The Crucial Role of Parliamentary Committees in India’s Legislature

Modern governments are vast, technical, and busy. The Indian Parliament passes laws, approves budgets running into lakhs of crores, and keeps watch over dozens of ministries – all within a limited number of sitting days each year. The work done by Parliament is not only large in volume but also complex in nature, which makes it impossible for the full House to scrutinise everything in detail on the floor. This is where parliamentary committees step in. They are smaller groups of MPs that do the detailed, behind-the-scenes work that keeps the legislature effective and the executive answerable.

What are parliamentary committees? 🔗

A parliamentary committee is a body of Members of Parliament that is either elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker, works under the direction of the presiding officer, and submits its report back to the House or to the Speaker. It is serviced by a secretariat provided by the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha. Consultative committees, although they contain MPs, are not parliamentary committees because they do not meet these conditions.

The Constitution mentions these committees in several places but does not lay down detailed provisions about their composition, tenure, or functions. Instead, their working is governed by the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of each House. This flexibility has allowed the committee system to grow and adapt as governance has become more complex.

Committees serve as a vital link between Parliament, the executive, and the public. They allow detailed examination away from the political theatre of the open House, often involving experts, officials, and ordinary citizens in the process. The membership of each committee is broadly worked out in consultation between the presiding officers and the party whips, so that different parties get representation in rough proportion to their strength.

Standing committees and ad hoc committees 🔗

Broadly, parliamentary committees are of two kinds. Standing committees are permanent and are constituted from time to time under an Act of Parliament or the Rules of Procedure, working on a continuous basis. Ad hoc committees are temporary; they are created for a specific purpose and cease to exist once they complete the task assigned to them. A Select Committee on a particular Bill or a Joint Parliamentary Committee set up to investigate a specific matter are common examples of ad hoc committees.

The four broad groups of committees 🔗

Based on the functions they perform, the standing committees can be sorted into four broad groups. This classification is a useful way to understand how the committee system covers almost every aspect of parliamentary work.

Committees concerned with the organisation of the House 🔗

This group handles the day-to-day running of Parliament and the conduct of its members. The Business Advisory Committee allocates time for different items of government and private members’ business. The Committee of Privileges is semi-judicial in nature; it acts when a member breaches the code of the House and proposes suitable action. The Ethics Committee deals with cases of misconduct and indiscipline by members. The Rules Committee reviews the procedures of the House and recommends amendments. These committees keep the institution itself running smoothly.

Committees concerned with legislative functions 🔗

This group helps Parliament with its primary job of making laws and overseeing ministries. The most important here are the Department-related Standing Committees (DRSCs). The idea of subject committees was first discussed seriously in the late 1970s, and 17 such committees were set up in 1993 to strengthen the accountability of the government to Parliament. The number was raised to 24 in 2004. Each committee today has 31 members – 21 nominated by the Speaker from the Lok Sabha and 10 nominated by the Chairman from the Rajya Sabha. Of the 24 committees, 16 work under the Speaker, Lok Sabha, and 8 under the Chairman, Rajya Sabha.

These committees consider the Demands for Grants of their related ministries, examine Bills referred to them, and look into the long-term policies of the departments they oversee. By examining legislation in detail before it is passed, they improve the quality of laws and give MPs a chance to study proposals carefully. Other committees in this group, such as the Committee on Subordinate Legislation, check whether the executive is properly exercising the rule-making powers delegated to it by Parliament.

Committees concerned with government accountability 🔗

This group keeps a check on the conduct of the executive and the promises it makes. The Committee on Government Assurances examines the extent to which assurances and undertakings given by ministers on the floor of the House are actually carried out. The Committee on Papers Laid on the Table scrutinises documents that ministers place before the House. Specialised committees such as the Committee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and the Committee on Empowerment of Women examine reports of the respective national commissions and report on how well the interests of these groups are being served.

Committees concerned with financial functions 🔗

This is perhaps the most powerful group, because control over public money lies at the heart of parliamentary democracy. Three permanent financial committees – the Public Accounts Committee, the Estimates Committee, and the Committee on Public Undertakings – together ensure that money is spent honestly, economically, and in line with what Parliament approved. These committees deserve a closer look.

