Why India’s Committees Fail Where America’s Succeed

The committee system is the unsung engine of American lawmaking. India’s version, by contrast, sputters.

In the grand theatre of democracy, the floor of a legislature is often where the spotlight shines brightest. Cameras linger on raucous debates in the U.S. House of Representatives or the Lok Sabha, on fiery exchanges, last-minute walkouts or carefully crafted soundbites that feed the evening news cycle. But the real business of legislating rarely happens there. It takes place in the shadows within the intricate world of committees.

In Washington, committees are the machinery that makes the vast and unwieldy American Congress function. Without them, its 535 lawmakers could scarcely cope with the sheer volume of legislative proposals, oversight obligations, and budgetary scrutiny that confront them. These committees, often called ‘little legislatures’ are the places where the meticulous business of lawmaking - questioning, revising, amending and killing bills - happens.

India, too, has committees. Its parliamentary system borrows heavily from Westminster, where the committee tradition is centuries old. But in New Delhi, committees often lack bite, their influence diluted by political indifference, procedural fragility, and executive dominance. While America’s committees shape laws and constrain presidents, India’s risk becoming rubber stamps that, whilst being useful, are rarely decisive. The contrast says much about the health of the two democracies.

America’s little legislatures

The committee system in the United States is an elaborate architecture designed for efficiency and expertise. Both the House and Senate maintain standing committees, which are permanent panels that endure from one Congress to the next. The House has 20; the Senate, 16. Each specialises in a policy area: agriculture, finance, armed services, foreign relations. Jurisdictions are defined with care. When a bill is introduced, its subject matter determines which committee will take first crack at it.

Once referred, a bill enters a process far more rigorous than most floor debates ever allow. Committees may summon hearings, where government officials, academics, industry leaders, advocacy groups, or ordinary citizens testify. These proceedings establish a public record, give shape to the arguments, and test the strength of claims. A bill then undergoes “markup,” which is the painstaking process where members propose, debate and vote on amendments. The committee chair’s version (the ‘chair’s mark’) often steers the conversation.

If a majority approves, the committee “reports” the bill, accompanied by a written document explaining its purpose, legal effects, costs, and sometimes dissenting opinions. Such reports can sway debates on the chamber floor. If, on the other hand, the committee refuses to act, the bill simply dies - an outcome so common that Washington wags quip that “committees are where good ideas go to perish.”

The American system also enables deep specialisation. Subcommittees allow lawmakers to burrow into niches—cybersecurity within armed services, for example, or clean energy within commerce. This fosters expertise among members, turning generalist politicians into quasi-specialists who can interrogate bureaucrats and lobbyists with some confidence.

Just as important, committees wield formidable oversight powers. They monitor executive agencies, scrutinise spending, and haul officials before them to account for mistakes. From the McCarthy hearings in the 1950s to the Benghazi inquiries of the 2010s, congressional oversight has been both feared and controversial. In the Senate, certain committees perform an additional constitutional function: vetting presidential nominees and treaties. A Supreme Court justice or ambassador cannot be confirmed without running the gauntlet of Senate committees.

Perhaps most impressive, all this is visible. Hearings are increasingly streamed online; reports are accessible on Congress.gov. Citizens, journalists, and scholars can peer into this vital, if unglamorous, corner of American governance.

Muted Machinery

India’s Parliament also relies on committees, though their powers and prestige are less robust. Broadly, there are standing committees which are permanent and reconstituted annually and ad hoc committees created for specific tasks before dissolving. Department-related standing committees (DRSCs), modelled after similar bodies in Britain, examine legislation, scrutinise ministries and provide reports. Financial committees like the Public Accounts Committee or Estimates Committee play critical roles in budgetary oversight.

On paper, the system is sound. Committees enable MPs, especially backbenchers, to engage deeply with policy areas. Recommendations are frequently insightful. Some major laws, including the Consumer Protection Act (2019) and the National Medical Commission Act (2019), bore the imprint of committee work. Committees can summon experts, call for data, and nudge the executive to clarify positions. Departments must formally respond to recommendations, lending at least a semblance of accountability. In practice, however, India’s committees labour under severe constraints. Terms are short: DRSCs last only one year, after which they must be reconstituted. Such churn prevents MPs from gaining expertise comparable to their American counterparts. Delays in forming committees disrupt continuity.

Weakened Systems

More damaging still is politics. Committees are meant to be free from the tyranny of the party whip. Yet in inquiry committees, partisan allegiances often resurface, distorting deliberations. High absenteeism is another bane. Many MPs, focused on constituency obligations or political manoeuvring, treat committee meetings as optional.

The result is diminished clout. Increasingly, bills are passed without ever seeing the inside of a committee room. During the 16th and 17th Lok Sabhas, the share of bills referred to committees plummeted. Momentous decisions like the abrogation of Article 370, the farm bills of 2020 and the Chief Election Commissioner Bill of 2023 were rammed through without committee scrutiny. What should have been a forum for sober deliberation became an afterthought.

Worse, some committees themselves seem reluctant to exercise their powers. Instances abound where witnesses were not summoned or expert advice not sought. At times, reports read less like rigorous investigations than hurried paperwork.

Yawning Gaps

The gulf between the two systems reflects differences in political culture. America’s separation of powers gives Congress incentives to guard its prerogatives jealously against an assertive executive. Committees are weapons in that struggle. In India’s parliamentary system, by contrast, the executive and legislature are fused; the majority that controls the government also controls Parliament. That diminishes committees’ autonomy. Why would MPs of the ruling party challenge their own ministers?

This divergence matters. Committees are not just procedural tools. They embody the idea of deliberative democracy. In Washington, they have grown into powerful engines of accountability and agenda-setting. But in New Delhi, they risk becoming merely decorative.

A weakened committee system deprives India of vital checks and balances. It leaves Parliament more prone to hasty lawmaking, less informed by expert evidence, and more vulnerable to the will of the executive. When laws like the farm bills are bulldozed without adequate consultation, the results can be catastrophic - public anger, policy reversals and institutional erosion.

While reform is possible, India’s committees need longer tenures. Allowing MPs to serve continuously on specific committees would help them develop expertise, as in America. Second, a mandatory referral of bills, particularly those with major constitutional, economic or social consequences, would prevent the bypassing of scrutiny. Third, committees must embrace transparency by publishing schedules, witness lists and reports promptly. Civil society and the media could then hold MPs accountable for participation.

Finally, parties must resist the temptation to reduce committees to partisan arenas. That may be the hardest reform of all, given the increasingly polarised nature of Indian politics. Yet without it, committees will never escape irrelevance.

The committee is a paradoxical institution: invisible yet powerful, tedious yet indispensable. In the United States, committees have become the backbone of legislative governance, blending expertise with oversight, and often proving more consequential than floor debates. In India, committees are too often treated as sideshows, despite their potential to enrich democracy. For all the glamour of parliamentary theatrics, democracy’s strength lies not in drama but in diligence. India’s Parliament would do well to learn from America’s “little legislatures” where real accountability is forged not in noisy chambers but in the quiet, persistent grind of scrutiny.

(The writer is a Mumbai-based research scholar. Views personal.)