Standing Committees in the Indian Parliament: Structure, Functions, and Importance

1. Introduction

In a modern representative democracy, the legislature is tasked with a monumental double-burden: enacting complex, technically demanding laws, and keeping a watchful eye on an ever-expanding executive machinery. The Indian Parliament, comprised of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha, meets for a limited number of days each year (averaging 50–60 sittings annually in recent times). Given these constraints of time, size, and technical expertise, the floor of the House is often unsuitable for the meticulous, clause-by-clause scrutiny of bills, the dissecting of budgetary demands, or the evaluation of departmental performance.

To bridge this institutional gap, Parliament delegates detailed tasks to specialized, smaller bodies known as Parliamentary Committees. Within this ecosystem, Standing Committees serve as the permanent, structural backbone of parliamentary oversight. Often referred to as "Mini-Parliaments" or "the hidden legislature", these committees operate outside the glare of media attention and party polarization. They offer a bipartisan, deliberate, and expert forum where the actual work of democratic governance is analyzed, refined, and held to account.

Definition of a Parliamentary Committee

Under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business of both Houses, a committee is recognized as a "Parliamentary Committee" only if it satisfies four distinct criteria:

1. It must be appointed or elected by the House or nominated by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha / Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
2. It must work under the direction of the Speaker / Chairman.
3. It must present its report to the House or to the Speaker / Chairman.
4. Its Secretariat must be provided by the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

Standing vs. Ad Hoc Committees

Parliamentary committees are broadly classified into two categories:

                      ┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
                      │        Parliamentary Committees       │
                      └───────────────────┬───────────────────┘
                                          │
                  ┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐
                  ▼                                               ▼
     ┌────────────────────────┐                      ┌────────────────────────┐
     │  Standing Committees   │                      │   Ad Hoc Committees    │
     │      (Permanent)       │                      │      (Temporary)       │
     └────────────┬───────────┘                      └────────────┬───────────┘
                  │                                               │
      Reconstituted annually;                         Created for a specific
      continuous existence.                           task; dissolved upon
      Examples: Financial Committees,                 report submission.
      DRSCs, Ethics Committee.                        Examples: JPC on Bills,
                                                      Select Committees.

• Standing Committees (Permanent): These are permanent bodies constituted periodically (usually every year). They work continuously and are essential to the regular transaction of parliamentary business.
• Ad Hoc Committees (Temporary): These are created for a specific purpose and cease to exist once they complete their assigned task and submit their report. Examples include Select or Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) constituted to examine a specific, controversial bill (such as the Joint Committee on the Personal Data Protection Bill, 2019).

2. Historical and Constitutional Background

Constitutional Underpinnings

The Constitution of India does not explicitly detail the structure or names of individual parliamentary committees. Instead, it provides the constitutional authority and protection for their existence:

• Article 105: Deals with the powers, privileges, and immunities of the Houses of Parliament, as well as those of their members and committees. This article ensures that committee proceedings enjoy the same constitutional immunity from judicial interference as the proceedings on the floor of the House itself.
• Article 118(1): Empowers each House of Parliament to make rules for regulating its procedure and the conduct of its business. Under this authority, the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha have formulated detailed rules (Rules 253 to 331 in Lok Sabha, and Rules 187 to 222 in Rajya Sabha) establishing and governing various committees.

Pre-Independence & Post-Independence Evolution

The committee system in India is an evolutionary product of the Westminster model, adapted over several decades:

1. Colonial Genesis (GoI Act 1919): The first Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was established in India in 1921 under the provisions of the Montague-Chelmsford Reforms (Government of India Act, 1919). This set the historical precedent for legislative audit of executive spending.
2. Post-Independence Reforms (1950s):
   • The Estimates Committee was first set up in 1950 on the recommendation of John Matthai, the then Finance Minister.
   • In 1964, on the recommendation of the Krishna Menon Committee, the Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU) was established to oversee the burgeoning public sector.
3. The 1993 Watershed (DRSCs): Prior to 1993, the committee system was heavily dominated by audit and administrative committees, with no systemic mechanism to review individual departmental policies, demands for grants, or legislations. In 1993, Parliament took a historic leap by introducing 17 Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs).
4. Expansion in 2004: In 2004, the number of DRSCs was expanded from 17 to 24 (16 working under the Lok Sabha and 8 under the Rajya Sabha) to cover all ministries and departments of the Central Government.

3. Classifications & Key Provisions

Parliamentary Standing Committees can be classified into six functional categories.