The Public Accounts Committee: guarding the public purse 🔗

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is one of the oldest and most respected committees. It was first set up in 1921 under the Government of India Act, 1919, and became a full parliamentary committee after the Constitution came into force in 1950.

Composition 🔗

The PAC consists of not more than 22 members – 15 elected by the Lok Sabha and 7 by the Rajya Sabha. Members are elected every year through proportional representation by means of a single transferable vote, and a minister cannot be a member. This keeps the committee independent of the government it is meant to scrutinise. The most striking feature is its chairmanship. The Speaker appoints the chairperson, and since 1967 it has been a settled convention that the chairman is drawn from the Opposition. This quiet tradition is what gives the PAC its credibility; if the ruling party headed the committee that examines its own spending, the exercise would lose meaning.

What the PAC does 🔗

The core job of the PAC is to examine the audit reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) after they are laid before Parliament, along with the Appropriation Accounts and Finance Accounts of the Union government. It checks whether money was spent for the purpose Parliament sanctioned, whether the spending was authorised, and whether there was any waste, extravagance, or financial irregularity. In doing this work it is assisted by the CAG, who acts as the committee’s eyes and ears. Over the decades, several towering figures of Indian politics have chaired the PAC, reflecting the prestige attached to the post.

The Estimates Committee: pushing for economy 🔗

If the PAC asks “was the money spent correctly?”, the Estimates Committee asks “could it have been spent better?”. It looks forward at proposed spending rather than backward at completed accounts.

Composition and origins 🔗

The Estimates Committee is unusual because it draws its members exclusively from the Lok Sabha – 30 members, with no representation from the Rajya Sabha. The first such committee after independence was constituted in 1950 on the recommendation of the then Finance Minister John Mathai, and its strength was raised from 25 to 30 members in 1956. As with the PAC, a minister cannot be a member, and members are elected annually by proportional representation. Unlike the PAC, the chairman of the Estimates Committee is, by convention, drawn from the ruling party.

What the Estimates Committee does 🔗

The committee examines the estimates of expenditure presented in the budget and suggests how economies, improvements in organisation, and administrative reforms can be achieved without departing from the policy underlying the estimates. It also suggests alternative policies to bring greater efficiency into administration and checks whether money is being spent in line with the policies Parliament approved. Because of this constant search for savings, it is sometimes called a “Continuous Economy Committee”. It does not, however, examine the public sector undertakings – that task belongs to a separate committee.

The Committee on Public Undertakings 🔗

The third financial committee, the Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU), has 22 members – 15 from the Lok Sabha and 7 from the Rajya Sabha. It examines the reports and accounts of public sector enterprises and reviews whether they are being run on sound business principles. Together with the PAC and the Estimates Committee, it completes the cycle of financial oversight: scrutinising past accounts, future estimates, and the working of government-owned companies.

Why committees matter for good governance 🔗

Parliamentary committees strengthen democracy in several practical ways. They allow detailed, non-partisan scrutiny that the full House simply does not have time for. They draw on expert opinion and public input, improving the quality of laws and policies. Most importantly, they hold the executive to account on a continuous basis, which is the essence of a parliamentary system where the government is collectively responsible to the legislature. The financial committees, by exposing waste and irregularities, push the administration towards better value for public money.

The challenges they face 🔗

The system is far from perfect. Committees often lack research support and specialist advisors, with technical help limited to a small secretariat – a gap flagged by the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution in 2002. Their recommendations are advisory and not binding on the government, so implementation can be slow or incomplete. The declining number of sitting days and the fact that fewer Bills are now being referred to committees have raised concerns about weakening scrutiny. Strengthening these bodies with more time, resources, and expert backing would make Parliament’s oversight far more effective.

What do you think? Should the recommendations of financial committees like the PAC be made binding on the government rather than remaining advisory? And does the convention of an Opposition chairperson for the PAC, but a ruling-party chairperson for the Estimates Committee, strike the right balance between accountability and stability?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_committee_(India)
2. https://sansad.in/rs/committees/introduction
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_India
4. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/parliamentary-committees/
5. https://rajyasabha.nic.in/Committees/DepartmentRelatedSC_RS?id=17
6. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/public-accounts-committee-1
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_Committee
8. https://testbook.com/ias-preparation/estimates-committee
9. https://www.pmfias.com/estimates-committee/
10. https://vajiramandravi.com/upsc-exam/parliamentary-committees/