Understanding Parliamentary Committees: Structure and Functioning in India (Part 01)

The Indian Parliament is a majestic and sprawling institution, embodying the sovereign will of more than 1.4 billion people. Yet, beneath the high-octane debates, the thumping of desks, and the dramatic walkouts broadcast on television, lies a quieter, more deliberative, and highly efficient engine of governance: the Parliamentary Committee System.

Often described as "mini-parliaments" or "the eyes, ears, and hands of the Legislature," these committees perform the heavy lifting of lawmaking and executive oversight. This comprehensive guide (Part 01) deconstructs the foundational framework, historical evolution, classification, and detailed functioning of India's parliamentary committees, with a special emphasis on the Financial Triad and Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs).

1. Introduction: The Concept of a "Mini-Parliament"

In a representative democracy, the executive is continuously accountable to the legislature. However, the plenary floor of the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha is not always the most conducive environment for detailed, technical, and dispassionate scrutiny of laws and public finances. Several structural constraints necessitate a committee system:

• Workload and Time Constraints: The volume of legislative business is massive, while the time available during parliamentary sessions is severely limited.
• Technical Complexity: Modern governance involves highly specialized subjects—ranging from artificial intelligence regulations to complex fiscal policies—which require deep expert consultation.
• Political Polarization: Floor debates are highly publicized and prone to grandstanding. Committee meetings, being held in camera (closed-door), allow MPs from opposing political parties to transcend partisan divides and engage in pragmatic, consensus-driven deliberations.
• Continuous Oversight: While Parliament meets periodically in three sessions, committees function throughout the year, ensuring uninterrupted oversight of the executive.

Thus, the committee system acts as a microcosm of the larger House—mirroring its party composition but operating in a highly professional, expert-driven, and non-partisan environment.

2. Constitutional Foundations & Definitions

What Constitutes a "Parliamentary Committee"?

Not every committee appointed by the government or even by Parliament is a "Parliamentary Committee" in the strict constitutional-legal sense. To qualify as a Parliamentary Committee under the Rules of Procedure, a committee must satisfy four essential criteria:

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│             PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE CRITERIA             │
├──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ 1. Appointed/elected by the House or nominated by the    │
│    Presiding Officer (Speaker/Chairman)                  │
│                                                          │
│ 2. Works under the direct guidance of the Presiding      │
│    Officer                                               │
│                                                          │
│ 3. Presents its report directly to the House or to the   │
│    Presiding Officer                                     │
│                                                          │
│ 4. Provided with a Secretariat by the Lok Sabha or       │
│    the Rajya Sabha                                       │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

If a body does not meet these criteria (for example, a committee appointed by a Ministry, such as the Kirit Parikh Committee on gas pricing), it is classified as a Governmental / Consultative Committee, not a Parliamentary Committee.

Constitutional Provisions

While the Constitution of India does not explicitly detail the structure of individual committees, it establishes their foundational authority through two critical articles:

• Article 105 (Powers, Privileges, etc.): Sub-clause (3) protects the privileges, powers, and immunities of the members of Parliament and "the committees of either House." It ensures that no member can be held liable in a court of law for anything said or any vote given in a committee of Parliament.
• Article 118(1) (Rules of Procedure): This article empowers each House of Parliament to make rules for regulating its procedure and the conduct of its business. The elaborate system of standing and ad-hoc committees is a direct creation of the Rules of Lok Sabha and Rules of Rajya Sabha formulated under this article.

3. Historical Evolution

The history of India's parliamentary committees is deeply intertwined with the evolution of self-governance and representative institutions under British rule.

Pre-Independence Era

• The 1919 Reforms: Under the Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms (codified in the Government of India Act, 1919), the first legislative committees were introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly.
• Origins of the PAC (1921): The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) was first established in India in 1921. During this period, the committee was presided over by the Finance Member of the Governor-General’s Executive Council, and its secretariat was provided by the Finance Department—meaning it lacked complete legislative independence.
• The 1935 Act: The Government of India Act, 1935, further expanded the scope of legislative committees, recognizing their role in supervising provincial budgets and executive actions.

