follow-up Mechanisms
-Reports of committees like PAC or Estimates Committee lack binding force; the executive is not obligated to act on their findings.
-No structured feedback loop exists to track action taken on recommendations.

5. Lack of Technical Support for MPs
-Most MPs lack access to professional research staff or data analytics tools to meaningfully scrutinize complex policy issues.
-This leads to superficial debates and over-reliance on partisan briefings.

Conclusion:
By adopting the UK’s Westminster parliamentary model over the US presidential system, India aimed to institutionalize stronger checks and balances through collective responsibility and ongoing legislative oversight. For Indian democracy to remain robust and responsive, it is essential that Parliament continues to serve as the central platform for holding the executive accountable, ensuring governance that is both stable and answerable to the people.