                               ┌───────────────────────────────────────────┐
                               │       Parliamentary Standing Committees   │
                               └─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┘
                                                     │
         ┌───────────────┬───────────────┬───────────┴───┬───────────────┬───────────────┐
         ▼               ▼               ▼               ▼               ▼               ▼
     Financial     Departmentally   Committees      Committees      Committees     House-Keeping /
    Committees        Related        to Inquire    to Scrutinize    Relating to       Service
     (PAC, COPU,     Standing       (Petitions,     & Control        Day-to-Day      Committees
     Estimates)     Committees      Privileges,    (Subordinate      Business       (Library, Joint
                     (DRSCs)          Ethics)      Legislation)     (Rules, BAC)      Salaries)

A. The Financial Committees (The Financial Trinity)

These are the most powerful standing committees in Parliament. They focus on post-facto financial audit, pre-budgetary estimation, and commercial evaluation.

1. Public Accounts Committee (PAC)

• Origin: 1921 (GoI Act 1919).
• Composition: 22 Members (15 from Lok Sabha, 7 from Rajya Sabha).
• Mode of Election: Elected annually by both Houses from amongst their members according to the principle of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote. This ensures that all political parties find representation on the committee in proportion to their strength in Parliament.
• Ministerial Bar: A minister cannot be elected as a member. If a member, after election to the committee, is appointed as a minister, they cease to be a member from the date of such appointment.
• Chairman: Appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha from amongst its members. By a well-established convention since 1967, the Chairman of the PAC is always selected from the Opposition.
• Key Function: To examine the appropriation accounts showing the appropriation of sums granted by Parliament for the expenditure of the Government of India, the annual finance accounts of the Government, and the audit reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG).

2. Estimates Committee

• Origin: 1950 (John Matthai recommendation).
• Composition: 30 Members (Crucially, all 30 members must be from the Lok Sabha; the Rajya Sabha has no representation on this committee).
• Mode of Election: Elected annually by the Lok Sabha using proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote.
• Ministerial Bar: A minister cannot be elected as a member.
• Chairman: Appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. He is invariably from the ruling party.
• Key Function: To report what economies, improvements in organization, efficiency, or administrative reform consistent with the policy underlying the estimates may be effected. It is frequently termed the "Continuous Economy Committee" because of its ongoing evaluation of financial estimates.

3. Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU)

• Origin: 1964 (Krishna Menon Committee recommendation).
• Composition: 22 Members (15 from Lok Sabha, 7 from Rajya Sabha).
• Mode of Election: Elected annually by both Houses using proportional representation.
• Ministerial Bar: A minister cannot be elected as a member.
• Chairman: Appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha from amongst the Lok Sabha members of the committee. (Members from the Rajya Sabha cannot be appointed as its Chairman).
• Key Function: To examine the reports and accounts of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and the CAG audit reports on public undertakings to ensure they are managed in accordance with sound business principles and prudent commercial practices.

Comparison of the Financial Trinity

B. Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs)

Introduced to secure administrative accountability to the legislature, there are currently 24 DRSCs.

• Jurisdiction: 16 work under the direction of the Speaker of the Lok Sabha; 8 work under the direction of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. Each committee covers specific ministries (e.g., the Standing Committee on Finance covers the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Planning, and NITI Aayog).
• Composition: Each DRSC consists of 31 members (21 from Lok Sabha and 10 from Rajya Sabha).
• Method of Selection: Unlike the financial committees, members of DRSCs are nominated by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha respectively, in proportion to the strength of political parties in each House.
• Ministerial Bar: A minister is not eligible to be nominated as a member.
• Term: 1 Year.

Distribution of the 24 DRSCs:

                                  ┌──────────────────────────┐
                                  │         24 DRSCs         │
                                  └────────────┬─────────────┘
                                               │
                        ┌──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┐
                        ▼                                             ▼
         ┌──────────────────────────────┐              ┌──────────────────────────────┐
         │     Under Rajya Sabha (8)     │              │     Under Lok Sabha (16)     │
         └──────────────┬───────────────┘              └──────────────┬───────────────┘
                        │                                             │
         - Commerce                                    - Agriculture, Animal Husbandry
         - Home Affairs                                - Information Technology
         - Human Resource Development                  - Defence
         - Industry                                    - Energy
         - Science & Technology                        - External Affairs
         - Transport, Tourism & Culture                - Finance
         - Health & Family Welfare                     - Food, Consumer Affairs
         - Personnel, Public Grievances,               - Labour, Textiles
           Law & Justice                               - Petroleum & Natural Gas
                                                       - Railways
                                                       - Urban Development
                                                       - Water Resources
                                                       - Chemicals & Fertilizers
                                                       - Rural Development
                                                       - Coal, Mines and Steel
                                                       - Social Justice & Empowerment

C. Other Crucial Standing Committees

Apart from financial and departmental committees, Parliament operates several other standing committees to manage internal administration, ethics, and specific legislative scrutiny.