Post-Independence Era

Following independence, the Constituent Assembly (Legislative) adopted and adapted these committees to suit a sovereign, democratic republic:

• Sovereign Transition: The Public Accounts Committee was freed from executive control in 1950, and its chairmanship was handed over to a non-official member appointed by the Speaker.
• Introduction of the Estimates Committee (1950): On the recommendation of India’s first Finance Minister, John Mathai, the Estimates Committee was established to analyze government spending proposals.
• Committee on Public Undertakings (1964): With the rapid expansion of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) under the Nehruvian socialist model, the Krishna Menon Committee recommended a dedicated oversight body, leading to the creation of the Committee on Public Undertakings (CoPU) in 1964.
• The 1993 Watershed Moment: Prior to 1993, Parliament lacked specialized committees to examine department-wise budgets and bills. On April 8, 1993, Parliament formally constituted 17 Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs). In 2004, this system was reorganized and expanded to 24 DRSCs, which remain the backbone of legislative scrutiny today.

4. Classification of Parliamentary Committees

Parliamentary committees are broadly divided into two major categories based on their durability and terms of reference: Standing Committees (permanent in nature) and Ad-hoc Committees (temporary/task-specific).

                                  PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES
                                             │
                      ┌──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┐
                      ▼                                             ▼
             STANDING COMMITTEES                            AD-HOC COMMITTEES
          (Permanent & Reconstituted)                     (Temporary & Specific)
                      │                                             │
    ┌─────────────────┼─────────────────┐                 ┌─────────┴─────────┐
    ▼                 ▼                 ▼                 ▼                   ▼
Financial         Departmental        Other             Inquiry             Advisory
Committees        Standing (DRSCs)  Committees        Committees          Committees
(PAC, Estimates,  (24 Committees)   (Rules, Ethics,   (e.g., Joint        (Select/Joint
 CoPU)                                Privileges)      Parliamentary       on Bills)
                                                       Committees - JPCs)

A. Standing Committees (Permanent)

These committees are constituted every year (or periodically) and work on a continuous basis. They are further categorized as:

1. Financial Committees:
   • Public Accounts Committee (PAC)
   • Estimates Committee
   • Committee on Public Undertakings (CoPU)
2. Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs): 24 specialized committees that monitor the functioning of various ministries.
3. Committees to Inquire:
   • Committee on Petitions: Examines petitions submitted to Parliament by citizens.
   • Committee of Privileges: Semi-judicial body that investigates breaches of parliamentary privilege.
   • Ethics Committee: Oversees the moral and ethical conduct of members.
4. Committees to Scrutinize and Control:
   • Committee on Government Assurances: Tracks whether promises made by Ministers on the floor of the House are fulfilled.
   • Committee on Subordinate Legislation: Scrutinizes whether the rules, regulations, and bylaws framed by the executive under statutory authority conform to the parent Act.
   • Committee on Papers Laid on the Table: Examines papers presented by the executive to ensure compliance with constitutional provisions.
5. Committees Relating to the Day-to-Day Business of the House:
   • Business Advisory Committee: Regulates the timetable and allocation of time for various discussions in the House.
   • Rules Committee: Considers matters of procedure and conducts business in the House.
6. Housekeeping / Service Committees: Deal with facilities, salaries, and welfare of MPs (e.g., House Committee, Library Committee).

B. Ad-hoc Committees (Temporary)

These committees are appointed for a specific purpose and cease to exist once they complete their task and submit their report. They are classified into:

1. Inquiry Committees: Constituted to investigate major financial, political, or administrative lapses (e.g., Joint Parliamentary Committees (JPCs) on stock market scams or security matters).
2. Advisory Committees: Set up to consider and report on specific Bills (Select or Joint Committees on Bills).

5. Deep Dive: The Financial Triad

The Financial Triad consists of three standing committees that act as the vanguard of parliamentary control over public finance: the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Estimates Committee, and the Committee on Public Undertakings (CoPU).

A. Public Accounts Committee (PAC)

The PAC is the oldest and most prestigious financial committee in India's Parliament. Its primary function is to audit the appropriation accounts of the government to ensure that money voted by Parliament was spent legally and for the exact purpose intended.

1. Composition and Selection

• Total Strength: 22 members (15 from Lok Sabha, 7 from Rajya Sabha).
• Election Mode: Elected annually from amongst the members of each House according to the system of proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote (STV). This ensures that opposition parties are fairly represented in proportion to their strength in Parliament.
• No Minister Allowed: To avoid a conflict of interest, a Minister of the Union government cannot be elected to the PAC. If a sitting member of the PAC is appointed as a Minister, they must vacate their seat on the committee from the date of such appointment.
• Term of Office: One year.
• The Chairman: The Chairman of the PAC is appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha from amongst its Lok Sabha members. Until 1967, the Chairman belonged to the ruling party. Since 1967, a healthy democratic convention has been established whereby the Chairman is invariably selected from the Opposition.

