But the worrying trend here is that in this rush to pass listed bills, there is not enough scrutiny of them – a crucial aspect in the entire process where parliamentary committees assess the merits and demerits of the bill in question. So far, eight bills have been passed in the ongoing session but none were debated by a committee (and only on the floor of the House) – an issue that was highlighted by opposition MPs both inside and outside Parliament.

The non-scrutiny of bills by committees is an alarming factor. Fewer bills are being referred to parliamentary committees. While the 14th and 15th Lok Sabha (from 2004 to 2014) had scrutinised 60 per cent and 71 per cent bills, the 16th Lok Sabha scrutinised only 26 per cent of the total number of bills passed in Parliament.

Parliament’s primary job Parliament is responsible for making laws for India’s more-than-a-billion citizens. Since laws impact every aspect of people’s lives, Parliament has to carefully deliberate and rigorously scrutinise every proposal before giving its approval.

In order to do this effectively, Parliament needs a robust law-making process, which is grounded in two broad principles. First, a nuanced technical debate by parliamentary subject committees followed by deliberations on the floor of the House to shape the government’s proposal into a law. Second, a periodic assessment of the functioning of that law to gain valuable feedback and insights, which can help in plugging gaps and taking corrective measures for better implementation of the law.

India’s parliamentary system implements both these principles with varying degrees of institutionalisation and compliance. Some laws are scrutinised in detail, while others are passed after only a debate on the floor of the House.

Committees that keep a check The first principle stems from the understanding that laws are technical and require careful consideration. Since Parliament only meets for a limited amount of time during the year, it cannot discuss every legislative proposal in detail. For this, Parliament has a well-functioning system of committees. These committees comprise MPs from both the Houses. Their meetings are closed-door where MPs engage with experts, academics, members of the civil society, industry as well as government representatives on the technicalities of the bill. The reports of these committee are then looked into by the government to enable itself to fine-tune the proposed legislation.

For instance, bills like the Goods and Services Tax, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, Consumer Protection and Motor Vehicles Amendment were strengthened by deliberations of the parliamentary committees in the 16th Lok Sabha. Televised debates inside Parliament, on the other hand, mostly reflect the political viewpoints of MPs. The debate in House largely becomes an opportunity for MPs to grandstand rather than engage in the substantive issues of the law.

Post-legislation scrutiny However, the scrutiny of a bill by a parliamentary committee is not enough. Such scrutiny does not guarantee a well-functioning law. This is where the second principle – the post-legislative scrutiny of a law passed by Parliament – assumes significance. Earlier this month, the Delhi High Court made scathing remarks about the functioning of the law that prohibits the practice of manual cleaning of latrines and sewers.

Parliament passed a law in 1993 prohibiting the employment of manual scavengers. About a decade later, the law’s effectiveness was called into question in the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court issued an order asking the government to take immediate effective steps to end manual scavenging. Following the order, India’s Parliament passed another law in 2013, imposing further restrictions to curb the practice.

The statement of objects and reasons tabled before Parliament accompanying this law acknowledged the inadequacies of the 1993 law. It stated, “Existing laws have not proved adequate in eliminating the twin evils of insanitary latrines and manual scavenging.” Even though this law went through the rigours of a parliamentary committee process, manual scavenging continues to be prevalent in India more than six years since the law was enacted.

As per government data for 2018, approximately 53,000 people are still engaged in manual scavenging. Passage of two national legislation and interventions by the Supreme Court of India has not been able to put an end to the practice. Clearly then, Indian Parliament enacting a well-scrutinised and deliberated law is not enough. Parliament needs to regularly follow up on the implementation of laws that are being passed by it. Our parliamentary system, however, does not have an institutionalised mechanism to do so. In many countries, such post-legislative scrutiny is hardwired into their respective legislative processes.

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, which was constituted in 2000, had observed in its reports that ‘our legislative enactments betray clear marks of hasty drafting and absence of Parliament scrutiny from the point of view of both the implementers and the affected persons and groups’.

It is high time India’s Parliament addresses the issue of robustness and sanctity of the legislative process. In the absence of these, the gap between the laws it makes and their implementation will widen to an extent that Parliament’s effectiveness as a law-making institution will routinely be called into question. The author is the Head of legislative and civic engagement, PRS Legislative Research. Views are personal.

About MOVCDNER: Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare has launched this Central Sector Scheme named “Mission Organic Value Chain Development for North Eastern Region” (MOVCDNER) for implementation in the States of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura.

The scheme aims at development of certified organic production in a value chain mode to link growers with consumers and to support the development of entire value chain starting from inputs, seeds, certification and creation of facilities for collection, aggregation, processing, marketing and brand building initiative.

The assistance is provided for cluster development, on/off farm input production, supply of seeds/planting materials, setting up of functional infrastructure, establishment of integrated processing unit, refrigerated transportation, pre-cooling/ cold stores chamber, branding, labelling and packaging, hiring of space, hand holdings, organic certification through third party, mobilization of farmers/processors etc.

Background: Total farm area currently under Organic Certification is taken up in an area of 27.70 lakh hectares in the country including 5.98 lakh hectares under Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) , 0.639 lakh hectares under Mission Organic Value Chain Development for North Eastern Region (MOVCDNER) , 19.38 lakh hectares under National Program for Organic Production (NPOP) of APEDA and 1.70 lakh hectares under other initiatives.

Features: It facilitates online procurement of common use Goods & Services required by various Government Departments / Organisations / PSUs. It provides the tools of e-bidding, reverse e-auction and demand aggregation to facilitate the government users, achieve the best value for their money.

Need: The intent of such suo moto disclosures is that the public should need minimum recourse through the Act to obtain such information. The intent behind the enactment of the Act is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of Public Authorities.

Who is included in the ambit of ‘Public Authorities’? ‘Public Authorities’ include bodies of self-government established under the Constitution, or under any law or government notification. For instance, these include Ministries, public sector undertakings, and regulators. It also includes any entities owned, controlled or substantially financed and non-government organizations substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the government.

How is the right to information enforced under the Act? The Act has established a three tier structure for enforcing the right to information guaranteed under the Act.

Public Authorities designate some of their officers as Public Information Officers. The first request for information goes to Central/State Assistant Public Information Officer and Central/State Public Information Officer, designated by the Public Authorities. These Officers are required to provide information to an RTI applicant within 30 days of the request. Appeals from their decisions go to an Appellate Authority.

Information Commissions: Appeals against the order of the Appellate Authority go to the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission. These Information Commissions consists of a Chief Information Commissioner, and up to 10 Information Commissioners.

What does the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, 2019 propose? The Bill changes the terms and conditions of service of the CIC and Information Commissioners at the centre and in states.

The Bill states that the central government will notify the term of office for the CIC and the ICs. The Bill states that the salaries, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service of the central and state CIC and ICs will be determined by the central government.