Why Legislative Scrutiny Is Declining in India
India's Parliament passed an annual average of 65 bills during the period 1952–1990. In the period 1991–2023, the annual average fell to 48 bills passed — yet this reduction in output has been accompanied by a far more significant decline in the scrutiny applied to each bill before passage. Data compiled by PRS Legislative Research documents the trend with precision: the share of bills referred to departmental standing committees for examination before passage fell from 71% in the 15th Lok Sabha (2009–14) to 27% in the 16th Lok Sabha (2014–19) and approximately 16% in the 17th Lok Sabha (2019–24).
 |
| Representational Image: Why Legislative Scrutiny Is Declining in India |
This is not a partisan observation limited to any single government's era. PRS data shows that the 15th Lok Sabha — presided over by the Congress-led UPA — had a productivity rate that drew sharp criticism, even as its committee referral rate was higher than its successors.
The decline in
deliberative standards cuts across political configurations, suggesting
structural rather than conjunctural causes. What has changed is not the text of
the Constitution but the operational culture of Parliament — how much time is
devoted to genuine deliberation versus procedural manoeuvring, disruption, and
rapid passage of government-priority bills in the midst of ongoing disorder.
Essential Context
- PRS
Legislative Research data shows the annual average of bills passed
declined from 65 in 1952–1990 to 48 in 1991–2023; simultaneously, the
share of bills referred to committees fell from over 60% in the 14th and
15th Lok Sabhas to approximately 16% in the 17th.
- The
17th Lok Sabha (2019–24) recorded a productivity rate of approximately 47%
— one of the lowest in recent history, according to PRS data — meaning
more than half its potential deliberative time was lost to disruptions and
adjournments.
- In
the 2023 budget session, over 75% of Demands for Grants were passed
without substantive discussion, and only approximately 11% of budget
expenditure underwent detailed Parliamentary scrutiny, according to TARUN
IAS analysis of PRS data.
- India's
Parliament averaged approximately 55 sitting days per year in the 17th Lok
Sabha; the UK Parliament meets for 150–170 days annually; the US Congress
for approximately 260 days — the gap in legislative working time between
India and comparable democracies is substantial.
- Since
1950, over 750 Presidential ordinances have been issued, with 76 issued
between 2014 and 2023 alone — a mechanism that allows the executive to
legislate without Parliament when it is not in session, and which must be
ratified within six weeks of Parliament reconvening.
How It Works in Practice
1. Structural causes of declining scrutiny: Several
factors reinforce each other. Fewer sitting days means less total time.
Disruptions within available time reduce further the hours actually devoted to
deliberation. The government's preference for speed over scrutiny —
demonstrated in declining committee referral rates — reflects a political
calculation that tight legislative control outweighs the institutional cost of
reduced oversight. And the anti-defection law, which binds MPs to party
positions, reduces the incentive for individual members to demand more
deliberative time: a vote against party position risks disqualification.
2. Bills passed in disorder: PRS and Business
Standard document numerous instances where significant legislation — including
bills with major implications for criminal procedure, data protection, and
media regulation — was passed in the midst of disruptions and without
substantive floor debate. Former Lok Sabha Secretary-General P.D.T. Achary is
cited as stating that "passage of Bills without debate undermines the
purpose of Parliament."
3. Budget scrutiny erosion: The Demands for Grants of
each ministry should be referred to the relevant DRSC for examination before
being voted on. In recent years, a majority of Demands for Grants have been
passed by the House without discussion — a practice known as "guillotining"
— where the Speaker puts all remaining unexamined Demands to vote
simultaneously at the end of the prescribed period. In the 2023 budget session,
approximately 75% were guillotined.
4. Ordinance proliferation: The use of ordinances
under Article 123 of the Constitution — which allows the President to issue
legally binding legislation when Parliament is not in session, subject to
parliamentary ratification within six weeks of reassembly — has been used to
bypass scrutiny for time-sensitive policy changes. Forty-five farm ordinances
pre-dated the farm laws of 2020; the Labour codes were preceded by ordinances.
Where ordinance-replacing bills are introduced, parliamentary conventions limit
the extent of fresh scrutiny, as the law has already been in effect.
5. Anti-defection effects: The Tenth Schedule, which
binds MPs to party voting instructions, reduces parliamentary independence. MPs
who might individually favour more deliberation or committee referral cannot
vote for it in defiance of a party whip without risking disqualification. This
converts Parliament from a collection of representatives exercising independent
judgment into a body that ratifies decisions made by party leadership.
What People Often Misunderstand
- Disruption
is not the sole or even primary cause of declining scrutiny:
Disruptions account for some lost time but not for the decline in
committee referral rates, which reflect deliberate executive preference
rather than time loss.
- High
productivity in scheduled time does not mean high-quality legislation:
A parliament that functions at 90% of its scheduled time but refers few
bills to committees and guillotines most Demands for Grants is not
legislating well.
- The
decline is not unique to the BJP era: The 15th Lok Sabha under UPA-2
was also criticised for disruptions and poor productivity; the trend of
declining scrutiny predates 2014 even as its most acute phase has occurred
since.
- Constitutional
reform alone will not restore scrutiny: The mechanisms for committee
referral, adequate sitting time, and deliberative process already exist in
parliamentary rules; what is missing is political will to use them.
- Some
scrutiny-improving measures are within Parliament's own control:
Mandatory committee referral norms, fixed minimum sitting days by law, and
Opposition Days — where the opposition controls legislative time — are
reforms that have been recommended by constitutional bodies and academic
researchers and could be adopted without constitutional amendment.
What Changes Over Time
The Business Standard in April 2026 reported that the 18th Lok Sabha had referred 11 of 42 bills to committees as of the Winter Session 2025 — a higher proportion than the 17th Lok Sabha, suggesting some response to institutional pressure.
The Vidhi Legal Policy Centre's 2016 report on
parliamentary disruptions and subsequent academic and media reporting has
created sustained public awareness of the scrutiny decline. The Law Commission
of India and the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission have both recommended
minimum sitting days; no such statutory minimum has been enacted.
Sources and Further Reading
- PRS
Legislative Research — Vital Stats (parliament functioning data): https://prsindia.org/parliamenttrack/vital-stats
- Business
Standard — Rushed Laws, Reduced Debate (April 2026): https://www.business-standard.com/politics/rushed-laws-reduced-debate-is-parliament-losing-its-deliberative-core-126041900362_1.html
- Vajiramandravi
— Parliamentary Decline in India: https://vajiramandravi.com/current-affairs/parliamentary-decline-in-india-shrinking-deliberation-and-rising-executive-dominance/
- Tarun
IAS — Diminishing Indian Parliament: https://tarunias.com/exams/upsc-notes/diminishing-indian-parliament/
- Vidhi
Legal Policy Centre — Disruptions in the Indian Parliament (2016): https://vidhilegalpolicy.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Report_DisruptionsintheIndianParliament_Vidhi1.pdf