2. Scope and Functions

The PAC does not initiate audits on its own. Instead, it examines the audit reports submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India under Article 151 of the Constitution. Its investigations focus on:

• Appropriation Accounts: Verifying that money spent was legally available and did not exceed the sanctioned grant.
• Finance Accounts: Examining the annual accounts of revenue and expenditure of the Union.
• Audit Reports of the CAG: Scrutinizing the CAG's reports on revenue receipts, civil expenditure, and defense services.
• Identifying Financial Irregularities: Unearthing waste, corruption, inefficiency, and "re-appropriation" (shifting funds from one head of expenditure to another without authorization).

3. The Role of the CAG: Friend, Philosopher, and Guide

The relationship between the PAC and the CAG is highly collaborative. Because the CAG possesses the technical expertise to analyze government accounts, they attend the meetings of the PAC, help formulate questions for executive witnesses, and assist the committee in interpreting complex financial statements.

4. Critical Limitations of the PAC

• Post-Mortem in Nature: The PAC examines expenditure after it has been incurred. It can point out wastage but cannot prevent the money from being spent.
• Advisory Nature: Its recommendations are not legally binding on the government, though they carry immense moral and political weight.
• No Power of Execution: It cannot disallow expenditure or issue executive directions to departments; it can only report its findings to Parliament.
• Lack of Technical Staff: Apart from the CAG’s assistance, the PAC lacks a permanent, independent team of technical auditors and investigators.

B. Estimates Committee

Unlike the PAC, which acts as a post-facto auditor, the Estimates Committee is forward-looking. Its primary objective is to suggest economies, organizational improvements, and administrative reforms in the estimates of expenditure presented to Parliament. It is famously known as the "Continuous Economy Committee."

1. Composition and Selection

• Total Strength: 30 members.
• Exclusively from Lok Sabha: The Estimates Committee has no representation from the Rajya Sabha. This is rooted in the constitutional principle that the Lok Sabha has exclusive authority over financial matters (Money Bills, Demands for Grants) under Article 113.
• Election Mode: Elected annually via proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote (STV).
• No Minister Allowed: A Minister cannot be elected.
• Term of Office: One year.
• The Chairman: Appointed by the Speaker. By convention, the Chairman is always from the ruling party (or ruling coalition), which is considered appropriate since they analyze policy estimates prepared by the government.

2. Scope and Functions

• Promoting Administrative Economy: Reporting what economies, improvements in organization, efficiency, or administrative reforms consistent with the policy underlying the estimates can be effected.
• Suggesting Alternative Policies: To suggest alternative policies in order to bring about efficiency and economy in administration.
• Formulating Presentation Standards: To examine whether the money is well laid out within the limits of the policy implied in the estimates, and to suggest the form in which the estimates shall be presented to Parliament.

3. Critical Limitations

• Selective Scrutiny: Due to the scale of government departments, the Estimates Committee can only examine a few selected ministries each year. The rest of the estimates are voted on in the House without such specialized scrutiny.
• Policy Constraints: It cannot question the fundamental policy approved by Parliament; it can only suggest ways to implement that policy more economically.
• Post-Presentation Review: It examines the estimates only after they have been presented to Parliament, and its reports are often compiled after the budget has been voted on and passed. Thus, its recommendations apply primarily to future budgets.

C. Committee on Public Undertakings (CoPU)

CoPU was established in 1964 to ensure public accountability of commercial enterprises owned and run by the Government of India (e.g., LIC, ONGC, SAIL, BHEL).

1. Composition and Selection

• Total Strength: 22 members (15 from Lok Sabha, 7 from Rajya Sabha).
• Election Mode: Elected annually via proportional representation by means of the single transferable vote (STV).
• No Minister Allowed: Union Ministers are excluded from membership.
• Term of Office: One year.
• The Chairman: Appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha from amongst the Lok Sabha members of the committee. A Rajya Sabha member cannot be appointed as the Chairman of CoPU.

2. Scope and Functions

• Report Examination: Examining the reports and accounts of public undertakings.
• CAG Audit Reports: Examining the CAG’s audit reports on public undertakings.
• Business Efficiency: Checking whether the affairs of public undertakings are being managed in accordance with sound business principles and prudent commercial practices.
• Specific Exclusions: CoPU is barred from examining matters of major government policy as distinct from the business functions of the public undertaking, or matters of day-to-day administration.

