THE GREAT INDIAN DEBATE — DAY 40 Should the PM be more accountable to Parliament?
THE STAKES In July 2024, the Opposition staged a walkout from Parliament, accusing the Prime Minister of evading questions on the NEET-UG paper leak scandal. The government countered that the PM had addressed the issue in a press conference, not Parliament, because the matter was sub-judice. This wasn’t an isolated incident: in the last five years, the PM has answered only 1% of the 1,200+ questions directed at him in the Lok Sabha, compared to 15% in the previous decade. The debate isn’t just about procedure—it’s about whether India’s highest executive office is becoming less answerable to its elected representatives, and what that means for democracy.
THE ARGUMENT FOR Those who argue that the Prime Minister should be more accountable to Parliament make their case on three fronts: constitutional design, democratic health, and historical precedent.
First, the Constitution. Article 75(3) states that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This isn’t a suggestion—it’s a structural guarantee. The PM, as the head of the Council, is therefore legally bound to answer to Parliament. When the PM avoids questions—whether by delegating responses to ministers, citing "time constraints," or simply not showing up—it violates the spirit of this provision. Former Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee often argued that the PM’s presence in Parliament isn’t a courtesy; it’s a constitutional obligation.
Second, accountability isn’t just about answering questions—it’s about the quality of scrutiny. In the UK, the PM faces weekly Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), a tradition that forces the executive to justify policies in real time. India’s Parliament, by contrast, has seen a 40% decline in the number of sittings since 1952, and the PM’s absence further weakens oversight. The 2018 report by the PRS Legislative Research found that only 12% of bills were referred to parliamentary committees in the 16th Lok Sabha, down from 71% in the 14th. If the PM isn’t held to account in Parliament, where else can citizens expect transparency?
Third, history shows that accountability strengthens democracy. Indira Gandhi’s dominance in the 1970s was enabled by a Parliament she could ignore—until the Emergency proved the dangers of unchecked power. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, by contrast, was known for his willingness to engage with Opposition leaders in Parliament, even on contentious issues like the 2002 Gujarat riots. His approach didn’t weaken his authority; it reinforced it by demonstrating confidence in democratic institutions.
Proponents of greater accountability, like constitutional expert A.G. Noorani, argue that the PM’s evasion of Parliament isn’t just a procedural lapse—it’s a symptom of a larger drift toward presidential-style governance, where the executive bypasses elected representatives in favor of direct appeals to the public via media or rallies. If Parliament is reduced to a rubber stamp, they warn, India’s democracy loses its most critical check on power.
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST Those who oppose the idea that the PM should be more accountable to Parliament argue that the current system is already robust—and that forcing the PM into frequent parliamentary appearances would do more harm than good.
First, they point to the separation of powers. The PM is the head of government, not a mere legislator. The Constitution doesn’t mandate that the PM must answer every question in Parliament; it only requires that the Council of Ministers be collectively responsible. If individual ministers answer on behalf of the PM, that’s not a loophole—it’s a feature of cabinet government. Former Law Minister Arun Jaitley often argued that the PM’s time is better spent on governance than on repetitive parliamentary debates, especially when ministers are already accountable for their portfolios.
Second, they question whether Parliament is the right forum for accountability. The Opposition’s questions are often performative, designed to score political points rather than seek genuine answers. The 2023 Monsoon Session saw 72% of Question Hour disrupted by protests, rendering it ineffective. If the PM were forced to attend every session, would it lead to meaningful scrutiny—or just more grandstanding? The UK’s PMQs, often cited as a model, is as much about theater as it is about accountability. India’s Parliament, with its larger size and more fractious politics, could easily descend into chaos.
Third, they argue that the PM is already accountable—just through different mechanisms. The PM faces the electorate every five years, and in a country as diverse as India, that’s a far more consequential check than any parliamentary question. The 2014 and 2019 elections, where Narendra Modi’s leadership was the central issue, prove that voters hold the PM directly accountable. Additionally, the judiciary and the media act as independent watchdogs. The Supreme Court’s intervention in cases like the Rafale deal or the electoral bonds controversy shows that accountability isn’t solely Parliament’s domain.
Finally, they warn that overemphasizing parliamentary accountability could weaken the PM’s ability to govern. If the PM is constantly defending policies in Parliament, it could lead to policy paralysis, with every decision subject to endless debate. Former PM Manmohan Singh, who faced relentless Opposition attacks during his tenure, often lamented that Parliament’s dysfunction made it harder to implement reforms. The argument isn’t that the PM should be unaccountable—it’s that Parliament isn’t the only, or even the best, forum for accountability.
THE HIDDEN DIMENSION Most debates on this topic ignore a critical factor: the changing nature of India’s political economy. Since the 1990s, economic liberalization has shifted power from Parliament to the executive. When the government controls vast resources—from spectrum auctions to defense contracts—Parliament’s role as a watchdog becomes more important. But the same forces that expanded the executive’s power also made it harder for Parliament to hold it accountable.
Consider the rise of "big-ticket" policies—GST, demonetization, the farm laws—that were pushed through with minimal parliamentary scrutiny. These weren’t just policy decisions; they were economic earthquakes. Yet, Parliament’s ability to debate them was limited by time, expertise, and the government’s majority. The PM’s reluctance to engage in Parliament isn’t just about personality—it’s a structural response to a system where the executive can act unilaterally, and Parliament is left playing catch-up.
This dynamic is reinforced by India’s electoral system. In a first-past-the-post system with a dominant party, the PM’s authority is amplified. The BJP’s majority in 2019 meant that the PM didn’t need Parliament’s approval to pass laws—he just needed his party’s MPs to vote along party lines. In such a scenario, demanding more parliamentary accountability is like asking a king to consult his courtiers: it’s not impossible, but it’s not how the system is designed to work.
The hidden dimension, then, is this: the debate over the PM’s accountability to Parliament isn’t just about democracy—it’s about power. And in a system where power is increasingly concentrated in the executive, Parliament’s role is shrinking by design, not by accident.
WHERE INDIANS STAND There’s no comprehensive survey on whether Indians want the PM to be more accountable to Parliament, but election data offers clues. In the 2019 Lokniti-CSDS post-poll survey, 55% of respondents said they trusted the PM more than Parliament, while only 24% trusted Parliament more. This suggests that for many Indians, the PM’s direct accountability to the people—via elections—matters more than parliamentary oversight. However, the same survey found that 62% believed Parliament was not functioning effectively, indicating frustration with its performance.
YOUR VIEW If Parliament is meant to hold the PM accountable, but the PM’s party controls Parliament, is accountability even possible—or is it just a performance?
This newsletter aims to clarify genuine arguments on complex issues. It does not endorse any political position or party.