1. Committees to Inquire

• Committee on Petitions: Examines petitions submitted to the House on bills or any matters of public importance. (LS: 15 members; RS: 10 members).
• Committee of Privileges: Investigates cases of breach of privilege of the House, its members, or its committees, and recommends action. (LS: 15 members; RS: 10 members).
• Ethics Committee: Examines complaints relating to unethical conduct of members and enforces the Code of Conduct. (LS: 15 members; RS: 10 members).

2. Committees to Scrutinize & Control

• Committee on Subordinate Legislation: Evaluates whether the powers to make rules, regulations, sub-rules, and bye-laws delegated by Parliament to the executive are being properly exercised within the limits of such delegation. (LS: 15 members; RS: 15 members).
• Committee on Government Assurances: Tracks and scrutinizes the assurances, promises, and undertakings given by Ministers on the floor of the House from time to time, reporting on the extent to which they have been implemented. (LS: 15 members; RS: 10 members).
• Committee on Papers Laid on the Table: Examines all papers laid on the table of the House by ministers to verify if they comply with constitutional provisions and rules. (LS: 15 members; RS: 10 members).

3. Committees Relating to Day-to-Day Business

• Business Advisory Committee (BAC): Regulates the program and timetable of the House. The Speaker is the ex-officio Chairman of the LS BAC (15 members), and the Chairman is the ex-officio Chairman of the RS BAC (11 members).
• Rules Committee: Considers matters of procedure and conduct of business in the House and suggests amendments to rules. Chaired by the presiding officers of the respective Houses.

4. Institutional Framework & Core Functions

The Parliamentary Standing Committees serve as the working engines of the legislature. Their function can be categorized into three pillars of democratic governance: Financial Oversight, Legislative Scrutiny, and Administrative Accountability.

                  ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │          The Triple Pillars of Committee Work          │
                  └───────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                              │
         ┌────────────────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────────────┐
         ▼                                    ▼                                    ▼
┌──────────────────┐                 ┌──────────────────┐                 ┌──────────────────┐
│Financial Audit & │                 │  Legislative &   │                 │  Administrative  │
│ Budget Scrutiny  │                 │ Policy Scrutiny  │                 │   Oversight      │
└────────┬─────────┘                 └────────┬─────────┘                 └────────┬─────────┘
         │                                    │                                    │
 - Analysis of Demands                - Clause-by-clause                   - Reviews policies,
   for Grants by DRSCs.                 dissection of bills.                 performance, and
 - Post-expenditure                   - Public consultations                 assurances.
   audit (PAC, COPU).                   & expert hearings.                 - Systemic feedback.

Pillar I: Financial Audit and Budgetary Scrutiny

In a parliamentary system, "power of the purse" lies with the legislature. The budget is presented, but due to time constraints, the entire budget cannot be debated on the floor of the House. This is where DRSCs step in:

1. Scrutiny of Demands for Grants: After the general discussion on the Union Budget on the floor of the House is completed, both Houses adjourn for a specific period (usually 3 to 4 weeks).
2. During this recess, the 24 DRSCs carefully examine the Demands for Grants of their respective ministries.
3. The committees write detailed reports suggesting modifications, highlighting unnecessary expenses, and evaluating fiscal efficiency.
4. When the Houses reassemble, the Demands for Grants are voted on in the light of these committee reports. This prevents the "Guillotine" (passing demands without discussion) from completely eroding parliamentary control over finance.
5. Post-Expenditure Control: After the money is spent, the PAC and COPU act as audit watchdogs. They trace waste, corruption, and inefficiency in the public accounts based on findings provided by the CAG.

Pillar II: Legislative Scrutiny and Public Engagement

When bills are introduced in Parliament, they are often drafted by executive bureaucrats. Without committees, bills would be rushed into law based on the executive’s majority.

