How MPs Use Questions to Force Accountability
Parliamentary questions are the most frequently used formal mechanism by which Indian MPs hold the government to account. In each five-year Lok Sabha, tens of thousands of questions are submitted, balloted, listed, answered — or evaded — creating a voluminous, searchable, and often revealing record of government positions, admissions, and silences.
A question compels a minister to either state the official government position on the matter, admit ignorance or non-availability of data, or — through the supplementary question process — be pushed toward an admission they had not intended to make. The Lok Sabha Secretariat's own description captures the intent: the Question Hour is when "the Government is, as it were, put on its trial."
 |
| Representational Image: How MPs Use Questions to Force Accountability |
Any MP can submit up to five question notices per sitting day; the
ballot then determines which questions are selected. This accessibility makes
questions one of the few parliamentary mechanisms that individual opposition
MPs, backbench government MPs, and even first-term legislators can use
effectively.
What You Need to Know
- In
the 16th Lok Sabha (2014–19), Question Hour functioned in Lok Sabha for
77% of scheduled time and in Rajya Sabha for only 47% — time lost to
disruptions directly reduced the number of oral questions that ministers
were required to answer publicly.
- IndiaSpend
analysis of 17th Lok Sabha questions found at least 10 major policy areas
for which the government declined to provide data in Parliament, claiming
that data was not maintained centrally — including on COVID-19 deaths of
migrants, attacks on RTI activists, and farmer suicide data by method.
- The
Trivedi Centre for Political Data (TCPD) has compiled approximately
298,000 pairs of questions and answers (QA) in English from Lok Sabha
Question Hour from 1999 to 2019 — spanning four Lok Sabha terms — making
questions one of the most comprehensively archived accountability
instruments in Indian governance.
- Questions
must be limited to 150 words, must be precise, must relate to the
Government of India's responsibilities, and must not seek information on
matters under court adjudication or classified matters; the presiding
officer has final authority on admissibility.
- Ministries
receive questions 15 days in advance for preparation — ensuring ministers
are briefed, but also giving the government a significant window to shape
how answers are framed before the public exchange.
How It Works in Practice
1. Starred question as the primary oral accountability
tool: A starred question, marked with an asterisk and listed on the Order
Paper in green in Lok Sabha, is the sharpest accountability instrument
available. The MP asks the question orally; the minister answers orally; the MP
may ask supplementary questions based on the answer; other MPs may also ask
supplementaries. The entire exchange is televised and transcribed. Experienced
MPs select starred questions strategically — on matters where the expected answer
will reveal a contradiction, admission, or gap that the supplementary can then
exploit.
2. The supplementary question as the real test: The
formal question and formal answer are both prepared in advance; the
supplementary is where genuine accountability happens. A minister who has given
a carefully drafted answer to the listed question may be pressed by a
supplementary question on an implication they did not anticipate. The minister
is supported by officials in the gallery passing notes — but a sharp
supplementary, posed with specific data, can produce politically significant
admissions or evasions that become media stories.
3. Unstarred questions as a data extraction tool:
Where an MP wants specific data from a ministry — how much was allocated, how
much was spent, how many beneficiaries were covered, how many inspections were
conducted — the unstarred question requesting a written reply is more efficient
than a starred question. Written replies enter the official record. IndiaSpend
has documented cases where the government replied that data "is not
maintained centrally" — itself an accountability finding revealing
institutional gaps.
4. Short notice questions for urgent matters: Where a
matter is of immediate public importance, an MP may seek to ask a question with
fewer than 10 days' notice. The Speaker or Chairman decides admissibility. If
admitted and the minister agrees, the question is answered on the floor —
making this a limited but real mechanism for immediate accountability on
breaking developments.
5. Using question archives for investigative research:
The archived record of questions and answers across Parliament's history
provides MPs, journalists, and researchers with a searchable database of
official government positions. Discrepancies between answers given at different
times, or between answers and official data published elsewhere, are a primary
source of investigative journalism about Indian policy and governance.
What People Often Misunderstand
- Ministers
are not legally required to answer fully: A minister may decline to
answer on grounds of public interest, national security, or because the
matter is sub-judice; claiming data is not maintained centrally is another
frequent avoidance. The question mechanism creates obligation but not
compulsion to disclose.
- Friendly
questions from government MPs dilute the accountability effect:
Government-side MPs also ask questions; some of these are used to provide
ministers with opportunities to publicise scheme achievements, creating a
dual function of the question mechanism that blunts its purely adversarial
character.
- The
ballot system means important questions may not get answered:
Selection by lottery means that questions of great policy importance may
not be reached during Question Hour if they are listed late in the order,
while less significant questions are answered first.
- Written
answers are not merely secondary: Unstarred written replies often
contain more detailed data than oral answers, and the complete archive of
written replies provides a more comprehensive government accountability
record than the more visible oral exchange.
- Question
Hour disruption is not politically neutral: When Question Hour is lost
to disruptions, the government benefits as much as the opposition loses;
this creates an incentive structure in which disruptions paradoxically
serve the executive's interest in avoiding accountability.
What Changes Over Time
The digital publication of all parliamentary questions and answers in searchable format — through the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha websites and third-party archives like TCPD — has transformed questions from a real-time accountability mechanism into a permanent research database. RTI applications and parliamentary questions now function as complementary tools: questions can surface issues that RTI applications then probe in greater depth.
The decline
in Question Hour functioning time — from near-full time in earlier Lok Sabhas
to 60–77% in recent ones — has reduced the volume of oral accountability,
though the written unstarred question record continues to grow.
Sources and Further Reading
- PRS
Legislative Research — Question Hour and Zero Hour explained: https://prsindia.org/articles-by-prs-team/an-expert-explains-what-are-question-hour-and-zero-hour-and-why-they-matter
- Lok
Sabha Secretariat — Question guidelines: https://sansad.in/ls/questions/questions
- IndiaSpend
— 10 Issues for Which Government Did Not Provide Data in Parliament: https://www.indiaspend.com/top-news/10-issues-for-which-the-government-did-not-provide-data-in-parliament-910104
- Trivedi Centre for Political Data — IPD Parliamentary Questions Dataset: accessible via https://tcpd.ashoka.edu.in
- PRS Legislative Research — Role of Parliament in holding the government accountable: https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/role-of-parliament-in-holding-the-government-accountable