Questions, Debates and Parliamentary Committees: The Working Instruments of Legislative Scrutiny

Starred question

Answered orally in the House; the member and others may ask supplementary questions, which is where the real scrutiny occurs

Unstarred question

Answered in writing and laid on the table; no supplementaries, but useful for obtaining detailed data

Short notice question

On a matter of urgent public importance, admitted at less than the ordinary notice with the Minister's consent

Question to a private member

Addressed to a member in charge of a Bill or of the business of the House

Half-an-hour discussion

Follows a question whose answer requires elucidation, on a matter of sufficient public importance

📖 Raja Ram Pal v. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, (2007) 3 SCC 184

Facts: Following a media exposure in which members were shown accepting money for asking questions in the House, inquiry committees were constituted and, on their reports, members of both Houses were expelled. The expelled members challenged the expulsions, contending that the Houses had no power to expel a member, that the proceedings were in breach of natural justice, and that in any event Article 122 barred the courts from examining anything done in Parliament.

Held: A Constitution Bench upheld the expulsions on the facts but held that judicial review is available in a limited sphere. It held that Article 105(3), read with the powers of the House of Commons at the commencement of the Constitution, includes the power to punish for contempt, which extends to expulsion where the conduct is such as to render a member unfit to continue. On the question of immunity, the Court held that Article 122(1) bars the courts only from enquiring into the validity of proceedings on the ground of an alleged irregularity of procedure; it does not bar examination of proceedings vitiated by illegality or unconstitutionality, so that the exercise of parliamentary privilege is not beyond scrutiny altogether. The Court held that the House must observe the basic requirements of fair procedure in a proceeding of this kind, and found on the record that the members had been given notice and an opportunity, so that the expulsions could not be faulted.

Ratio: Parliamentary privilege includes the power to punish for contempt and to expel. Article 122 protects proceedings from challenge for irregularity of procedure but not from challenge for illegality or unconstitutionality, so limited judicial review survives.

Public Accounts Committee

Examines the audited accounts and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General; asks whether money was spent for the purpose voted, with propriety and economy

Estimates Committee

Examines the estimates and suggests economies and improvements in organisation and efficiency

Committee on Public Undertakings

Scrutinises the working of public corporations and government companies, which lie outside the ordinary departmental chain

Committee on Subordinate Legislation

Examines whether rules and regulations are within the powers conferred and whether they contain unusual, retrospective or unexpected provisions

Departmentally Related Standing Committees

Examine demands for grants, Bills referred to them, annual reports and long-term policy of the ministries assigned

Committee on Government Assurances

Follows up promises and undertakings given by Ministers on the floor of the House

Committee on Petitions

Examines petitions from citizens on matters within the legislature's competence

Committee on Papers Laid on the Table

Checks that documents required to be laid are in fact laid and are complete

Select and Joint Committees

Examine particular Bills in detail and report with amendments

📖 Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India, (2018) 7 SCC 1

Facts: In public interest proceedings concerning the administration of a vaccine in certain States, the petitioners sought to rely on the report of a Parliamentary Standing Committee which had examined the matter and had been critical of the trials. It was objected that the report could not be looked at by the Court, because Article 105 protects parliamentary proceedings and any use of the report would amount to questioning proceedings in Parliament and would breach privilege.

Held: A Constitution Bench held that a parliamentary standing committee report may be taken on record and relied upon by a court. It held that such use does not amount to questioning or impeaching the report or the proceedings of Parliament, and therefore does not breach Article 105 or Article 121: the Court does not sit in judgment over the committee's findings, does not test their correctness and does not permit the report to be contested or subjected to cross-examination. The report may be used as material on a matter of fact or public interest, in aid of interpretation, or to understand a historical or legislative context, but it is not conclusive of anything and the parties cannot found a challenge on its correctness. The Court emphasised that the exercise is one of taking judicial notice of a public document rather than of adjudicating upon parliamentary proceedings.

Ratio: A court may refer to and rely on a parliamentary committee report as material, without impeaching it. The report's correctness cannot be disputed before the court and it is not conclusive of the matters it addresses.

Obtaining specific information from a department

Unstarred question, or a committee's call for papers

Fixing political responsibility on a named Minister publicly

Starred question with supplementaries

Raising an urgent matter immediately

Adjournment motion, calling attention, short notice question

Detailed examination of how money was spent

Public Accounts Committee on the audit report

Examining a rule for conformity with the parent Act

Committee on Subordinate Legislation

Scrutinising a public corporation outside ministerial answerability

Committee on Public Undertakings

Improving a Bill before enactment

Select or Joint Committee, or a Departmentally Related Standing Committee

Ensuring a ministerial promise is kept

Committee on Government Assurances

Removing the Government

No confidence motion, which requires the numbers

⚠ The quiet instruments outlast the majority

A useful way to rank these devices is by asking which of them still work when the Government has a comfortable majority, since that is the ordinary case. Motions that require a vote do not: no confidence fails, cut motions fail, censure fails. What continues to work is everything that produces a record rather than a result. A question must be answered and the answer stands on the record whether or not anyone is defeated. A committee examines the papers and reports whatever it finds, across party lines and in private. Audit reports whatever the accounts disclose. The Government may decline to act on any of it, but it cannot prevent the material from existing, and that material is what the press, the courts and the next election work with. Parliamentary control in practice is therefore less about defeating the executive than about compelling it to explain itself on the record.