• Detailed Dissection: Committees examine the bills clause-by-clause.
• Bipartisan Atmosphere: Unlike the floor of the House, which is highly adversarial, committee meetings are conducted in camera (closed to the media and public). This permits members from both the ruling party and the opposition to speak frankly, build consensus, and suggest changes without being accused of breaking party ranks on television.
• Public and Expert Consultations: Committees routinely publish advertisements in newspapers and online portals, inviting memoranda and suggestions from civil society, industry bodies, legal scholars, and affected citizens. They have the power to summon experts, activists, and bureaucrats as witnesses.

Case in Point: The Anti-Maritime Piracy Bill, 2019 initially mandated a strict death penalty for piracy. The Standing Committee on External Affairs pointed out that a mandatory death penalty violated fundamental rights (citing Supreme Court jurisprudence). It recommended modifying the penalty to "life imprisonment or death", which was accepted by Parliament and incorporated into the final Act.

Pillar III: Administrative Oversight and Accountability

The executive runs the day-to-day administration. Standing committees act as constant observers. Through annual reports, examining national long-term policy documents, and calling for action-taken reports (ATRs), committees ensure that administrative promises are translated into actual policy output.

5. Judicial Interpretations & Constitutional Perspectives

The relationship between the judiciary and parliamentary committees has been clarified through crucial constitutional benches of the Supreme Court of India.

Landmark Case: Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India (2018)

This case dealt with a critical constitutional question: Can a report of a Parliamentary Standing Committee be referred to and relied upon by the Supreme Court in public interest litigations (PILs) or general judicial proceedings?

The respondents argued that relying on committee reports in court would violate Article 105 (parliamentary privilege) and lead to the judiciary scrutinizing or questioning the work of Parliament.

The Ruling of the Supreme Court:

1. Admissibility of Reports: The Supreme Court ruled that parliamentary committee reports can be referred to and relied upon by courts as an external aid to legislative interpretation.
2. Fact-Finding and Historical Context: The court can use these reports to understand the historical context of a law, the mischief it seeks to remedy, and the factual data collected by the committee.
3. The Principle of Non-Contestation: However, the court cannot permit a party to challenge the validity of the facts or the conclusions stated in the committee report. No one can cross-examine a committee report or challenge the credibility of the committee's findings in court, as doing so would violate the independence of Parliament.
4. No Breach of Privilege: Merely referring to or placing reliance on a committee report as historical or factual background does not constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege, nor does it violate the doctrine of separation of powers.

6. Contemporary Challenges and Criticisms

Despite their stellar contributions, the parliamentary committee system in India has witnessed a structural and operational decline, drawing criticism from scholars and parliamentarians alike.

1. The Steep Decline in Bill Referrals

The most prominent challenge is the increasing tendency of the executive to bypass standing committees when enacting major laws. Historically, most bills underwent committee scrutiny. However, recent data highlights a stark decline:

Percentage of Bills Referred to Committees across successive Lok Sabhas:

  75% ─────────────────────────────────────────────────── 71%
  60% ─── 60% ───────────────────────────────────────────
  45% ───────────────────────────────────────────────────
  30% ─────────────────────────────────── 27% ─────────── 26%
  15% ───────────────────────────────────────────────────
   0% ───────────────────────────────────────────────────
         14th LS        15th LS        16th LS        18th LS (so far)*
        (2004-09)      (2009-14)      (2014-19)      (As of 2026)

*Note: The 17th Lok Sabha (2019-24) saw a further dip to ~13-16% of bills referred. 
In the 18th Lok Sabha, while the rate has rebounded slightly to 26% (11 of 42 bills), 
scarcely any have gone to standard DRSCs; instead, controversial bills were routed 
to Ad-hoc JPCs (e.g., Wakf Amendment Bill).

• 14th Lok Sabha: 60% of bills referred to committees.
• 15th Lok Sabha: 71% of bills referred to committees.
• 16th Lok Sabha: 27% of bills referred to committees.
• 17th Lok Sabha: ~13–16% of bills referred to committees.
• 18th Lok Sabha (Current Era - 2024 to 2026): Around 26% (11 of 42 bills) have been referred to committees. However, analysts point out that almost all of these have been referred to Ad-hoc Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) (such as those examining the Wakf Amendment Bill, 2024 and simultaneous elections bills), while the standard Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs) have been largely bypassed.

This "rushing" of laws through Parliament without detailed committee checks (such as the sweeping VN-GRAM G Bill in the 2025 Winter Session) often results in poorly drafted laws that require frequent judicial intervention or spark widespread public protests.

