Day 12 Mains Questions – Ace Answer Writing Program

Question 1: Critically examine the role of parliamentary committees in ensuring executive accountability. How can their functioning be strengthened to enhance legislative oversight? (10 Marks, 150 words)

Introduction

Parliamentary committees, established under Articles 105 and 118 of the Indian Constitution, play a crucial role in ensuring executive accountability by scrutinizing government policies and administration.

Body

Role in Ensuring Executive Accountability –

1. Detailed Examination: Committees thoroughly examine bills and policies, providing informed recommendations [e.g., Public Accounts Committee].
2. Financial Oversight: Committees scrutinize government expenditures and financial management [e.g., Estimates Committee].
3. Policy Evaluation: Committees assess the implementation and impact of policies [e.g., Standing Committees on various ministries].
4. Expert Testimonies: Committees can call experts and officials for evidence, enhancing transparency [e.g., testimony on defense procurements].
5. Issue-Based Investigations: Committees investigate specific issues and report findings to Parliament [e.g., Joint Committee on Data Protection Bill].

Strengthening Their Functioning –

1. Regular Meetings: Increasing the frequency of committee meetings for thorough examination [e.g., bi-weekly sessions].
2. Adequate Resources: Providing sufficient resources and research support to committees [e.g., dedicated research staff].
3. Enhanced Autonomy: Ensuring greater autonomy from political interference [e.g., independent chairpersons].
4. Public Engagement: Making committee reports and proceedings more accessible to the public [e.g., online publication].
5. Follow-up Mechanisms: Instituting robust mechanisms for follow-up on committee recommendations [e.g., mandatory government response].

Conclusion

Parliamentary committees are vital for legislative oversight and executive accountability. Strengthening their functioning through regular meetings, adequate resources, and public engagement can enhance their effectiveness and reinforce democratic governance.

Additional Data –

• Committees: The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended enhancing committee powers [e.g., more autonomy].
• Examples: The UK’s Select Committees are often cited as effective models [e.g., high-impact reports].
• Examples: The role of the US Congressional Committees in scrutinizing the executive [e.g., investigative hearings].

Question 2: Discuss the concept of legislative privileges in India. In light of recent controversies, evaluate the arguments for and against codification of these privileges. (10 Marks, 150 words)

Introduction

Legislative privileges in India, as outlined in Article 105 for Parliament and Article 194 for State Legislatures, grant certain rights and immunities to lawmakers to perform their functions without interference.

Body

Arguments for Codification –

1. Clarity and Precision: Codification would provide clear definitions and boundaries [e.g., specific rules for privileges].
2. Legal Certainty: Reduces ambiguity and potential for arbitrary interpretation [e.g., well-defined legal framework].
3. Transparency: Enhances public understanding and trust in legislative processes [e.g., public access to codified laws].
4. Judicial Consistency: Facilitates consistent judicial review and interpretation [e.g., standardized legal references].
5. Prevents Misuse: Codification can prevent the abuse of privileges by legislators [e.g., codified limits on privileges].

Arguments Against Codification –

1. Flexibility: Uncodified privileges allow for adaptability to changing circumstances [e.g., evolving parliamentary practices].
2. Historical Precedents: Existing practices based on historical conventions work effectively [e.g., inherited British parliamentary traditions].
3. Complexity: Codification may oversimplify complex and nuanced legislative practices [e.g., rigid rules may not cover all scenarios].
4. Judicial Overreach: Risk of increased judicial interference in legislative matters [e.g., courts interpreting codified laws].
5. Time-Consuming: Codifying privileges involves extensive legislative and legal efforts [e.g., prolonged legislative process].

Conclusion

While codification of legislative privileges could enhance clarity and prevent misuse, it may reduce flexibility and lead to increased judicial intervention. A balanced approach that retains some flexibility while ensuring transparency and preventing abuse is essential for effective legislative functioning.

Additional Data –

• Committees: The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) suggested examining codification [e.g., detailed studies].
• Examples: The UK Parliament operates with uncodified privileges but has clear conventions [e.g., Erskine May’s Treatise].
• Examples: Instances of misuse of privileges in India highlight the need for clear boundaries [e.g., privileges used to avoid legal scrutiny].

Question 3: Analyse the impact of anti-defection law on the functioning of Indian democracy. Do you think there is a need for reforms in this law? Suggest measures if any. (15 Marks, 250 words)

Introduction

The anti-defection law, enacted through the 52nd Amendment in 1985 and added as the Tenth Schedule to the Indian Constitution, aims to curb political defections and ensure political stability by disqualifying defecting legislators.

Body

Impact on Indian Democracy –

1. Political Stability: The law prevents frequent party-switching, ensuring stable governments [e.g., reduced mid-term elections].
2. Party Discipline: It enforces discipline among party members, aligning them with party policies [e.g., adherence to party whip].
3. Reduction of Corruption: By disallowing defections, it aims to reduce corrupt practices like horse-trading [e.g., fewer incentives for defectors].
4. Undermining Dissent: Critics argue it stifles legitimate dissent within parties, weakening intra-party democracy [e.g., no scope for differing opinions].
5. Judicial Intervention: Courts often become involved in defection cases, leading to delays in legislative functioning [e.g., prolonged legal battles].

Need for Reforms in Anti-Defection Law –

1. Ambiguities and Misuse: The current law’s lack of clarity leads to varied interpretations and potential misuse. Clear definitions are necessary.
2. Delayed Decision-Making: Prolonged delays in adjudicating defection cases cause uncertainty and instability. Swift, time-bound decisions are essential.
3. Stifling Genuine Dissent: The law often stifles legitimate dissent within parties, which is crucial for a healthy democratic process.
4. Judicial Overload: Courts are burdened with defection cases, leading to delays in justice. Specialized tribunals can alleviate this burden.
5. Internal Party Mechanisms: Strengthening intra-party mechanisms for addressing grievances can reduce the incidence of defections and enhance democratic debate.

Suggested Measures for Reforms –

1. Clear Definitions: Establish precise definitions and criteria for what constitutes defection, splits, and mergers to avoid ambiguity.
2. Time-bound Adjudication: Implement mandatory time limits for the Speaker/Chairman to decide on defection cases to ensure timely resolution.
3. Protection of Dissent: Create provisions to protect legislators who dissent on policy grounds while preventing opportunistic defections.
4. Specialized Tribunals: Establish fast-track tribunals dedicated to handling defection cases to expedite judicial processes.
5. Enhanced Intra-Party Democracy: Encourage political parties to develop robust internal mechanisms for handling dissent and grievances to reduce the need for defections.

Conclusion

While the anti-defection law has contributed to political stability, reforms are necessary to address its shortcomings and enhance democratic functioning. Strengthening intra-party democracy and ensuring timely and transparent resolution of defection cases are essential steps forward.

Additional Data –

• Committees: The Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms recommended reforms in the anti-defection law [e.g., clearer guidelines].
• Examples: Instances of prolonged legal battles in defection cases [e.g., Karnataka and Maharashtra crises].
• Examples: Successful implementation of internal democracy in political parties globally [e.g., UK’s Labour Party].