The Quiet Death Of Deliberation In Parliament

In a country as diverse, complex, and populous as India, passing laws is no simple task. Every new policy or amendment affects millions of lives, intersects with existing legal frameworks, and often carries deep political and social implications. Ideally, such decisions should be made with care, consultation, and detailed analysis. But in recent years, India's legislative process seems to be racing against itself. Laws are often passed within days—sometimes even hours—without meaningful debate, expert input, or sufficient time for reflection.

This raises a fundamental question: Where has all the deliberation gone?

Parliamentary Standing Committees—arguably the most effective but least discussed institutions within the Indian legislative framework—were designed to bring depth to lawmaking. These committees examine bills, budgets, and policies in detail, away from the noise of televised debates. Their closed-door nature, non-partisan composition, and expert-driven deliberations make them uniquely suited for thorough scrutiny. Yet, despite their foundational role, they have been increasingly side-lined in recent years. This article explores the origin, evolution, impact, limitations, and the urgent need to revive the Standing Committee system in India.

Tracing the Roots: A Brief Historical Background

The idea of subject committees is not new to the Indian legislature. During the colonial era, limited forms of committee-based reviews existed in the Imperial Legislative Council, but these were mostly ad hoc and lacked real influence. The more systematic adoption of Standing Committees occurred after independence, with growing realization that Parliament, constrained by time and the sheer volume of business, required smaller bodies to handle detailed work.

The watershed moment came in 1993 when the Parliamentary Standing Committee system was institutionalized. As part of broader reforms to enhance legislative scrutiny, 17 Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs) were constituted, each aligned with specific ministries. These committees were designed to examine bills, scrutinize budget allocations, evaluate policy implementation, and present annual reports. Over time, the number of DRSCs increased to 24, reflecting the expanding role of governance and policymaking.

Understanding the Structure: Classification of Committees

Parliamentary committees in India are broadly classified into two categories—Standing Committees and Ad hoc Committees.

• Standing Committees are permanent and reconstituted annually or periodically. They include:
  • Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs): There are currently 24 DRSCs, each covering specific ministries. They examine bills, budgets, and policies referred to them.
  • Financial Committees: Like the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Estimates Committee, and Committee on Public Undertakings, which deal with financial accountability.
  • Other Standing Committees: Such as the Committee on Subordinate Legislation, Committee on Petitions, and Committee on Government Assurances.
• Ad hoc Committees are temporary and formed for a specific purpose. They include:
  • Select or Joint Committees on Bills appointed to examine a particular piece of legislation in detail.
  • Enquiry Committees established to investigate specific issues or incidents.

While all these committees contribute to parliamentary work, DRSCs are the primary focus when discussing the need for sustained, in-depth legislative scrutiny.

Behind the Scenes: How Standing Committees Make a Difference

Parliamentary Standing Committees play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of legislative work and ensuring executive accountability. One of their most significant contributions lies in scrutinizing bills beyond party lines. Unlike debates in the House, where political posturing is common, committee proceedings occur in a closed-door, non-partisan environment, allowing for a more informed and less politicized analysis of legislation. This facilitates improvements in bills, rectification of technical or legal errors, and the incorporation of diverse stakeholder perspectives—something that is increasingly vital in a complex policy landscape.

These committees also function as instruments of fiscal oversight, meticulously examining demands for grants and assessing whether public expenditure aligns with intended objectives. For instance, standing committees reviewing the health or education budget may highlight implementation gaps, underutilized funds, or inconsistencies between policy goals and financial outlays. Their findings not only aid Parliament in making informed budgetary decisions but also pressure ministries to enhance administrative performance.

Several instances illustrate the tangible impact of these recommendations:

• In 2010, the Standing Committee on Finance, chaired by Yashwant Sinha, suggested significant changes to the Direct Taxes Code Bill. While the bill was ultimately withdrawn, many of the committee's suggestions were later incorporated into the Income Tax reforms and influenced the eventual formulation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) framework.
• The Consumer Protection Bill, 2015, saw key amendments after the Standing Committee flagged issues with vague definitions and inadequate grievance redressal mechanisms. These recommendations shaped the final Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which introduced stricter liability norms and a more robust dispute resolution mechanism.
• In 2012, the Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice rejected the hasty introduction of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, recommending 97 amendments. These significantly influenced the final shape of the Lokpal Act, 2013, ensuring a more independent selection process and clearer powers of the institution.
• More recently, the Standing Committee on Information Technology, chaired by Shashi Tharoor, played a pivotal role in raising concerns about data privacy and surveillance in the context of the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019, prompting the government to rework the legislation entirely, eventually leading to the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Moreover, the impact of these committees extends to policy innovation and institutional memory. Over the years, committee reports have flagged systemic issues—ranging from shortcomings in public distribution systems to the need for labour reforms—many of which have influenced broader policy discourses and even subsequent legislation. Their ability to conduct field visits, interact with domain experts, and issue thematic reports makes them a reservoir of informed legislative inputs. In a system often constrained by limited time for parliamentary debate, standing committees offer a parallel route to deepen democratic engagement.