2. Operational Obstacles

• Short Tenure: The tenure of DRSCs is only one year. By the time a member acquires a deeper grasp of the technical details of a ministry (such as Defense or Space Technology), the committee is reconstituted, and they are shifted to a different department. This prevents the development of specialization.
• Lack of Dedicated Research Support: Unlike the United States Congress, which has access to the highly specialized and well-funded Congressional Research Service (CRS), Indian standing committees lack high-quality, independent technical experts and legal draftsmen. They rely almost entirely on the administrative staff of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha secretariats, who are generalists.
• Advisory Nature of Recommendations: The recommendations of these committees are strictly advisory. The government is under no legal obligation to accept them; it merely has to submit an Action Taken Report (ATR) explaining why it rejected or accepted the recommendations.
• Absenteeism and Low Participation: The average attendance of members in key committee meetings often hovers around 50–53%. Many MPs prioritize local constituency work, political campaigning, or party events over technical, closed-door committee deliberations.
• Lack of Public Transparency: While closed-door proceedings encourage free debate, the absolute lack of transparency means the public never knows how their elected representative voted or argued inside a committee room.

7. Comparative Perspective: India vs. UK vs. US

The power and autonomy of the committee system vary significantly across democratic models:

8. Reforms & Way Forward

To restore the vigor of the parliamentary committee system and ensure executive accountability, several constitutional and procedural reforms are urgently required:

1. Mandatory Referral of Bills: The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) recommended that the rules of procedure should be amended to make the referral of all bills (except minor, purely financial, or urgent bills) to the relevant DRSC obligatory. This should not be left to the sole discretion of the Speaker, Chairman, or the ruling executive.
2. Extending the Tenure of Members: The term of office for committee members should be increased from one year to two or three years, or aligned with the full term of the House. This would enable MPs to develop deep expertise, domain knowledge, and institutional memory regarding their respective ministries.
3. Establishing a Parliamentary Research Bureau: Similar to the CRS in the US, India should establish a well-funded, independent Parliamentary Research Bureau comprised of lawyers, scientists, economists, and public policy experts. These specialists should be attached directly to the DRSCs to help them analyze complex policy issues and draft counter-legislative proposals.
4. Mandatory Discussion of Committee Reports: Currently, committee reports are merely "tabled" in Parliament and rarely debated on the floor of the House. There should be dedicated hours allocated in the parliamentary calendar to debate the findings and recommendations of key standing committee reports.
5. Publishing Non-Sensitive Proceedings: To improve public trust and democratic participation, non-sensitive committee discussions, written submissions from experts, and voting records of members should be made accessible to the public via digital portals such as the National e-Vidhan Application (NeVA).

9. Practice Questions & Answers (Interactive Q&A)

Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs)

Q1. Which of the following statements regarding the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is/are CORRECT?

1. It consists of 30 members, all elected from the Lok Sabha.
2. Its Chairman is appointed by the Speaker from the ruling party.
3. A minister can be elected as a member of the committee. Select the correct code: A) 1 and 2 only
   B) 2 and 3 only
   C) 1, 2, and 3
   D) None of the above

• Answer: D) None of the above
• Explanation:
  1. The PAC consists of 22 members (15 from Lok Sabha, 7 from Rajya Sabha), not 30. (The Estimates Committee has 30 members, all from Lok Sabha).
  2. By convention, the Chairman of the PAC is appointed from the Opposition, not the ruling party.
  3. A minister is strictly ineligible to be elected as a member of the PAC.

Q2. Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs) were introduced in the Indian Parliament in which year, and how many such committees exist today? A) 1950; 17 committees
B) 1993; 24 committees
C) 1993; 17 committees
D) 2004; 24 committees

• Answer: B) 1993; 24 committees
• Explanation: DRSCs were first introduced in 1993 with 17 committees. In 2004, they were expanded to 24 committees (16 under Lok Sabha and 8 under Rajya Sabha) to cover all departments of the central government.

Q3. Consider the following statements about the Estimates Committee:

1. It is frequently referred to as the 'Continuous Economy Committee'.
2. Its members are nominated by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.
3. Rajya Sabha has no representation on this committee. Which of the statements given above is/are CORRECT? A) 1 only
   B) 1 and 3 only
   C) 2 and 3 only
   D) 1, 2, and 3

• Answer: B) 1 and 3 only
• Explanation: Statement 1 is correct; it suggests economies and efficiency measures in proposed expenditures. Statement 3 is correct; all 30 members of the Estimates Committee are elected only from the Lok Sabha. Rajya Sabha has no representation. Consequently, Statement 2 is incorrect as the Rajya Sabha Chairman has no role in selecting its members.

