GS Paper 2 15 marks · 250w 14 min Medium
Do Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees keep the administration on its toes and inspire reverence for parliamentary control? Evaluate the working of such committees with suitable examples.
Subtopic: Constitution & Polity · parliamentary committees
How to structure your answer
Introduction (24 DRSCs since 1993, composition, mandate) → strengths: mini-parliaments, action-taken loop, legislative improvements → weaknesses: falling bill referrals, advisory reports, guillotined grants, tenure and attendance → evaluation against the question's claim → reforms → Conclusion
Written within the word limit
239 words · target 250 words · 14 min
Introduction
The 24 Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees (DRSCs), functioning since 1993 with 31 members each (21 from Lok Sabha, 10 from Rajya Sabha), examine demands for grants, referred bills, annual reports and long-term policy of ministries — Parliament's instrument of detailed, year-round administrative control.
How they keep the administration on its toes
- Working largely without party whips, these 'mini-parliaments' enable bipartisan, evidence-based scrutiny with expert and stakeholder testimony.
- Ministries must furnish action-taken replies to committee reports, creating a continuing accountability loop; candid reports — such as the Health Committee's assessment of the Covid second wave — have forced course corrections.
- Legislative value: the Home Affairs Committee's scrutiny of the three new criminal codes (2023) yielded significant amendments; earlier committees improved the Consumer Protection and Surrogacy Bills.
Where reverence is not inspired
- Referral of bills is discretionary and declining — from 71 per cent in the 15th Lok Sabha to 27 per cent in the 16th and about 16 per cent in the 17th (PRS); the 2020 farm laws bypassed committees altogether.
- Recommendations are only advisory, and demands for grants are largely guillotined despite committee reports.
- One-year tenure, roughly 50 per cent average attendance, thin research support and occasional partisan division weaken depth and continuity.
Way forward and conclusion
Mandatory referral of significant bills, longer member tenure, dedicated research staff and discussion of major reports in the House would deepen their impact. DRSCs do keep the administration answerable in the everyday sense, but their authority rests on persuasion — it needs institutional reinforcement to command genuine reverence for parliamentary control.
What an examiner expects to see
- Basics first: 24 DRSCs since 1993, 31 members each (21 LS + 10 RS), one-year term; mandate covers demands for grants, referred bills, annual reports and policy.
- Strength: whip-free, bipartisan working with expert testimony — committees function as 'mini-parliaments' where scrutiny is technical, not theatrical.
- Action-taken replies institutionalize a continuing accountability loop between committee and ministry.
- Concrete impact: Home Affairs Committee's scrutiny of the three criminal codes (2023); Health Committee's candid Covid second-wave report; improvements to the Consumer Protection and Surrogacy Bills.
- Central weakness: bill referrals collapsed from 71% (15th LS) to 27% (16th) to ~16% (17th) per PRS; the 2020 farm laws were never referred.
- Reports are advisory, grants mostly guillotined, attendance ~50%, tenure one year — reforms: mandatory referral, longer tenure, research support, House discussion of reports.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Standing Committee on Home Affairs' examination of the three new criminal codes (2023)
- Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health's report on the Covid-19 second wave
- PRS Legislative Research data on declining bill referrals (71% → 27% → 16%)
- Farm laws (2020) passed without committee scrutiny
- Departmentally-related committee system introduced in 1993, expanded to 24 committees in 2004
Terminology to weave into the answer
DRSCparliamentary oversightdemands for grantsaction-taken reportbill referralguillotine