Parliamentary Control Over Executive

In a parliamentary democracy like India, the executive is a part of the legislature even though the three branches of government legislative, judicial, and executive are in theory separate. The Executive is still obligated to answer to Parliament. In addition to providing legal oversight of the executive branch, the job of the parliament is to exercise political and budgetary control over it. 

 

In general, Parliament stays out of administrative disputes but, if a policy was developed improperly, Parliament may ask questions.

 

The government is required to outline all of a law's contents and respond to questions from MPs after it is passed in Parliament. Therefore, it forbids the executive from acting arbitrarily.

Delegated legislation or subordinate legislation refers to the recent trend of legislators outsourcing some of the law-making process to the executives (Bureaucrats).

 

As a result, the Rajya Sabha Chairman promoted the concept of legislative impact assessment, which is the analysis of how a legislation (while being produced and implemented) affects society over time. 

 

The budget and financial bills of the government must be approved by both Houses.

 

The government is prohibited by Parliament from racking up excessive expenses.

 

The government is not permitted to take any money out of the consolidated fund without the consent of the legislature.

 

MPs speak for a variety of organizations. They act in the capacity of representatives by questioning the executives and therefore advancing the interests of their constituents.

 

The full council of ministers is answerable to the Lok Sabha for every decision taken by any of the ministers. The Lok Sabha holds the minister directly responsible for the actions of his ministry.

 

If the minister's action is not approved by the Lok Sabha. Due to a shared duty, the entire cabinet must resign.

 

The COM is jointly accountable to the Lok Sabha, according to Article 75.

 

Individual responsibility is another notion found in Article 75. According to this clause, the President may remove a minister at any moment, even though the COM has the support of the Lok Sabha. Ministers are said to serve at the pleasure of the President.

 

The control, however, is not working as well as it should. The following reasons can be used to explain this:

•    The volume and complexity of the administration have expanded, and the Parliament does not have the time or knowledge to manage it.

 

•    It is challenging for the Parliament to maintain financial control due to the technical nature of grant requests, which demand economic acumen. The bulk of demands are also executed via guillotine.

 

•    The Public Accounts Committee and other financial organizations only do post-facto audits, which means they examine expenditures after they have taken place.

 

•    As "delegated legislation" has grown in popularity, Parliament's ability to enact comprehensive law has been constrained while administrative power has increased.

 

•    The president's frequent issuance of decrees weakens the legislative authority of Parliament.

 

•    The lack of a vocal and persistent opposition in Parliament and a change in parliamentary behavior and ethics are further factors contributing to the ineffectiveness of legislative control over administration.

 

The Central Plan Schemes Monitoring System (CPSMS), formerly known as the Public Financial Management System (PFMS), was recently developed and implemented by the Office of Controller General of Accounts (CGA), Ministry of Finance. The efficient oversight of the executive by Parliament is essential for the smooth operation of the Indian political system. The efficiency of legislative control over the executive will be increased by taking actions like enhancing the image of parliament, increasing the caliber of members, strengthening the committee system, etc.