Chronology Exercise

Arrange the following parliamentary committee-related milestones in chronological order (from the earliest to the latest):

1. Recommendation of the John Matthai Committee to establish the Estimates Committee.
2. Establishment of the first Public Accounts Committee (PAC) under colonial rule.
3. Setting up of 17 Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs).
4. Recommendation of the Krishna Menon Committee to establish the Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU).

Select the correct code: A) 2 — 1 — 4 — 3
B) 1 — 2 — 4 — 3
C) 2 — 4 — 1 — 3
D) 1 — 4 — 2 — 3

• Answer: A) 2 — 1 — 4 — 3
• Explanation:
  • 2 (1921): First Public Accounts Committee established under the Government of India Act, 1919.
  • 1 (1950): Estimates Committee set up on the recommendation of Finance Minister John Matthai.
  • 4 (1964): COPU established on the recommendation of the Krishna Menon Committee.
  • 3 (1993): Introduction of the 17 Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs).

Scenario-Based Critical Thinking Questions

Scenario A:

A highly controversial National Security Bill is introduced in the Lok Sabha. The opposition demands that the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Home Affairs for detailed public consultations. However, the ruling government, using its absolute majority on the floor of the House, passes the Bill within three days without referring it to any committee. The opposition files a petition in the Supreme Court, arguing that bypassing the standing committee violates procedural democracy and renders the law unconstitutional.

Analyze the constitutional validity of the opposition's challenge. What would be the Supreme Court’s stance based on constitutional provisions and precedents?

Analysis & Solution:

1. Procedural Autonomy of Parliament (Article 122): The primary constitutional defense for the government lies in Article 122(1) of the Constitution of India, which states that "the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be called in question on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure."
2. Discretionary Power of Referral: Under the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Parliament, there is no mandatory constitutional or statutory provision requiring every bill to be referred to a Standing Committee. Referral is entirely discretionary and lies with the Speaker of the Lok Sabha / Chairman of the Rajya Sabha, or is determined by a vote of the House.
3. Judicial Stance: The Supreme Court would likely dismiss the opposition's petition regarding the unconstitutionality of the law on this specific ground. The Court has repeatedly affirmed that it will not interfere in the internal proceedings or procedural decisions of Parliament unless there is a flagrant violation of constitutional provisions or fundamental rights. Bypassing a committee, while democratically undesirable and a violation of healthy parliamentary conventions, is a procedural choice within the absolute domain of Parliament.

Scenario B:

A member of the Lok Sabha is appointed as the Minister of State for Finance. At the time of their appointment, they are an active, elected member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The Minister argues that since they are now in the Finance Ministry, they can bring valuable executive insight and accelerate the resolution of audit objections raised by the CAG, and therefore, they should be allowed to continue as a member of the PAC.

Is the Minister's position legally and procedurally tenable under the Rules of Parliament? Why or why not?

Analysis & Solution:

1. The Principle of Separation and Executive Accountability: The Minister's position is procedurally and legally untenable.
2. Strict Procedural Bar: Under the rules of both Houses of Parliament, a minister is strictly barred from being elected as a member of key financial and departmental committees (including the PAC, Estimates Committee, COPU, and all 24 DRSCs).
3. Automatic Cessation: If an existing member of these committees is appointed as a minister, they automatically cease to be a member of the committee from the date of their appointment.
4. Conflict of Interest: The primary role of the PAC is to examine the expenditures of the executive and hold ministers and departmental heads accountable. Allowing a minister to sit on a committee that audits their own department’s spending would create an irreconcilable conflict of interest, completely destroying the principle of legislative oversight of the executive.

Recommended Books

You can explore these highly recommended resources for a deeper understanding.

• Indian Polity (English) by M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE 2025 | 7th edition (latest) | Civil Services Exam - Prelims, Mains and Interview | State PSCs exams/ PCS exams - by M Laxmikanth
• Oswaal NCERT One For All Book for UPSC & State PSCs | Indian Polity Classes 6-12 - by Oswaal Editorial Board
• Bharat Ki Rajvyavastha (भारत की राजव्यवस्था) - M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE