Limitations of Parliament and Its Committees in Ensuring Government Accountability

• Body of layman: Parliamentarians are not experts when it comes to the functioning of the government and its agencies. Due to lack of expertise and secretarial assistance, issues raised by the parliamentarians in the parliament are often general in nature which limits their ability to make the government accountable for its actions.
• Increased criminalisation: The report of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) mentions that 43 percent of members of the seventeenth Lok Sabha have criminal antecedents. The trend of criminalisation has been increasing both at the union and state levels in recent times. The criminalisation of politics and politicisation of criminals not only threatens the democratic fabric of the country but also goes against the principles of good governance. If law breakers become law makers, it becomes very difficult to expect them to make the government accountable for its actions.
• Executive dominance: The executive branch of government has a great deal of power and influence over the  parliament. This can limit the ability of parliament to hold the government accountable, as the executive may be able to resist or block efforts to scrutinize its actions. The ruling parties often command a healthy majority in the parliament and it leads to ineffectiveness of the parliament in making the government answerable. As parliamentarians belonging to the ruling party strictly follow political directions given to them by the party whip. This has been one of the primary reasons for decline of quality of debates and discussions in the parliament. Debates, discussions and deliberations on important national issues often get embroiled in personal attacks emanating from petty politics. In such an environment the effectiveness of parliamentarians to exact accountability of the executive is seriously questioned.
• Political polarization: Political polarization can limit the ability of parliament to effectively hold the government accountable. When political parties are deeply divided, it can be difficult for parliament to reach a consensus on important issues and hold the government accountable.
• Limited powers of inquiry: In some cases, parliament may not have the legal powers to conduct inquiries into the actions of the government. The government under the garb of national security often withholds or purposefully delays sharing important information to the parliament. This can limit the ability of the parliament to hold the government accountable and uncover information about its actions.
• Limited time for discussions: The Parliament only sits for a limited number of days in a year and its members are busy with other responsibilities. This makes it difficult for them to keep a constant watch on the government’s actions. The Parliament has limited time for discussions and debates. Average time of the sessions of parliament has declined since independence. This limited time is also wasted sometimes when members resort to ruckus and disruption in the house. Disruption, sloganeering, and violation of decorum of the house is becoming the norm in the parliament. Such norms are making it difficult for members to hold the government accountable for its actions.
• Bureaucratic delays: Bureaucratic delays often result in the parliament not being able to hold the government accountable in a timely manner.
• Inadequate powers of committees: The parliamentary committees, which are supposed to scrutinize the functioning of the government, often do not have enough powers to carry out their duties effectively. The committees mostly do the post-mortem work i.e. their work takes place after the government or its agencies have committed wrongs. For instance the Public Accounts Committee, which is considered the most powerful parliamentary committee, examines legality of expenditure only after it takes place and does not have any powers of preventing any economic misdoings from the government. The minutes of the meetings of committees are seldom made public. The members of committees often follow narrow political lines which defeats the purpose of holding the government accountable.
• Lack of Opposition unity: The opposition parties in the parliament often fail to come together on important issues, resulting in a lack of effective opposition and accountability.
• Lack of Public Awareness: The general public is often unaware of the functioning of the Parliament and the role it plays in holding the government accountable. This results in a lack of public pressure on the Parliament to perform its duties.
• Lack of Information: The Parliament often lacks the required information to hold the government accountable. The government is not obligated to provide complete information to the Parliament and can often withhold information on the grounds of national security.
• Lack of transparency: Lack of transparency in government operations and decision-making processes makes it difficult for Parliament to hold the government accountable. The minutes of cabinet meetings are never made public and the ministers are bound by the oath of secrecy.

Limitations of the Comptroller and Auditor General in Ensuring Government Accountability

• Political influence: The CAG is not immune to political influence, as the appointment of the CAG is done by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister. This raises concerns about the independence of the institution, and the possibility of political influence affecting the audits conducted by the CAG.
• Lack of enforcement powers: The CAG can only conduct audits and submit reports to the Parliament or state legislatures, but it does not have any enforcement powers to implement its recommendations or to recover the amounts identified as irregular or wasteful expenditure. This limits the impact of the CAG’s audits and makes it difficult for the institution to enforce accountability in the government.
• Time lag: The time lag between the completion of an audit and the submission of the report to the Parliament or state legislature can be substantial, making the findings of the audit less relevant by the time they are made public.
• Limited scope of audits: The scope of audits conducted by the CAG is limited to financial irregularities, and the institution does not have the mandate to conduct performance audits, which would allow it to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of government programs and schemes.
• Resource constraints: The CAG faces resource constraints in terms of manpower and technology, which can affect the quality and speed of the audits conducted by the institution.

Challenges Faced by the Indian Judiciary in Ensuring Government Accountability

• Overcrowded dockets: The Indian judiciary is faced with an overwhelming backlog of cases, which results in delays in the resolution of cases and can limit the ability of the judiciary to provide timely and effective justice against actions of the government and its agencies. It should be noted that the pendency of cases in Indian courts reached an all time high of five crore and the government is the biggest litigant.
• Lack of resources: The Indian judiciary is often underfunded and understaffed, which can impact its ability to effectively carry out its mandate. This can result in delays in the resolution of cases and a backlog of pending cases. The judicial infrastructure, especially at district level, is lagging behind the time. The vacancy at all levels in the judiciary is significantly high which limits the ability of the judiciary to effectively deliver justice and hold the government accountable.
• Limited jurisdiction: The Indian judiciary has limited jurisdiction and is unable to intervene in certain areas, such as foreign policy and national security, which can limit its ability to hold the government accountable in these areas.
• Resistance to transparency and accountability: The Indian judiciary has been resistant to calls for greater transparency and accountability in the judiciary itself. Opaqueness of the collegium system, decisions regarding transfer of certain high court judges, among others, are the factors which have raised questions on the ability of judiciary in making government accountable for its actions.