3. Critical Limitations

• Low Frequency: It cannot examine all public undertakings every year; instead, it selects a group of undertakings for rotational scrutiny.
• Overlapping Jurisdiction: At times, its work overlaps with that of other ministry-specific standing committees or the PAC.

Comparison of the Financial Triad

6. Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs)

The introduction of the Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs) in 1993 represents a major milestone in the modernization of India's legislative process.

Structure and Jurisdiction

There are currently 24 DRSCs. They cover all ministries and departments of the Government of India.

                                      24 DRSCs
                                         │
                    ┌────────────────────┴────────────────────┐
                    ▼                                         ▼
         16 Lok Sabha Committees                   8 Rajya Sabha Committees
      (Report to the LS Speaker)                 (Report to the RS Chairman)

Each DRSC has a total of 31 members (21 nominated by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and 10 nominated by the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha). The seats are allocated to different political parties in proportion to their strength in both Houses.

Key Functions of DRSCs

The DRSCs perform four primary functions as part of their oversight mandate:

1. Demands for Grants: During the budget recess (usually in March), Parliament adjourns for a few weeks. During this recess, the DRSCs meticulously examine the Demands for Grants of the respective ministries. They prepare reports suggesting modifications, which are then submitted to both Houses before the voting on Demands for Grants takes place.
2. Scrutiny of Bills: When a complex or controversial Bill is introduced in either House, the Presiding Officer can refer it to the relevant DRSC for detailed, clause-by-clause scrutiny and public/expert consultation.
3. Annual Reports Review: They examine the annual reports of the ministries to assess their performance and achievements over the fiscal year.
4. National Basic Policy Documents: They examine long-term policy documents presented to Parliament by the government (e.g., National Education Policy, National Health Policy).

                     BILL SCRUTINY PROCESS IN A DRSC
                     
┌───────────────────────┐      Speaker/Chairman      ┌─────────────────────────┐
│ Bill Introduced in    ├───────────────────────────>│ Referred to the         │
│ Parliament            │                            │ Relevant DRSC           │
└───────────────────────┘                            └───────────┬─────────────┘
                                                                 │
                                                                 ▼
┌───────────────────────┐      Clause-by-Clause      ┌─────────────────────────┐
│ Multi-party Consensus │<───────────────────────────┤ Invites Expert/Public   │
│ & Amendments Drafted  │         Drafting           │ Testimony & Evidence    │
└──────────┬────────────┘                            └─────────────────────────┘
           │
           ▼
┌───────────────────────┐      Presented in          ┌─────────────────────────┐
│ DRSC Submits Report   ├───────────────────────────>│ House debates Bill with │
│ to Parliament         │      Lok & Rajya Sabha     │ DRSC Recommendations    │
└───────────────────────┘                            └─────────────────────────┘

7. Key Institutional & Constitutional Debates

The Exclusion of Ministers: Why It Matters

The rule preventing Union Ministers from sitting on financial committees and DRSCs is a vital safeguard for the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.

Because the central objective of these committees is to enforce executive accountability, having a Minister as a member of the committee would lead to a structural conflict of interest. A Minister cannot objectively audit or critique the decisions and expenditures of their own department or their cabinet colleagues.

The Power of Closed-Door Bipartisanship

Unlike televised parliamentary debates, committee meetings are held in camera (closed-door). This design feature is critical:

• Reduces Public Grandstanding: MPs are not playing to a television audience or their political base.
• Fosters Cross-Party Alliances: Free from party whips during discussions, members are more open to listening to expert evidence and adjusting their stances.
• Enables Consensus: It is common for a committee led by an opposition MP to adopt a consensus report that is acceptable to ruling party members.

Judicial Interpretation: The Admissibility of Committee Reports in Courts

A major constitutional question arose regarding the intersection of parliamentary privilege (Article 105) and judicial review (Article 32/136): Can a court refer to and rely upon a Parliamentary Standing Committee Report as evidence?

This issue was decided by a 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India (2018).

Background of the Case

The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the clinical trials of cervical cancer vaccines (Human Papillomavirus - HPV) conducted by an international NGO and government bodies. The petitioners wanted to rely on the 81st Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare, which had found severe procedural lapses, violations of consent guidelines, and irregularities in the trials.

The government and drug manufacturing companies argued that using the committee report as evidence in a court would impinge upon parliamentary privileges under Article 105, as it would expose parliamentary proceedings to judicial scrutiny and challenge.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court delivered a nuanced, landmark judgment that harmonized judicial review with legislative privilege:

1. Admissible as "External Aid" to Interpretation: The Court held that Parliamentary Standing Committee reports are public documents, and the judiciary can rely on them as an external aid to statutory interpretation. They can be used to understand the historical background of a law, the mischief it sought to remedy, and the state of affairs at the time of the law's enactment.
2. No Contesting of Factual Opinions: The Court ruled that while a party can refer to the facts stated in a committee report, the courts cannot adjudicate upon or permit the contesting of the correctness of the factual findings or opinions expressed in a committee report if it is disputed. Allowing a court to determine whether a parliamentary committee's report is "correct" or "incorrect" would violate parliamentary privilege and disrupt the delicate balance of the separation of powers.
3. No Breach of Article 122: Merely referring to a published committee report does not violate Article 122 (which prohibits courts from inquiring into the validity of parliamentary proceedings on grounds of procedural irregularities).

8. Comparative Perspective

Understanding how India's committee system compares with other major democracies highlights its unique structural strengths and limitations.

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                             COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW                                │
├────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────┤
│        FEATURE         │        INDIA (DRSC)        │    USA (CONGRESSIONAL)    │
├────────────────────────┼────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┤
│ Legislative Referral   │ Optional / Selected Bills  │ Mandatory for all Bills   │
│                        │                            │                           │
│ Authority              │ Advisory / Recommendatory  │ High Power / Can Block    │
│                        │                            │                           │
│ Public Hearings        │ Restricted / In-Camera     │ Publicly Televised        │
│                        │                            │                           │
│ Staffing & Resources   │ Moderate / Shared          │ Highly Specialized        │
└────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────┘

India (DRSCs) vs. United States (Congressional Committees)

• Referral of Bills: In India, referring a Bill to a standing committee is at the discretion of the Speaker/Chairman. In the US, every Bill introduced is mandatorily referred to a standing committee.
• The Power to "Pigeonhole": US Congressional Committees have the power to block or kill a Bill simply by refusing to report it to the floor (known as "pigeonholing"). In India, DRSCs are strictly advisory bodies. They cannot kill a Bill; they must report their recommendations back to the House, which remains free to pass the Bill in its original form.
• Subpoena and Enforcement Powers: US committees have massive budgets, specialized investigative staffs, and robust subpoena powers to compel testimony and produce documents. Indian committees can request documents and call for witnesses (including senior bureaucrats), but their investigative apparatus is much more limited and dependent on the Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

India (DRSCs) vs. United Kingdom (Westminster Select Committees)

• System Design: India’s system is closely modeled on the UK's House of Commons Select Committee system. However, in the UK, department select committees do not examine legislation (which is done by dedicated "Public Bill Committees"). In India, the DRSCs handle both department oversight and the detailed scrutiny of Bills.

9. Summary & Key Takeaways

• Core Purpose: Parliamentary committees act as a "mini-parliament," enabling detailed, non-partisan, year-round scrutiny of executive actions, bills, and budgets.
• The Criteria: To be a genuine "Parliamentary Committee," a body must be appointed/nominated by the House/Presiding Officer, work under their direction, submit its report to the House/Presiding Officer, and utilize the Secretariat of Parliament.
• Financial Triad:
  • PAC (22 members, dual-chamber) relies on CAG reports to audit past spending. Its chair is traditionally from the Opposition.
  • Estimates Committee (30 members, Lok Sabha only) is a forward-looking "continuous economy committee" chaired by the ruling party.
  • CoPU (22 members, dual-chamber) reviews the commercial efficiency of PSUs.
• DRSCs (24 Committees): These committees ensure specialized departmental oversight. Each has 31 members (21 LS, 10 RS). Ministers are strictly barred from joining them.
• Judicial Standing: Under Kalpana Mehta (2018), courts can use committee reports to assist with statutory interpretation, but they cannot adjudicate on the validity of factual findings within the reports.

10. Interactive Practice Zone

Part A: Multiple-Choice Questions (MCQs)

Q1. Consider the following statements regarding the Public Accounts Committee (PAC):

1. It was first established in 1950 under the provisions of the Constitution of India.
2. A member of the Rajya Sabha cannot be appointed as the Chairman of the PAC.
3. The committee’s report is based primarily on the audit findings of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG). Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only
   (b) 3 only
   (c) 2 and 3 only
   (d) 1, 2, and 3

Answer: (c)
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect because the PAC was first set up in 1921 under the Government of India Act, 1919. Statement 2 is correct; by convention, the Chairman is appointed by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha from amongst its Lok Sabha members. Statement 3 is correct; the PAC relies heavily on CAG reports to audit public expenditure.