However, their impact is contingent on whether their recommendations are taken seriously. When engaged robustly, these committees strengthen deliberation, improve governance outcomes, and reinforce the principle that Parliament is not just a forum for debate, but also a site of detailed, substantive policy work.

Gaps in the System: When Committees Are Ignored

Despite their institutional significance, Parliamentary Standing Committees face several structural and operational challenges that limit their effectiveness. Perhaps the most glaring issue is the decline in the number of bills referred to committees. According to PRS Legislative Research, between 2004 and 2009, nearly 60% of bills were sent to committees for detailed examination. In contrast, this figure dropped to just 12% in the 17th Lok Sabha (as of 2023), raising concerns about the dilution of legislative scrutiny and the increasing reliance on majoritarianism over deliberation.

Several high-profile bills have been passed without committee review, undermining the very rationale of having standing committees in the first place:

• The Farm Bills of 2020 were passed in Parliament amid significant opposition and without being referred to the relevant Standing Committee on Agriculture. This decision ignored earlier committee observations from 2018 which had flagged concerns about the need for stakeholder consultation, potential effects on federalism, and the risk of undermining the mandi system. The subsequent nationwide protests and eventual repeal of the laws in 2021 highlighted the dangers of bypassing parliamentary scrutiny.
• The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act (UAPA), 2019, which significantly expanded the government's powers to label individuals as terrorists, was also passed without committee referral. Given the civil liberty implications, a detailed legal and rights-based analysis by a standing committee could have offered safeguards or alternative mechanisms.
• The Electoral Bonds Scheme, introduced through amendments in the Finance Bill, 2017, altered key provisions of multiple laws governing political funding (like the Representation of the People Act and Companies Act). Since it was included in a Money Bill, it completely bypassed Rajya Sabha scrutiny and any committee referral, despite having far-reaching consequences for transparency in electoral financing.

A key limitation of the system lies in the non-binding nature of committee recommendations. Although committees invest significant time and expertise in analyzing legislation, the government is under no obligation to accept their suggestions. This often renders even well-researched reports ineffective in shaping final outcomes.

Another persistent challenge is the lack of adequate research support and staffing. Committee members—who often juggle multiple responsibilities—are expected to scrutinize complex legislation across diverse sectors. However, they seldom receive the technical assistance needed to engage with nuanced policy issues, particularly in areas like data governance, financial regulation, or emerging technology. This reduces the depth and technical rigour of their recommendations.

Additionally, attendance and participation rates in committee meetings can be uneven. While some members approach committee work with seriousness and diligence, others treat it as a procedural formality. This inconsistency undermines the collaborative and deliberative nature of these forums.

Political considerations can also limit committee independence. The appointment of chairs is influenced by party hierarchies, and the majority composition often mirrors the ruling party's strength in Parliament. This occasionally results in conflicts of interest, particularly when a committee is expected to evaluate the performance of the very ministries controlled by the ruling government.

Finally, despite being intended as instruments of transparency, committee reports and deliberations are not made public in real-time. While confidentiality may encourage honest debate, it also shields inefficiencies, poor participation, and political manipulation from public scrutiny.

These criticisms do not negate the importance of Standing Committees, but they highlight the urgent need for systemic reform, greater transparency, and a cultural shift in how Parliament treats its most deliberative institutions.

Fixing the Foundations: Recommendations for a Stronger Committee System

Reviving the effectiveness of Parliamentary Standing Committees requires a combination of institutional reforms, procedural adjustments, and cultural shifts that reaffirm Parliament's commitment to deliberative democracy. The following recommendations aim to enhance both the functionality and credibility of these committees:

