Comment: Parliamentary Committees in India. (2004, 20 Marks)
Woodrow Wilson, in Congressional Government (1885), wrote that “Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work”. A chamber of several hundred meeting a few weeks a year cannot examine technical bills, cross-question officials or audit accounts; committees — small, continuing bodies of members — do this on its behalf. In India they rest on Articles 105 and 118, the Rules of Procedure and the Speaker’s Directions, and work as the House’s eyes and ears rather than its voice.
Types
| Category | Committees | Key feature |
|---|---|---|
| Financial | Public Accounts Committee (1921; 15 LS + 7 RS), Estimates (1950; 30 LS), Public Undertakings (1964) | PAC examines CAG reports; chaired by the opposition since 1967 |
| Department-related standing (DRSCs) | 17 from 1993, 24 since 2004; 31 members each (21 LS + 10 RS) | Examine bills, demands for grants, annual reports, policy |
| Ad hoc | Select and joint committees on bills; inquiry JPCs | Constituted for one task, dissolved on reporting |
| Other standing | Privileges, Ethics, Subordinate Legislation, Government Assurances, Petitions, Business Advisory | Discipline, delegated law, housekeeping |
Why committees matter
- Scrutiny in depth — clause-by-clause study with evidence from ministries, regulators, experts and civil society; the report is often the only non-partisan analysis of a bill.
- Deliberation without performance — sittings are in camera and the whip does not formally operate, so members who clash on the floor frequently agree in the committee room.
- Continuity — committees sit between sessions, partly offsetting the fall in sitting days.
- Financial accountability — the PAC’s opposition chair (K. C. Venugopal in the 18th Lok Sabha) is the healthiest convention in Indian practice.
- Real influence — the Select Committee on the Income-tax Bill 2025, chaired by Baijayant Panda, made some 285 suggestions; the government withdrew the bill and reintroduced a revised version in August 2025.
The weaknesses
- Referral is discretionary — no rule compels it. PRS data show bills referred falling from 60% in the 14th Lok Sabha and 71% in the 15th to 28% in the 16th and 16% in the 17th; the 18th stands at about 21%, with a single bill referred in the 2026 Monsoon Session.
- Recommendatory only — the government may ignore findings, and reports are seldom debated on the floor.
- Majoritarian mirroring — ad hoc committees reproduce the House’s arithmetic. The JPC on the Waqf (Amendment) Bill 2024 under Jagdambika Pal adopted its report in January 2025 on a 15–11 vote, accepting only ruling-alliance amendments; most INDIA bloc parties boycotted the JPC on the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill 2025 chaired by Aparajita Sarangi.
- Capacity deficits — one-year terms prevent specialisation; attendance is poor; there is no independent research staff, so committees depend on the ministries they scrutinise. Devesh Kapur and Pratap Bhanu Mehta argue that committees inherit rather than cure Parliament’s infirmities.
- Post-audit lag — the PAC examines spending years after it occurs, without power of sanction.
Comparative lens
The United States gives committees life-and-death power over bills; Britain’s departmental select committees (1979) gained independence when their chairs became elected by the whole House in 2010. India borrowed the British form without either the American power or the British reforms.
Reform
Mandatory referral of all but certified-urgent bills; three-year terms; dedicated research staff; a duty on government to answer every rejected recommendation within a fixed time; scheduled floor debate on reports; and opposition chairs beyond the PAC.
Conclusion
Committees are the one arena where Indian legislators still deliberate rather than perform, and their reports show what Parliament can do when allowed. Their weakness is not design but use: the executive can simply decline to invoke them. Making referral the rule, not a favour, would restore Parliament’s most effective scrutiny tool.