Parliament’s effectiveness depends on the number and quality of sittings it holds. With reference to the decline in sitting days and Bill scrutiny since 2014, examine the case for a fixed parliamentary calendar.
Subtopic: Polity · Parliament & Legislative Scrutiny
How to structure your answer
Introduction: The Constitution requires only that not more than six months elapse between two sittings of Parliament under Article 85; PRS Legislative Research data shows that the Lok Sabha sat for an average of 55 days a year between 2014 and 2024, against 130 days in the 1950s.
Body: Three dimensions — (i) institutional decline — average sitting days down, only 16 per cent of Bills referred to Department-Related Standing Committees in the 17th Lok Sabha (against 71 per cent in the 15th), suspension of MPs in December 2023 (146 MPs); (ii) constitutional design — Articles 85, 87, 100 (quorum), 105 (privileges); the Speaker decides Money Bill certification under Article 110, which Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India (2024) is examining; (iii) committee weakness — anti-defection whip, lack of research support, declining Question Hour productivity.
Way forward / Conclusion: A fixed annual calendar of at least 100 sittings (NCRWC 2002), mandatory committee referral for most Bills, and a stronger Parliamentary Research Service are the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution's prescription.
Written within the word limit
216 words · target 250 words · 14 min
Introduction:
Article 85 requires only that not more than six months elapse between two sittings of Parliament; PRS Legislative Research Vital Stats records that the Lok Sabha sat for an average of 55 days a year between 2014 and 2024, against 130 days in the 1950s, prompting the case for a fixed parliamentary calendar.
Institutional decline: Only 16% of Bills were referred to Department-Related Standing Committees in the 17th Lok Sabha (against 71% in the 15th); 146 MPs were suspended in the Winter Session of December 2023; and the Telecommunications Bill 2023 was passed without committee scrutiny, foreclosing structured stakeholder consultation.
Constitutional design: Articles 85, 87 (special address), 100 (quorum) and 105 (privileges) anchor the calendar; the Speaker's Money Bill certification under Article 110 — under judicial examination in Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India — has bypassed Rajya Sabha scrutiny on key laws including the Aadhaar Act 2016, upheld in Puttaswamy II (2018).
Committee weakness: The anti-defection whip restricts free debate, Question Hour productivity has declined, and Members lack dedicated research support; declining sittings have compressed Demands-for-Grants discussion and the budget cycle's deliberative space.
Way forward / Conclusion:
The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC, 2002) recommended a fixed annual calendar of 120 Lok Sabha and 100 Rajya Sabha sittings, mandatory committee referral for substantive Bills, and a Parliamentary Budget Office on the United States and Australia model — the durable prescription for legislative effectiveness.
What an examiner expects to see
- Article 85 — President summons Parliament; gap between sessions not more than six months
- Article 100 — quorum; Article 105 — privileges
- Article 110 — Money Bill certification by Speaker
- Lok Sabha average sittings: 55 per year (2014–2024) vs 130 in 1950s
- 17th Lok Sabha — only 16% Bills referred to DRSCs
- 146 MPs suspended in December 2023 winter session
- NCRWC 2002 recommended 120 sittings for Lok Sabha and 100 for Rajya Sabha
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Suspension of 146 MPs, December 2023
- Jairam Ramesh v. Union of India (Money Bill challenges pending)
- Telecommunications Bill 2023 passed without DRSC referral
- PRS Legislative Research Vital Stats reports
- NCRWC 2002 Report on Parliamentary calendar