In the 15th Lok Sabha, seven out of 10 bills were sent to committees for scrutiny.
135 down to 55! The average number of days Parliament sits annually has gone down from 135 days in the first Lok Sabha to 55 days in the 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24). So what happens during the remaining 300 days? Standing Committees, which consider and report on Demand for Grants, Bills, annual reports, and discuss national basic long-term policy documents of the concerned department/ministries, are where most of the action takes place when Parliament is not in session. Unfortunately, these committees have been undermined by governments not open to deliberation and debate.
After much delay, the 24 Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSC) were recently reconstituted and their chairpersons appointed. Each DRSC consists of 31 members from across parties, 21 from Lok Sabha and 10 from Rajya Sabha. In the last few weeks, these committees have started holding their first meetings. (Just to clarify, the intense deliberations on the Waqf Bill are taking place in a Joint Parliamentary Committee — not to be confused with a DRSC.) As we go to press, there are conflicting opinions on whether regulatory bodies like SEBI can come under the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee.
Despite all the activity, Standing Committees are not performing as they are mandated to. Take the Committee on Social Justice and Empowerment: It oversees three vital ministries — Minority Affairs, Tribal Affairs, and Social Justice and Empowerment. Yet, in 2023, some MPs attended only one or two of its 16 meetings. Only two out of 24 committees are chaired by women. The Standing Committee on Women Empowerment, an administrative committee to recommend measures to improve the status of women, has not yet been constituted for the 18th Lok Sabha. The Departmentally Related Standing Committee on Education, Women, Children, Youth, and Sports hasn’t had a woman chairperson in the last two decades.
In the 15th Lok Sabha, seven out of 10 bills were sent to committees for scrutiny. Fast forward to the 17th Lok Sabha, and that number dropped to just one out of five. Bills are now wrapped up in an average of only nine sittings, with the three Criminal Law Bills discussed together in just 12 sittings. For committees to be taken seriously, their reports need to be regularly tabled and discussed in Parliament. The Committee on Papers Laid on The Table has repeatedly flagged ongoing delays in tabling reports. In 2018, the Committee on External Affairs had its findings on the Doklam issue stalled for months due to opposition from MPs of the ruling dispensation.
When asked if committee recommendations should be made binding on the government, former Lok Sabha Speaker and legendary Parliamentarian Somnath Chatterjee replied, “No, they should not. But I would like the government to give good reasons for not accepting a recommendation.” Your columnist thinks it is time for an overhaul. Here are five specific suggestions.
One: According to the rules, the government is required to respond to committee recommendations within six months. This should be brought down to 60 days, as practised in the British House of Commons.
Two: MPs serve in committees for just a year, leading to constant reshuffling and lack of expertise. Take a cue from the US Congress’ permanent Standing Committees or Kerala’s Legislative Assembly, with a 30-month tenure. A longer tenure will work better.
Three: A Parliamentary Committee on National Economy should be formed to annually examine the state of the economy. Short-duration discussions should be initiated in both Houses of Parliament to discuss the reports. This should be followed by a response from the Minister. Public borrowing, as it affects future governments, should also be reviewed by this committee.
Four: In a federal democracy, the responsibility of the Parliament while passing Constitution Amendment Bills is immense. Therefore, a Constitution Committee should be established for prior scrutiny to check if these are ultra vires to the Constitution, and strengthen the credibility of constitutional amendments.
Five: Pre-budget scrutiny and proper examination of Demand for Grants (DFGs) must not be sidelined because of elections. Following the constitution of Lok Sabhas in 2014, 2019, and 2024, DFGs were not sent to Standing Committees. The precedent set in the 11th Lok Sabha (1996) should be followed. The Union Budget was presented on July 22. The House adjourned on August 2 and was reconvened on August 26, for committees to review the Demand for Grants.
P.S. Some observers suggest that proceedings of committee meetings should be telecast live on Sansad TV, just as Parliamentary proceedings are. Not a good idea. Why? That is a subject for another column.
The writer is MP and leader, All India Trinamool Congress Parliamentary Party (Rajya Sabha). Research by Anagha
