The current political regime has made several calls for reforms – be it amending the constitution, revamping the electoral system, or unifying personal laws. Amid this broader wave of ‘reform’ and the 2025 Monsoon Session approaching, this is a timely opportunity to place parliamentary reform on the forefront.Parliament sessions have been reduced to bulldozing legislation, and dodging questions of national importance. Sessions get adjourned over disruptions on issues that are more often legitimate than not. Institutions are built to withstand the passage of time, and are expected to tide over the attitudes of successive governments. However, the increasingly poor functioning of parliament indicates that we need to strengthen the institution to ensure that it carries out its core function effectively, i.e., it holds the government accountable. The National Commission for Reviewing the Working of the Constitution has emphasised that in a parliamentary democracy, just as the government is responsible to the parliament, the parliament is responsible to the people who are the ultimate sovereign. We propose three parliamentary reforms that can allow for this. A Question Hour for the prime ministerEach day that the parliament is in session, MPs are empowered to question ministers over government schemes and policies, and ministers are bound to respond. This tool has been effectively used to clarify the government’s stance and catalyse action wherever needed. It is also useful to pinpoint where the government has been lacking in effort.For instance, in 2020, to a question on job losses, and deaths on account of workers migrating back to villages during COVID-19, the labour ministry officially stated that “no such data is maintained”. If not for the Question Hour, the government may have never publicly admitted to this data gap. The Question Hour in its current form provides a decent oversight mechanism for MPs to hold ministries accountable on specific issues, but it does not allow MPs to raise issues that are cross-cutting or relate to the overall activities of the executive. For instance, MPs may want to ask questions that impress upon the competencies of various ministries such as health, environment, and food security. The prime minister is best placed to answer such queries. Debates address this issue to some extent; but not all debates require the minister to provide a reply at the end, which is essential for clarifying the government’s stance. A PM Question Hour, where MPs can ask questions directly to the prime minister, who is bound to reply, can address this gap. This practice is followed in the UK, and reflects the idea that the elected government, including the prime minister, are public servants, accountable to the people. In the UK House of Commons, the prime minister answers questions from MPs every Wednesday for 30 minutes. While MPs are allowed to ask only one question, the Leader of Opposition is permitted to ask up to six. Hold regulators accountable India has several regulators to carry out a variety of specialised government functions, such as regulating financial markets (SEBI), establishing food standards (FSSAI), and regulating the telecom sector (TRAI). Regulators are envisaged as an extension of the executive to regulate on complex issues that arise as society, science and technology evolves. They are expected to be insulated from political interference and function independently. The question then arises, should parliament hold regulators accountable? If they carry out functions of the executive, and make decisions that affect citizens, parliament very much should. The Second Administrative Reforms Committee (Committee) recognised that a regulator can retain its legitimacy only if it is accountable for its power. Unless there is accountability, independence cannot be justified. It would be incorrect to say that regulators are not accountable to anyone. Currently, there exists no mechanism for parliament to question regulators on their decisions. The committee recommended that regulators be held accountable by parliament through standing committees and highlighted that these committees would only question major decisions taken by regulators, and spare ones related to their day-to-day working. Strengthening the committee systemParliamentary committees are groups of MPs from different political parties who deliberate on policy issues, budgets of Ministries, and Bills. They function even when parliament is not in session. The committee system allows MPs to raise nuanced questions and build consensus crossing party lines. The proceedings of committees are not public. To ensure accountability in the committee system, the following reforms must be considered. First, ministers must be required to attend committee proceedings. Currently, when committee members need clarity or information on any issue, government officials depose before them. Ministers, who are accountable to parliament are exempt from appearing before committees. They are not required to clarify and defend their position before the committee. In other countries, such as the UK, ministers are required to depose before committees. Second, all Bills introduced in parliament should be referred to committees for scrutiny. While committees are required to examine Bills that are referred to them, it is not mandatory to refer all Bills to Committees, which limits legislative scrutiny. In the 17th Lok Sabha only 16% of Bills were referred to Committees. The UK Parliament sends all Bills (except for Money Bills) to Committees for examination. We should adopt this system to ensure greater legislative scrutiny. Omir Kumar and Tanvi Vipra are policy researchers based out of Delhi.