QUESTION HOUR IN INDIAN PARLIAMENT

Question Hour stands as a central tradition and a vital mechanism in parliamentary democracies, acting as a formal link between the legislative and executive arms of government. Rooted in the Westminster model and emulated in countries like the United Kingdom, India, Australia, and Canada, it is widely recognized for promoting government accountability, transparency, and responsiveness. This institutionalized session takes place regularly, usually at the beginning of each sitting day, giving elected representatives the chance to question government ministers and the head of government directly. The session’s structure typically alternates between members of the government and opposition, sometimes also including minor parties and independent MPs. The precise duration and procedure of Question Time differ between countries, but the essential purpose remains consistent: to scrutinize government action and policy, validate ministerial decisions, and bring public grievances to immediate attention. The public nature of this exercise, often televised or streamed online, heightens the stakes; ministers must be prepared to defend or clarify policies and administrative choices under the watchful eyes of their peers, the press, and the broader public.

Types of questions

Central to Question Time are the purposes it serves and the forms through which questioning is facilitated. There are several types of questions, each with its own process and objectives:

First are Starred Questions, also known as oral questions. These are questions which require immediate spoken answers from the relevant ministers during Question Hour. The name “starred” comes from the practice of marking such questions with an asterisk in parliamentary records. After receiving an oral answer, the questioning member of parliament is permitted to ask supplementary questions, probing deeper or seeking clarification. This dynamic exchange enables MPs to press for details or challenge unsatisfactory answers in real-time. Because of the opportunity for follow-up, starred questions are especially valuable tools for holding ministers directly accountable and for illuminating the rationale behind government policies and actions.

Second are Unstarred Questions, referred to in some systems as written questions. These must be submitted in advance, and ministers are required to provide written responses at a later date. While these answers may lack the immediacy of oral questioning, their written form allows for more detailed and comprehensive responses. Unstarred questions are often used to gather information, request statistical data, or clarify points of policy that do not necessarily demand urgent attention but are nonetheless significant to legislative oversight. They rarely attract public debate in the same way as starred questions, but their cumulative effect is important for in-depth scrutiny and for building the documented record of parliamentary activity.

A third category, sometimes called Short Notice or Urgent Questions, is permitted at the discretion of the Speaker or presiding officer. These are asked without the normal notice period where the issue at hand is deemed of urgent public importance. Ministers must respond to these questions immediately, even if they have had little time to prepare. This mechanism ensures that parliaments can react to emerging situations- such as crises, scandals, or fast-evolving public issues, without delay.

Regardless of the type, all questions are subject to strict rules. They must pertain to ministerial responsibilities, be clear and concise, and avoid debate or personal allegations. The Speaker or presiding officer has the authority to vet, amend, or reject questions that breach parliamentary norms. These guidelines prevent the misuse of Question Hour for personal or political attacks and help maintain decorum, ensuring the session’s primary function is preserved.

Significance

Question Hour’s significance extends beyond the technicalities of procedure. For the opposition, it is a vital opportunity to challenge the government, highlight weaknesses, expose administrative lapses, and press ministers on controversies or inconsistencies. For government MPs, it provides the chance to showcase ministerial competence, reinforce key achievements, and explain policies in a public forum. The session also has profound symbolic value: the ritual of direct questioning visibly upholds the principle of government by consent, emphasizing that ministers must justify their decisions not only to parliament but to the people by proxy. The concept’s broader impact is visible in its capacity to inform the public, influence media narratives, and shape the political agenda. Because Question Hour is broadcasted and widely covered, it can quickly raise public awareness of issues that might otherwise remain obscure. At times, pressured responses from ministers may prompt changes in policy, trigger investigations, or even lead to resignations if failures are exposed. It is also common for Question Hour exchanges to set the tone for the day’s media coverage, reflecting the vibrancy or discord at the heart of legislative politics.

Criticism

Yet, the practice is not without criticism. While intended as a site for substantial scrutiny, Question Hour can sometimes devolve into performative exchanges, partisan theatrics, or scripted questions and answers. Prepared lines and rehearsed responses may limit genuine accountability, and frequent interruptions or robust interjections sometimes test the patience of presiding officers tasked with maintaining order. Critics argue that this adversarial tone can undermine the intended seriousness of the scrutiny process, reducing it to spectacle. Despite these drawbacks, most analysts and political actors agree that the benefits far outweigh the limitations. No other institutional mechanism offers such direct, recurring, and public confrontation between government and parliamentary representatives. In many jurisdictions, reforms continue to be debated and introduced to enhance the effectiveness of Question Hour. These may include changes to the admission process for questions, greater opportunities for independent and minor party members, or new technologies for public engagement. Despite changes in political culture or advances in communication, Question Time endures as both a symbol and a reality of democratic legitimacy.

In conclusion, Question Hour remains a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy, combining tradition and practical oversight to ensure that executive authority does not go unchecked. By obliging ministers to respond to the people’s representatives, in public and under scrutiny, it reinforces government responsiveness and underpins public trust in legislative institutions. The concepts of starred and unstarred questions, among others, structure this process, balance immediacy with thorough investigation, and maintain the delicate link between accountability and the day-to-day business of governance.

PSIR Ecosystem

UPSC

NET JRF

CUET PG

UGC NET Paper 1

NCERT

QUESTION HOUR IN INDIAN PARLIAMENT