Q2. Which of the following statements is/are correct regarding the Estimates Committee?

1. It has representation from both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
2. Its Chairman is appointed by the Speaker and is traditionally from the ruling party.
3. It can recommend alternative policies to bring about efficiency and economy in administration. Select the correct answer using the codes below: (a) 1 and 2 only
   (b) 2 and 3 only
   (c) 3 only
   (d) 1, 2, and 3

Answer: (b)
Explanation: Statement 1 is incorrect because the Estimates Committee consists of 30 members, all drawn exclusively from the Lok Sabha. Statement 2 is correct; its Chairman is appointed by the Speaker and is traditionally from the ruling party. Statement 3 is correct; it is mandated to suggest administrative economies and alternative policies.

Q3. Regarding the Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs), consider the following:

1. There are currently 24 DRSCs, with 16 working under the Lok Sabha and 8 under the Rajya Sabha.
2. Each DRSC consists of 31 members, out of which 21 are from the Lok Sabha and 10 are from the Rajya Sabha.
3. A Union Minister can be nominated as a member of a DRSC if recommended by the Prime Minister. Which of the statements given above is/are incorrect? (a) 1 and 2 only
   (b) 3 only
   (c) 1 and 3 only
   (d) None of the above

Answer: (b)
Explanation: Statement 1 and 2 are correct. Statement 3 is incorrect because Ministers are strictly barred from being members of the DRSCs to prevent conflict of interest and preserve the separation of powers.

Q4. The landmark Supreme Court judgment in Kalpana Mehta v. Union of India (2018) is associated with which of the following subjects? (a) The constitutional validity of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC).
(b) The right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21.
(c) The admissibility and evidentiary value of Parliamentary Standing Committee Reports in judicial proceedings.
(d) The application of the anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule.

Answer: (c)
Explanation: In the Kalpana Mehta case, the Supreme Court ruled that Parliamentary Standing Committee reports can be referred to as external aids for statutory interpretation, but their factual findings cannot be contested or adjudicated upon in a court of law.

Part B: Scenario-Based Questions

Scenario 1: A newly elected Member of Parliament (MP) from the Rajya Sabha is highly interested in public finance and wishes to join the Estimates Committee. What are the constitutional and procedural hurdles in their path?

Response: The Rajya Sabha MP cannot join the Estimates Committee. Under the Rules of Procedure, the Estimates Committee consists of 30 members drawn exclusively from the Lok Sabha. This is because the Lok Sabha has primary financial authority over the budget and demands for grants (Article 113). If the MP wants to focus on public finance, they should seek election to either the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) or the Committee on Public Undertakings (CoPU), both of which reserve 7 seats for Rajya Sabha members.

Scenario 2: A controversial Bill has been introduced in the Lok Sabha. The opposition demands that the Bill be referred to a Standing Committee for scrutiny. However, the ruling party wants a quick passage and claims that the Speaker has the sole power to decide. What is the constitutional and procedural position?

Response: The ruling party's claim regarding the Speaker's authority is procedurally correct. Under the Rules of Procedure of the Lok Sabha, the decision to refer a Bill to a Standing Committee rests with the Presiding Officer (the Speaker). There is no mandatory requirement in the Indian Constitution that every Bill must be referred to a committee. However, bypassing the committee stage is often criticized as it deprives the legislation of detailed clause-by-clause scrutiny and public/expert feedback, potentially leading to poorly drafted laws.

Part C: Chronology and Matching Exercises

Exercise 1: Match the Committee with its Key Feature

Answer Key:
1 ➔ D (PAC: Opposition Chair, CAG reliance)
2 ➔ A (Estimates: Ruling party Chair, 30 members)
3 ➔ B (CoPU: Formed 1964, oversees PSUs)
4 ➔ C (DRSC: Formed 1993, 31 members)

Exercise 2: Arrange the following milestones in India’s Parliamentary Committee history in chronological order (oldest to newest):

1. Expansion of DRSCs from 17 to 24 committees.
2. Establishment of the first Public Accounts Committee in India.
3. Introduction of the first 17 Departmentally Related Standing Committees (DRSCs).
4. Creation of the Committee on Public Undertakings (CoPU).

Correct Chronological Order:
2 ➔ 4 ➔ 3 ➔ 1

• 1921: Establishment of the Public Accounts Committee.
• 1964: Creation of the Committee on Public Undertakings (CoPU).
• 1993: Introduction of the first 17 DRSCs.
• 2004: Expansion of DRSCs to 24 committees.

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