In my view, the Indian Parliament has the potential to ensure accountability of the executive, but its effectiveness in doing so has been limited to some extent. There are several factors that contribute to this limitation:

1. Majority government: In India, the executive usually holds a majority in the Parliament, which can make it difficult for the opposition to hold the government accountable. The ruling party often has more control over decision-making and can influence parliamentary procedures, reducing the efficacy of accountability mechanisms.

2. Whip system: The whip system in the Parliament, where party discipline is enforced, can stifle dissent and limit the ability of members to act independently. This can hinder effective scrutiny and questioning of the executive's actions.

3. Lack of specialized knowledge: Parliamentarians may not always possess the expertise or technical understanding to effectively scrutinize complex policy issues or hold the executive accountable in a substantive manner. This can lead to a superficial examination of government actions.

4. Inadequate time for debate: Parliament sessions often witness disruptions, adjournments, and time constraints, which impact the quality and depth of debates. This restricts the ability to thoroughly examine the executive's decisions and hold them accountable.

5. Incomplete legislative oversight: The Parliament's oversight of the executive is primarily limited to question hour, debates, and committees. However, these mechanisms are not always utilized to their full potential, leading to a limited scope of scrutiny and accountability.

Despite these limitations, the Indian Parliament still plays a vital role in ensuring accountability of the executive to some extent. It provides a platform for opposition parties to raise concerns, ask questions, and hold the government accountable through debates, discussions, and parliamentary committees. Additionally, media coverage of parliamentary proceedings can also contribute to public scrutiny of the executive's actions.

However, to enhance the accountability of the executive, the Parliament could benefit from reforms that strengthen legislative oversight, increase the participation of subject experts, ensure better utilization of committee mechanisms, and limit disruptions during sessions.

The Parliament in India has a crucial role in ensuring the accountability of the executive, but its effectiveness is a complex and debated issue. Here's a breakdown of the mechanisms in place and the challenges they face:

Mechanisms for Accountability:

• Question Hour: This daily session allows MPs to ask questions to ministers, scrutinizing their actions and policies. It helps bring public attention to issues and compels ministers to explain their decisions.
• Zero Hour: This period allows MPs to raise matters of urgent public importance without prior notice, bringing immediate pressure on the government.
• Adjournment Motions: These motions can force a discussion on specific matters, highlighting government failures and demanding action.
• No-Confidence Motions: This extreme measure, if successful, can lead to the fall of the government, providing a significant check on its power.
• Committee System: Parliamentary committees delve deeper into specific subjects, scrutinizing government actions and offering recommendations. These committees can include members from the opposition, providing a balanced perspective.
• Budgetary Control: Parliament approves the government's budget, giving it control over public funds and the ability to influence government spending priorities.
• Public Scrutiny: Parliamentary proceedings are televised, bringing public pressure on the government and holding it accountable to the people.

Challenges to Accountability:

• Dominant Party/Coalition: A strong majority for the ruling party or a stable coalition can limit the opposition's ability to hold the government accountable, as the government can easily pass its policies without significant opposition.
• Limited Time: Parliament sessions are often short and dominated by the ruling party's agenda, limiting time for effective scrutiny of government activities.
• Lack of Expertise: Many MPs may lack expertise in specific policy areas, making it difficult for them to effectively scrutinize the government's actions.
• Party Discipline: MPs may prioritize party loyalty over independent scrutiny, limiting their ability to hold the government accountable.
• Government Influence: The government can use its power to influence the Parliament, for example, through controlling the agenda, or through the use of patronage and other incentives.
• Lack of Public Awareness: Public awareness of Parliament's functioning and its role in holding the government accountable is often limited, weakening the pressure on the government to be transparent and responsible.

Conclusion:

While the Indian Parliament has mechanisms to ensure accountability of the executive, the effectiveness of these mechanisms is often limited by political realities and practical constraints. The dominant party system, limited time for scrutiny, and the potential for government influence all present challenges to effective accountability. However, the existence of these mechanisms, the involvement of the opposition, and the public scrutiny provided by media coverage still play a significant role in shaping the government's behavior and promoting transparency.

Ultimately, ensuring effective accountability requires a combination of robust parliamentary processes, an active and engaged opposition, an informed and engaged public, and a commitment from the government to transparency and responsiveness.

In India, the Parliament plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability of the executive. The Indian Constitution has established a system of checks and balances, where the Parliament exercises oversight over the executive, and the executive is accountable to the Parliament. Here are some ways in which the Parliament ensures accountability of the executive:

1. Question Hour: Parliamentarians can ask questions to the ministers, which helps to scrutinize the government's actions, policies, and decisions. This process keeps the executive on its toes and requires them to be transparent and accountable.
2. Debates and Discussions: Parliamentarians engage in debates and discussions on various issues, including budget, policy decisions, and government schemes. This allows them to criticize, question, and analyze the government's actions, promoting accountability.
3. Parliamentary Committees: Parliament has several committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee, Estimates Committee, and Standing Committees, which scrutinize government expenditure, policies, and decisions. These committees can summon officials, seek information, and ask tough questions, ensuring the executive is accountable.
4. Motions and Resolutions: Parliamentarians can move motions and resolutions to express their opinions, disapprove government actions, or call for changes. While these are non-binding, they put pressure on the government to respond and justify its actions.
5. No-Confidence Motions: The Parliament can move a no-confidence motion against the government, which, if passed, can lead to the government's resignation. This provision ensures that the executive remains accountable to the people's representatives.
6. Investigations and Inquiries: Parliament can initiate investigations and inquiries into various issues, such as corruption, mismanagement, or policy failures. These inquiries can expose wrongdoing and promote accountability within the executive.
7. Budget Scrutiny: Parliament exercises control over the budget, which allows it to scrutinize government expenditure and ensure that public funds are utilized efficiently and effectively.
8. Oversight of Autonomous Bodies: Parliament has the power to exercise oversight over autonomous bodies, such as regulatory bodies, tribunals, and statutory authorities, which are accountable to the executive.

Despite these mechanisms, there are concerns about the effectiveness of Parliament in ensuring accountability of the executive in India:

1. Limited Time and Resources: Parliamentarians often face constraints in terms of time, resources, and expertise to effectively scrutinize the executive.
2. Party Discipline: Often, party discipline and loyalty can lead to Parliamentarians toeing the party line, rather than critically examining government actions.
3. Executive Dominance: In some cases, the executive may dominate the Parliament, limiting its ability to hold the government accountable.
4. Lack of Institutional Autonomy: Parliament's ability to hold the executive accountable can be hampered by the lack of autonomy in institutions, such as the election commission, judiciary, and regulatory bodies.

In conclusion, while the Parliament has the potential to ensure accountability of the executive in India, there are areas that require improvement. Strengthening parliamentary institutions, promoting transparency, and ensuring autonomy of accountability mechanisms can help to enhance the effectiveness of Parliament in holding the executive accountable.