Explain the structure of the Parliamentary Committee system. How far have the financial committees helped in the institutionalisation of Indian Parliament?
Approach · directive: “explain / how far”
What it asks · Explain the types of committees (standing and ad hoc) and then assess how the three financial committees have strengthened Parliament's scrutiny and institutional maturity.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Explain the structure of the parliamentary committee system: standing committees (financial, departmental, others) and ad hoc committees
- How far the financial committees have helped institutionalise Parliament: their contribution
- Limits of the financial committees and reforms needed
Open with · Parliament cannot examine every matter in detail on the floor, so committees serve as small, cross-party 'mini-Parliaments' for close scrutiny.
Cover
- Standing committees: permanent, such as Business Advisory, Privileges, Rules, Petitions, Ethics and the financial committees, constituted annually or periodically.
- Departmentally related standing committees: 24 committees (since 1993, in the present form since 2004), each with members from both Houses, to examine demands for grants, Bills, and reports of ministries.
- Ad hoc committees: Select and Joint Committees on Bills, and committees of inquiry, which cease after their task.
- Financial committees: the Public Accounts Committee (examines CAG audit reports, chaired by an opposition member by convention), the Estimates Committee (Lok Sabha only) and the Committee on Public Undertakings.
- Contribution: they check spending after the event, check waste and irregularity, secure ministerial accountability and build bipartisan working habits.
- Limits: recommendations are not binding, action-taken follow-up is slow, timeliness suffers, and Bills increasingly bypass committees.
- Reforms: mandatory referral of major Bills, timely reports, expert assistance and stronger follow-up mechanisms.
Close with · Committees give Parliament continuity and depth; strengthening them is the surest way to make legislative oversight real.
Add value (verified)
- The Public Accounts Committee is Parliament's oldest committee (first constituted in 1921) and has 22 members: 15 elected by the Lok Sabha and 7 associated from the Rajya Sabha. Legislation Committees - Public Accounts Committee - Comptroller and Auditor General of India ↗“The Committee on Public Accounts is the oldest Parliamentary Committee and was first constituted in 1921. The Committee consists of 22 Members, 15 Members are elected by Lok Sabha and 7 Members of the Rajya Sabha are associated with it”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2023, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 338 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Parliament cannot examine every account, Bill or policy on the floor of the House, so it works through committees: small, cross-party bodies that scrutinise in detail, away from cameras and party whips. Their steady growth is the story of Parliament's institutional maturity.
Structure
- Standing committees, constituted every year or permanently: the three financial committees; 24 departmentally related standing committees (since 1993, in present form since 2004), each with members from both Houses, examining demands for grants, Bills and ministry reports.
- Other standing committees: House business (Business Advisory, Rules, Privileges, Petitions, Ethics) and scrutiny bodies such as Subordinate Legislation, Welfare of SCs and STs, and Empowerment of Women.
- Ad hoc committees: Select and Joint Committees on Bills and inquiry committees, dissolved when their task ends.
Financial committees and institutionalisation
- Public Accounts Committee (since 1921; 22 members, 15 from Lok Sabha and 7 from Rajya Sabha) examines the CAG's audit reports; by convention an opposition member chairs it, building a bipartisan habit of scrutiny.
- Estimates Committee (30 Lok Sabha members) suggests economies and policy alternatives in the estimates before money is spent; the Committee on Public Undertakings audits the working of public enterprises.
- Contribution: continuity beyond the life of a House, ministerial accountability through action-taken notes, a check on waste and irregularity, expertise built over years, and a working culture in which government and opposition members judge on evidence, not party lines.
Limits
- Recommendations are advisory; follow-up is slow; scrutiny is after the fact and covers a fraction of spending; members and staff lack technical support; media attention is thin.
- The wider system is weakening: fewer Bills are referred to committees, and sittings have declined, which limits the financial committees' reach.
Reforms
- Mandatory referral of major Bills, time-bound action-taken reports, expert research staff, live publication of proceedings, and a debate in the House on major committee reports.
Financial committees have given Parliament the habits of an institution, continuity, expertise and non-partisan scrutiny, but their promise is capped by advisory status; strengthening follow-up is the surest way to make oversight real.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.