Explain the structure of the parliamentary Committee system. How far have the financial Committees helped in the institutionalisation of Indian Parliament?
Based on 74 evaluated answers to this question on CollectorBabu: here is what aspirants most often missed, the mistakes that cost marks, and a model answer.
What most aspirants missed
- Basic definition and constitutional basis of committees (Articles 105 and 118, Rules of Procedure) in the introduction
- Composition of each financial committee: PAC 22 (15 LS, 7 RS, opposition chair), Estimates Committee 30 (all LS), COPU 22 (15 LS, 7 RS)
- Specific functions of the Estimates Committee and COPU, not just the PAC
- Concrete cases of impact such as PAC scrutiny of the 2G spectrum CAG report and CWG expenditure, beyond a single example
- Link between committee functions and institutionalisation, explained as strengthened oversight and the power of the purse
- Standing versus ad hoc committees, including the sunset nature of ad hoc bodies and the 1993 DRSC reform
Common mistakes
- Listing functions of financial committees without explaining how they make Parliament a stronger institution
- Giving only one example (often Bofors) and no evaluative line on how far the committees have worked
- Vague statements such as PAC examines CAG reports, without specifying that it examines expenditure after it is incurred
- Incorrect or missing numbers and composition details, and generic advantages and disadvantages not specific to financial committees
What the better answers did
- Opening with a clear definition, constitutional basis and the types of committees
- Naming all three financial committees with their composition and one precise function each
- Using specific case studies such as 2G and CWG to show impact on accountability
- Ending with an explicit verdict on how far the committees have helped, with limits briefly stated
Introduction
Open by defining committees as specialised, non-partisan scrutiny forums rooted in Articles 105 and 118, and name PAC, Estimates Committee and COPU as the financial committees you will assess.
Conclusion
Close with a direct verdict that financial committees have institutionalised Parliament's power of the purse through sustained accountability, and state one concrete reform needed to make them more effective.
Model answer
Parliamentary committees are smaller groups of MPs that examine bills, budgets and executive action in detail, away from the noise of the House. Rooted in Articles 105 and 118 and the Rules of Procedure, they are the working machinery of Parliament. The three financial committees, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), the Estimates Committee and the Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU), are the most powerful among them.
Structure of the committee system
- Standing committees are permanent. The 24 Department-related Standing Committees (DRSCs), set up in 1993, have 31 members (21 Lok Sabha, 10 Rajya Sabha) and scrutinise ministries and demands for grants.
- Financial committees: PAC has 22 members (15 LS, 7 RS) and is chaired by an opposition MP by convention. Estimates Committee has 30 members, all from Lok Sabha. COPU has 22 members (15 LS, 7 RS).
- Ad hoc committees, including Joint Parliamentary Committees, are set up for a specific task and dissolve after reporting, such as the JPC on the 2G spectrum issue.
How financial committees strengthen Parliament
- Power of the purse: PAC examines CAG audit reports on expenditure after money is spent, making the executive answerable for appropriated funds.
- Estimates Committee examines budget estimates before they are voted, suggests economies and efficiency, and complements PAC.
- COPU examines the working of public sector undertakings, bringing commercial expenditure under parliamentary scrutiny.
- Case examples: PAC scrutiny of CAG findings on the 2G spectrum allocation and Commonwealth Games expenditure pushed these issues into the public domain and forced the executive to explain its decisions.
- Technical scrutiny away from partisan grandstanding, with opposition chairing PAC, builds credibility and professionalises the House.
How far have they helped?
- Substantially, in making the executive accountable and in raising the quality of parliamentary oversight.
- Limits remain: reports are advisory, government acceptance is uneven, research support is thin, and partisanship sometimes blunts scrutiny.
On balance, financial committees have deepened Parliament's institutional role over public finance. Their greatest contribution is converting audit findings into sustained accountability, though strengthening their staff and follow-up mechanisms would make that role more effective.
Write this answer and get it evaluated
Handwritten answers, expert-reviewed, back in under 24 hours. Start UPSC Mains answer evaluation with the ₹49 Trial.
Evaluate my answerAsked in UPSC Mains 2023 GS Paper 2 (Q16). See all 2023 GS Paper 2 questions
More GS Paper 2 questions
- Lateral entry into civil services is seen as a reformative step, yet it continues to attract criticism and controversy. Discuss.
- While accountability often necessitates documentation, an overemphasis on bureaucratic procedures and excessive paperwork can inadvertently silence the very voices that public policy intends to empower, particularly at the grassroots. Examine the above statement with suitable illustrations.
- The states in India seem reluctant to empower urban local bodies both functionally as well as financially. Comment.
- Examine the scope of Fundamental Rights in the light of the latest judgement of the Supreme Court on Right to Menstrual Health and Hygiene.
- Despite recent steps towards inducting women into combat roles, their participation remains low. Examine the key challenges impeding the greater inclusion of women in the Indian armed forces. Also, suggest suitable measures to enhance their participation.
- As NITI Aayog completes 10 years of its establishment, critically examine its role in the planning and development paradigm of governance in India.