Introduction
Parliamentary committees—especially the 24 Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs)—serve as Parliament’s principal instruments for law scrutiny, budget analysis, and executive oversight when sessions are limited. Yet recent data reveal declining committee efficacy: fewer bills referred, low member participation, delayed reports, and inadequate follow-up. With parliamentary sittings shrinking to just ~55 days per year in the 17th Lok Sabha, committees increasingly bear the burden—but their backlog undermines democratic accountability and legislative quality. ([turn0search0]turn0search4]turn0search5])
Decline in Committee Referrals & Legislative Scrutiny
-
In earlier Lok Sabhas, 60–71% of bills were sent to committees. This has plummeted to just 10–16% during the 17th Lok Sabha, severely weakening pre-legislative review. ([turn0search4]turn0search5]turn0reddit17])
-
Alongside this, committee meetings have declined: DRSCs collectively met hundreds of times between 2009–16, but their activity dropped significantly in recent years—even during crucial budget review periods. ([turn0search5])
-
Reports frequently remain unaddressed: committee findings—such as on foreign affairs or demand for grants—are often delayed and rarely discussed in either house. ([turn0search4])
Attendance & Member Allocation Gaps
-
Attendance remains a major concern: average attendance in committee meetings across ministries is around 60%, meaning ~40% of members routinely miss scheduled sittings. For example, the Social Justice & Empowerment Committee had some MPs attend only 1–2 of its 16 meetings in 2023. ([turn0search3]turn0search0])
-
Short-term tenure compounds the issue: members serve just one-year terms, preventing accumulation of expertise. Multiple members shift across panels annually, reducing continuity. ([turn0search1]turn0search4])
-
Gender representation is poor: only 2 out of 24 committee chairs are women; the Women Empowerment Standing Committee remains unconstituted for 18th Lok Sabha. ([turn0search0])
Systemic Backlog and Resource Constraints
-
Committees are under-resourced: secretariats lack analytical support, expert guidance, and adequate staffing, limiting their capacity to conduct hearings, summon witnesses, and process reports efficiently. ([turn0search1]turn0search11])
-
Committees function more as rubber stamps: agendas are often driven by government priorities, with limited space for independent or longer-term policy inquiry. ([turn0search9]turn0search11])
-
Post-legislative review is absent: once a bill becomes law, no system exists to review its implementation or policy impact, unlike practices in UK or other mature democracies. ([turn0search7]turn0search5])
Impacts of Delayed & Backlogged Committees
-
Poor legislative quality: hurried lawmaking without committee inputs—especially for controversial bills—reduces the depth and precision of laws. ([turn0reddit16]turn0search4])
-
Eroded executive accountability: limited scrutiny on budgets and policies weakens legislative oversight, while audit reports from bodies like CAG go under-addressed in the PAC. ([turn0reddit12]turn0search5])
-
Public disengagement: committee outputs rarely reach the public in accessible formats, limiting civic participation in legislative processes. Reports lack summaries, visuals, or translations. ([turn0search7]turn0search5])
Reform Recommendations
| Area | Suggested Reform |
|---|---|
| Mandatory Bill Referrals | Make referral of all non‑money bills to DRSCs mandatory before parliamentary debate. ([turn0search8]turn0search5]) |
| Extended Member Tenure | Adopt longer tenure models (e.g. Kerala’s 30-month terms or US-style permanent committees) to build continuity and expertise. ([turn0search1]turn0search4]) |
| Attendance Monitoring | Publish member attendance and participation data; require minimum attendance thresholds for continued membership. ([turn0search3]turn0search8]) |
| Ensure Timely Government Response | Limit government response period to 60 days (as UK does), instead of current six months, or require reasons for non-adoption of recommendations. ([turn0search4]turn0search2]) |
| Strengthen Secretariat & Resources | Increase expert staff, research support, and budget to support hearings, stakeholder consultations, and drafting quality reports. ([turn0search1]turn0search11]) |
| Mandate House Discussion of Reports | Make parliamentary discussion of key committee reports compulsory, especially for Demand for Grants and significant legislation. ([turn0search4]turn0search7]) |
| Institutionalise Post-Legislative Oversight | Set up mechanisms for periodic evaluation of laws and performance metrics tied to implementation, audited by committees. ([turn0search7]turn0search5]) |
| Leverage Technology & Transparency | Live‑stream and archive committee hearings on Sansad TV, publish easy-read summaries, dashboards, and invite public inputs. ([turn0search4]turn0search7]) |
Conclusion
The mounting backlog in parliamentary committees—manifest in low attendance, fewer referrals, delayed reporting, and resource constraints—reflects broader democratic erosion. With fewer parliamentary sittings, committees remain essential to legislative quality and executive oversight. Yet without urgent reform, their role risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive.
Revitalizing committees requires structural changes: mandatory bill referrals, longer tenure, transparent attendance, stronger secretariat support, and enforced discussion of findings. Technology must amplify transparency, while reforms should institutionalize post-legislative review and expert engagement.
A restructured committee system can transform India’s legislators into expert policy deliberators, bridging Parliament’s shrinking hours with rigorous governance. Strengthening committees is essential—not merely procedural, but foundational to deepening parliamentary democracy and accountability in India.