NCERT Solutions for Class 11 Political Science Indian Constitution at Work Chapter 5: Legislature

Chapter at a glance

Exercise Questions

Answer

No, I do not agree.

1. The legislature makes laws after debate and discussion, reflecting diverse views; leaving law-making only to ministers would concentrate power.
2. It controls and checks the executive: through questions, debates, committees and the no-confidence motion, it holds the government accountable. Without it, the government could become authoritarian.
3. It controls finance: no tax can be levied or money spent without its approval.
4. It represents all sections of the people — including the opposition and minorities — and is a forum for expressing their grievances.
5. In a parliamentary system, the government itself is formed from, and depends on, the legislature.

Efficiency without accountability can harm welfare and democracy.

No; a legislature is needed to make laws through debate, control and hold the executive accountable, approve finances, and represent all sections, including the opposition.

Answer

• Neha — disagree. A second chamber allows reconsideration of decisions, preventing hasty laws passed by a temporary majority; in India the Rajya Sabha represents the states.
• Shama — partly agree. Nominating some experts (as India does: 12 nominated members with knowledge of literature, science, art and social service) adds expertise to debates. But the house should be mainly elected so as to remain democratic.
• Tridib — disagree. Even unitary countries (e.g. the UK, Japan) have second chambers for review and better deliberation, though in a federation the case for one is stronger.

Disagree with Neha (second chamber allows reconsideration and represents states); partly agree with Shama (some nominated experts help); disagree with Tridib (second chambers help even in non-federal states).

Answer

1. The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha only; only the Lok Sabha can pass a no-confidence motion and remove the government.
2. Money bills can be introduced only in the Lok Sabha; the Rajya Sabha can only delay them for 14 days. So the Lok Sabha controls the purse.
3. The Lok Sabha is directly elected by the people, giving it greater legitimacy.
4. In a deadlock over ordinary bills, the joint sitting usually favours the Lok Sabha because of its larger numbers.

Because the government is responsible only to the Lok Sabha (no-confidence motion), money bills are controlled by it, and it is directly elected.

Answer

Partly agree.

• The Lok Sabha is indeed a major forum of representation: members raise local issues, grievances and popular demands in question hour, zero hour and debates.
• Its control over the executive has weakened in some respects: governments with a stable majority get their bills passed; party discipline and the anti-defection law limit independent action by members; disruptions reduce debate time.
• But it still controls the executive: ministers must answer questions, budgets require approval, committees scrutinise policy, and governments have fallen on the floor of the House (e.g. 1979, 1990, 1997, 1999).

So both functions coexist; the Lok Sabha is a platform for popular expression and also a check on the executive.

Partly; it is an important platform for popular sentiments, and its control has weakened with majority governments and disruptions, but it still checks the executive through questions, budgets, committees and no-confidence motions.

Answer

1. Longer sittings — agree. Parliament now meets for fewer days than in the early decades. Longer sessions would allow more debate, better scrutiny of bills and budgets, and more questions. Effect: better law-making and executive accountability.
2. Compulsory attendance — agree, with care. Many members are often absent. Compulsory attendance (linked to allowances) would improve participation and quorum. But attendance alone does not ensure meaningful participation. Effect: fuller houses and more participation.
3. Speaker’s power to penalise — agree, within limits. Frequent disruptions waste time. Powers to suspend disruptive members would maintain order. Effect: smoother proceedings. However, the power must be used impartially so that the opposition’s right to protest is not suppressed.

Agree with all three: longer sessions improve scrutiny, compulsory attendance raises participation, and penalties reduce disruption — provided the Speaker uses them impartially.

Answer

Parliament still plays an important role:

1. Debate and discussion: bills are discussed in both Houses; members point out weaknesses and the government often changes provisions in response.
2. Committees: bills are examined in detail by standing and select committees, which consult experts and the public and suggest amendments.
3. Second chamber: the Rajya Sabha, where the government may lack a majority, can amend or delay bills, forcing negotiation.
4. Public scrutiny: debates inform the public and media, creating pressure on the government.
5. Private members’ bills and amendments allow other members to influence law.
6. Governments must consider the views of their own members and allies.

So Parliament legitimises laws, improves them and keeps law-making transparent and accountable.

Parliament debates, scrutinises in committees, amends and sometimes blocks bills (especially in the Rajya Sabha), and makes law-making public and accountable.

Answer

I agree most with the second statement.

• The anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule) was meant to stop legislators changing parties for money or office, which had caused instability.
• But because members must follow the party whip on every vote or face disqualification, they cannot vote according to conscience or constituency interests. Party leaders thus dominate legislators, and debate within parties is reduced.
• The first statement would bring back instability and horse-trading; the third is too sweeping, since not every change of party is selfish (some may be on principle).

The second: the anti-defection law curbed horse-trading but made legislators subordinate to party leaders and whips.

Answer

Supporting Dolly (decline)

• Fewer sitting days; many bills passed with little debate, or without reference to committees.
• Frequent adjournments and loss of question hour due to disruptions.
• Growing number of ordinances instead of legislation.
• Low attendance of members; anti-defection law reduces independent thinking.
• Rising number of members with criminal cases.

Supporting Sudha (vibrancy)

• Governments have been held accountable and some have fallen on the floor of the House.
• Committees (departmentally related standing committees since 1993) carry out detailed scrutiny.
• Wider representation of women, backward classes and regional parties makes Parliament more representative.
• Important laws (RTI, MGNREGA, food security, women’s reservation) were passed after debate.
• Live telecast of proceedings increases transparency.

Both views have merit; Parliament remains central but needs reforms to improve debate and discipline.

For Dolly: fewer sittings, rushed bills, ordinances, low attendance. For Sudha: committee scrutiny, wider representation, landmark laws, transparency and accountability.

Answer

1. The concerned minister proposes the need for a bill.
2. The legislative department in the Ministry of Law drafts the bill.
3. A resolution is passed to admit the bill for discussion.
4. The bill is referred to the committee, which makes some changes and sends it back to the House for discussion.
5. The bill is read clause by clause and each clause is voted upon.
6. The bill is passed in the House in which it was proposed.
7. The bill is referred to the other House and is passed.
8. The bill is referred to the President of India.

If the President does not sign it: the President may send it back to Parliament for reconsideration (except a money bill). If Parliament passes it again, with or without changes, the President must give assent. The President may also keep the bill pending without any time limit (pocket veto).

Minister proposes → Law Ministry drafts → admitted for discussion → committee → clause-by-clause voting → passed in first House → passed in other House → President; if unsigned, it may be returned once (must sign if repassed) or kept pending (pocket veto).

Answer

• Parliament has limited time and cannot examine every bill and budget in detail on the floor. Committees — standing committees (including 24 departmentally related standing committees since 1993), select and joint committees, Public Accounts Committee and Estimates Committee — do this detailed work.
• Positive effects:
  1. Detailed, expert scrutiny of bills, departmental budgets and policies.
  2. Consultation with experts, interest groups and the public.
  3. Committee discussions are less partisan; members from different parties often reach consensus.
  4. They oversee spending and administration (e.g. PAC examines CAG reports).
• Limitations: committees’ recommendations are not binding; many bills are now passed without referring them to committees; their work receives less public attention.

Overall, committees have made Parliament’s oversight and appraisal of legislation more thorough and effective.

Committees allow detailed, expert, less partisan scrutiny of bills, budgets and administration, greatly strengthening oversight, though their advice is not binding and many bills bypass them.

Topic checklist

• Why a legislature; bicameralism
• Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha: composition and powers
• Law-making process
• Parliamentary control over the executive
• Committees and anti-defection law

Total questions answered: 10 of 10