• Mandatory Referral of Bills: Parliament should institute a formal rule mandating that all non-urgent bills be referred to the appropriate standing committee, except in cases of genuine emergency. This would reduce the executive's discretion in bypassing scrutiny and ensure that important legislation receives expert and bipartisan review.
• Time-Bound Scrutiny: To address concerns over legislative delays, committees could be required to submit reports within a fixed time frame—say, 30 to 60 days—based on the complexity of the bill. This balances the need for thoroughness with legislative efficiency.
• Making Recommendations More Impactful: While committee suggestions are currently non-binding, a mechanism can be introduced requiring the executive to table a 'reasons report' in Parliament if it chooses to ignore or substantially alter committee recommendations. This would create an accountability loop without infringing on executive discretion.
• Strengthening Research & Secretariat Support: Committees should be equipped with dedicated research teams comprising domain experts, legal analysts, and economists. Collaborations with institutions like PRS Legislative Research, NITI Aayog, and independent think tanks could also provide data-driven, evidence-based inputs.
• Improved Member Training and Engagement: Newly elected MPs often lack experience in legislative scrutiny. Regular capacity-building workshops and policy briefings could enhance their participation. Attendance records could be made publicly available to encourage greater commitment.
• Greater Transparency with Accountability: While committee meetings should retain confidentiality, the publication of draft reports, minority opinions, and executive responses can foster public trust and informed debate. Moreover, live or delayed telecasts of select meetings (especially budget reviews or thematic discussions) could strike a balance between confidentiality and transparency.
• Balanced and Independent Leadership: The rotation of chairmanships among parties, including opposition MPs, and reducing political interference in appointments can help committees maintain neutrality and effectiveness, especially when dealing with politically sensitive legislation.
• Integration with Public Consultations: Committees should be empowered and encouraged to hold structured public consultations with civil society organizations, academic institutions, and domain experts. This would institutionalize participatory lawmaking and give voice to diverse stakeholders.

Together, these steps can restore the deliberative character of Indian parliamentary democracy. Strengthening standing committees is not merely a procedural refinement—it is a democratic imperative. By investing in these quiet but powerful institutions, Parliament can reclaim its role as the forum for meaningful debate, expert scrutiny, and responsive governance.

In an age where legislative processes are increasingly shaped by speed, spectacle, and centralization of power, the quiet deliberations of Parliamentary Standing Committees remind us of an older, more thoughtful tradition of lawmaking—one grounded in expertise, consensus, and democratic depth. Their role is not glamorous, but it is indispensable. They embody the idea that governance must be informed, not impulsive; inclusive, not unilateral.

Yet, as this article has shown, the marginalization of these committees—whether through deliberate bypassing or systemic neglect—has serious implications for the quality of democracy itself. When bills are passed without adequate scrutiny, when public funds are spent without rigorous oversight, and when policy is made without engaging with stakeholders, the credibility of Parliament as a deliberative institution is eroded.

Reviving the relevance of standing committees is, therefore, not a bureaucratic reform—it is a constitutional necessity. It requires more than procedural tweaks; it calls for a renewed political culture that values substance over speed, and dialogue over dominance. As India navigates increasingly complex governance challenges—from climate change and digital regulation to social justice and federalism—there is a pressing need to anchor policymaking in informed, inclusive, and transparent processes.

By empowering these committees, Parliament can reassert itself not just as a forum for debate, but as a laboratory for better laws. The path to a more deliberative democracy does not lie in louder voices or faster laws, but in listening more deeply, thinking more carefully, and legislating more wisely. Standing Committees, when allowed to function in their full potential, are the best hope for making that vision a reality.

Views Are Personal.

References

1. PRS Legislative Research. (2023). Vital Stats: Functioning of the 17th Lok Sabha. Retrieved from: https://prsindia.org
2. PRS Legislative Research. (2021). Vital Stats: Bills Referred to Committees. Retrieved from: https://prsindia.org
3. Tharoor, S. (2020). Parliamentary Standing Committees: Strengthening Legislative Oversight. The Hindu.
4. Government of India. (2023). Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. Ministry of Electronics and IT.
5. Lok Sabha Secretariat. (n.d.). Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha.
6. Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. (n.d.). Handbook for Members of Parliament.
7. Chakrabarti, R. (2021). “The Bypass Era of Indian Parliament.” Economic and Political Weekly, Vol 56, Issue 36.
8. Singh, M. P. & Saxena, R. (2011). Indian Politics: Constitutional Foundations and Institutional Functioning. PHI Learning.
9. Standing Committee on Finance (2010). Report on Direct Taxes Code Bill, 2010. Lok Sabha Secretariat.
10. Standing Committee on Food, Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (2016). Report on Consumer Protection Bill, 2015.
11. Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2011). Report on Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011.
12. The Print. (2021). Explained: Why the Farm Bills Were Repealed. Retrieved from: https://theprint.in
13. Observer Research Foundation. (2020). Electoral Bonds and Transparency in Political Funding in India.
14. Mehta, P. B. (2020). “Parliament and Its Committees Must Be Reclaimed.” Indian Express