The effectiveness of Parliament has been questioned by Subhash C. Kashyap, Granville Austin, and M.N. Kaul, owing to declining deliberation, executive dominance and weakening parliamentary accountability.
The decline of Parliament’s effectiveness refers to the gradual weakening of its ability to legislate effectively, hold the executive accountable, represent public interests and deliberate on national issues. While Parliament remains constitutionally supreme in law-making, its functional efficiency has faced increasing challenges.
Indicators of the decline of parliament:
1. Declining Number of Sitting Days
Parliament meets for fewer days, reducing opportunities for legislation and scrutiny.
2. Executive Dominance
The Council of Ministers increasingly controls the legislative agenda through party majority and whips.
3. Frequent Disruptions
Repeated adjournments and protests reduce productive parliamentary business.
4. Declining Quality of Debate
Important Bills are often passed with limited discussion.
5. Weakening Committee System
Several Bills are passed without detailed examination by Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committees.
6. Excessive Ordinance and Delegated Legislation
Growing reliance on executive law-making reduces parliamentary scrutiny.
Major Reasons for Decline
- Declining annual sitting days.
- Frequent disruptions and loss of productive hours.
- Passage of Bills without adequate debate.
- Increasing use of Money Bills and Ordinances.
- Declining referral of Bills to Parliamentary Standing Committees.
- Anti-Defection Law limiting independent voting by MPs.
- Increasing executive dominance over Parliament.
Arguments in support of the parliament:
- Relative Decline
Despite challenges, Parliament continues to enact laws and oversee the executive. - Technology Improvements
Digitalisation has improved transparency and accessibility of parliamentary proceedings. - Committee Effectiveness
Parliamentary Committees continue to perform valuable scrutiny in many areas. - Political Nature of Democracy
Some disruptions reflect legitimate democratic protest and opposition. - Institutional Resilience
Parliament remains the principal forum for constitutional governance.
Key Reform Suggestions:
- National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC, 2002): Recommended strengthening Parliamentary Committees, increasing sittings and improving legislative scrutiny.
- Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC): Recommended greater accountability, ethics and committee oversight.
- Subhash C. Kashyap: Advocated restoring Parliament’s deliberative character through longer sessions, better research support for MPs and stricter enforcement of parliamentary discipline.
Way forward:
- Strengthening parliamentary committees can improve legislative scrutiny.
- Increasing sitting days can enhance accountability and deliberation.
- Greater consultation before legislation can improve policy quality.
- Digital Parliament can improve transparency and citizen engagement.
- Strengthening opposition participation and parliamentary ethics can restore institutional credibility.
Conclusion
Parliament remains the cornerstone of India’s democracy. Revitalising deliberation, strengthening committees, ensuring executive accountability and improving legislative scrutiny are essential to preserve constitutional governance and representative democracy.
Subhash C. Kashyap: “Parliament is not merely a law-making body; it is the grand inquest of the nation.”
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), analysed by Paul H. Appleby, Subhash C. Kashyap, and Rajni Kothari, is the nerve centre of executive governance, assisting the Prime Minister in policy formulation and coordination.
The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is the principal executive office that assists the Prime Minister in policy formulation, administration, coordination and implementation. It acts as the central coordinating institution between the Prime Minister, the Council of Ministers, ministries, constitutional bodies and the bureaucracy.
Evolution of the PMO
- 1947–1964 (Nehru): Policy advisory and coordination role.
- 1966–1977 (Indira Gandhi): PMO became the principal centre of executive decision-making.
- 1990s (Coalition Era): Greater emphasis on consensus-building and inter-ministerial coordination.
- 2014 onwards: Expanded use of technology, PRAGATI, Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), digital monitoring and centralized policy coordination.
Functions / Role
1. Policy Formulation
Assists the Prime Minister in framing national policies and strategic decisions.
2. Coordination
Coordinates the functioning of ministries, departments and central agencies.
3. Administrative Leadership
Monitors implementation of government programmes and flagship schemes.
4. Advisory Role
Provides research, analysis and expert advice on domestic and international issues.
5. Cabinet Support
Assists the Prime Minister in Cabinet meetings and inter-ministerial coordination.
6. Crisis Management
Coordinates the government’s response during wars, disasters, pandemics and national emergencies.
7. International Affairs
Supports the Prime Minister in foreign policy, diplomacy and international negotiations.
Significance:
- Ensures Policy Coordination
Facilitates effective coordination among ministries and departments. - Strengthens Executive Efficiency
Improves implementation, monitoring and decision-making. - Supports National Leadership
Provides institutional support to the Prime Minister. - Enhances Crisis Response
Enables quick and coordinated governmental action during emergencies. - Promotes Administrative Accountability
Monitors flagship programmes and governance outcomes.
Criticism / Limitations:
- Excessive Centralisation
Growing concentration of decision-making may reduce ministerial autonomy. - Cabinet Marginalisation
The PMO’s influence may weaken collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers. - Bureaucratic Overlap
Functions sometimes overlap with the Cabinet Secretariat and line ministries. - Limited Parliamentary Accountability
The PMO is not directly accountable to Parliament as an independent constitutional institution. - Personalisation of Governance
Its influence often depends on the leadership style of the incumbent Prime Minister.
