A robust lawmaking process requires thorough scrutiny by Parliament. But the worrying trend here is that in 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.

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.

The role of Parliamentary committees are as follows-
1. Parliament is the embodiment of the people’s will. Committees are an instrument of Parliament for its own effective functioning. 
2. Committees are platforms for threadbare discussion on a proposed law.
3. The reports of these committee are looked into by the government to enable itself to fine-tune the proposed legislation.
4. The smaller cohort of lawmakers, assembled on the basis of the proportional strength of individual parties and interests and expertise of individual lawmakers, could have more open, intensive and better-informed discussions.
5. Committee meetings are ‘closed door’ and members are not bound by party whips, which allows them the latitude for a more meaningful exchange of views as against discussions in full and open Houses where grandstanding and party positions invariably take
precedence.
6. Members of Parliament may have great acumen but they would require the assistance of experts in dealing with such situations. It is through committees that such expertise is drawn into lawmaking. 
7. Executive accountability to the legislature is enforced through questions in Parliament also, which are answered by ministers. However, department standing committees go one step further and hear from senior officials of the government in a closed setting, allowing for more detailed discussions.

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, had observed in its reports that ‘our legislative enactments betray clear marks of hasty drafting and absence of Parliament scrutiny. It had made following recommendations to make committees more effective-

1. Parliamentary committees need to have dedicated subject-wise research support available. Their work could be made more effective if the committees had full-time, sector-specific research staff.
2. There need of Mandatory scrutiny of all bills by parliamentary committees would ensure better planning of legislative business.
3. Immediate steps be taken to set up a Nodal Standing Committee on National Economy with adequate resources in terms of both in house and advisory expertise, data gathering and computing and research facilities for an ongoing analysis of the national economy for assisting the members of the Committee to report on a periodic basis to the full House.
4. A Standing Constitution Committee of the two Houses of Parliament for a priori scrutiny of amendment proposals should be set up.
5. With the proposed establishment of three new Committees, namely, the Constitution Committee, the Committee on National Economy and the Committee on Legislation, the existing Committees on Estimates, Public Undertakings and Subordinate Legislation may not be continued.
6. Major reports of all Parliamentary Committees ought to be discussed by the Houses of Parliament especially where there is disagreement between a Parliamentary Committee and the Government.
7. A new Legislation Committee of Parliament to oversee and coordinate legislative planning should be constituted

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.