PMO vs Cabinet Secretariat
PMO | Cabinet Secretariat |
Political executive office of the Prime Minister | Administrative secretariat of the Cabinet |
Assists the Prime Minister | Assists the Cabinet collectively |
Policy formulation and strategic coordination | Cabinet agenda, implementation and inter-ministerial coordination |
Headed by the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister | Headed by the Cabinet Secretary |
Relevance in the 21st Century:
- Coordinates digital governance and e-governance initiatives.
- Monitors national flagship programmes through technology-driven dashboards.
- Strengthens disaster management, health security and national crisis response.
- Facilitates strategic decision-making on economic reforms and foreign policy.
- Supports whole-of-government governance through inter-ministerial coordination.
Conclusion:
The PMO remains indispensable for effective executive governance. Strengthening transparency, institutional coordination and accountability while preserving collective cabinet responsibility will enhance democratic and administrative efficiency.
Subhash C. Kashyap: “The Prime Minister’s Office has emerged as the nerve centre of the Union executive, ensuring coherence, coordination and continuity in governance.”
Judicial Activism, associated with Justice P.N. Bhagwati, and Judicial Restraint, advocated by James Bradley Thayer and Felix Frankfurter, represent contrasting philosophies regarding the judiciary’s role in constitutional governance.
Meaning:
Judicial Activism is a proactive approach where courts expand constitutional interpretation to protect rights, promote social justice and fill governance gaps. Judicial Restraint is a philosophy that courts should exercise self-restraint, intervening only when there is a clear constitutional or legal violation, while respecting the roles of the legislature and executive.
Comparison
Basis | Judicial Activism | Judicial Restraint |
Meaning | Proactive judicial intervention to uphold constitutional values | Limited judicial intervention respecting other organs of government |
Approach | Broad and dynamic interpretation of the Constitution | Strict and cautious interpretation of constitutional provisions |
Role of Judiciary | Active guardian of rights and public interest | Neutral constitutional interpreter |
Intervention | Frequent intervention in governance when necessary | Intervention only in cases of clear constitutional violation |
Objective | Protect justice, rights and constitutional values | Preserve separation of powers and democratic accountability |
View of Legislature | Corrects legislative or executive failures | Defers to the wisdom of elected institutions |
Landmark Cases:
Judicial Activism | Judicial Restraint |
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) – Expanded Article 21 through liberal interpretation. | A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) – Adopted a narrow interpretation of Fundamental Rights. |
Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997) – Framed workplace sexual harassment guidelines in the absence of legislation. | Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass (2007) – Warned against judicial overreach. |
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) – Recognised the Right to Livelihood under Article 21. | S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) – Reiterated that courts should avoid performing executive or legislative functions. |
Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) – Expanded constitutional rights through progressive interpretation. | BALCO Employees’ Union v. Union of India (2002) – Held that economic policy is primarily for the executive and legislature unless unconstitutional. |
Opinions:
Scholar | Contribution |
Justice P.N. Bhagwati | Expanded Judicial Activism through Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and liberal interpretation of Fundamental Rights. |
James Bradley Thayer | Advocated judicial restraint, arguing courts should invalidate laws only when unconstitutionality is clear. |
Felix Frankfurter | Emphasised judicial self-restraint and institutional respect for the legislature and executive. |
Significance
- Protects Constitutional Values
Judicial activism safeguards Fundamental Rights, while judicial restraint preserves constitutional balance. - Strengthens Rule of Law
Both ensure governance remains within constitutional limits. - Promotes Democratic Governance
Activism protects citizens; restraint respects democratic institutions. - Ensures Institutional Accountability
Judicial activism checks arbitrary actions, while restraint prevents judicial overreach. - Balances Constitutional Powers
Together they maintain equilibrium among the three organs of government.
Criticism / Limitations
- Judicial Activism
May result in judicial overreach and encroachment upon legislative or executive functions. - Judicial Restraint
Excessive restraint may permit unconstitutional actions to continue. - Subjective Boundaries
The distinction between activism and restraint is often difficult to define. - Democratic Concerns
Activism may weaken representative democracy by overriding elected institutions. - Institutional Conflicts
Frequent intervention may create tensions between the judiciary and the other branches.
Relevance in the 21st Century
- Judicial activism protects privacy, environmental rights and digital freedoms.
- Judicial restraint respects policy choices in economic and administrative matters.
- Both guide adjudication on AI, data protection and emerging technologies.
- Balance is essential for maintaining judicial credibility and constitutional governance.
- Together they strengthen checks and balances in India’s constitutional democracy.
Conclusion
Judicial activism and judicial restraint are complementary constitutional philosophies. A balanced judiciary should actively protect constitutional rights while respecting democratic institutions, ensuring accountability without undermining separation of powers.
Justice P.N. Bhagwati: “Judicial activism is an indispensable mechanism for making the rights of the poor and disadvantaged meaningful.”
Justice Felix Frankfurter: “The highest exercise of judicial duty is judicial restraint.”
