Why have pre-legislative scrutiny for Acts of Parliament?

This post is part-comment, part-response to Nick Robinson’s post on the Law and Other Things Blog (please do check the blog out!) regarding the NAC’s proposal for having pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills to be passed by Parliament. The National Advisory Council came out with “Draft Recommendations on Pre Legislative Process” for both draft rules, and draft laws or Bills. As a response to Nick’s post, I restrict my focus to the latter i.e. the need for pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills, or draft laws.

The pre-legislative proposal essentially mandates 3 things:

(a) Any public authority/government department has to publish a Statement of Essential Objectives and Principles, on the basis of which it will draft legislation.

(b) After the Statement has been in the public domain for 45 days, the public authority shall draft the legislation and keep it in public domain for 90 days and proactively share with the public.

(c) The public authority will then hold consultations and give comments on the feedback received, before the Bill is finalized and presented to Parliament.

(For those who do not know, most laws are first drafted by the concerned government department, and then discussed, debated and passed in Parliament)

Nick’s main critique of this process is the following:

“…Rules are created by out-of-touch administrators who never have to run for office. Legislation is passed and debated by Parliament – theoretically the central citadel in the Indian democratic system. Not only is Parliament the empowered representatives of the people, but while considering legislation Parliament often solicits outside comment through standing committees.
Should this not be enough? Doesn’t this provide legislation with adequate legitimacy? Shouldn’t Parliament be in charge of demanding proper justification and reason-giving for legislation? Indeed, does draft legislation even have to be based on sound reasoning? After all, legislation – unlike rulemaking – is often the product of compromise between different political factions. A vote is enough. No reasons necessary….”
As Nick says, there is merit to the argument for the NAC’s proposal to democratize the law-making process further since (a) laws are framed by unaccountable bureaucrats, (b) major changes are difficult to make once Bills have been introduced in Parliament, and (c) Parliament has been spending very little time on actual deliberation of legislation.
I believe that Nick is correct when he says that the NAC proposals are essentially a parallel process mirroring the process followed by Parliamentary Standing Committees, and that strengthening the Committee system might be a better idea. It is however, also important to note that there is no legal/ethical bar on pre-legislative scrutiny. The government is free to follow any process it wants in the drafting of legislation. However, a more participatory process may in most cases be better than a less participatory one. The important thing I believe, is to get the participatory process correct. Getting this process right would help prevent the process from getting dominated by civil-society and corporate elites.
On the other hand, it is also important to note that while as a matter of practise, most Bills passed are drafted and introduced by the Government, individual MPs are also free to introduce private-member Bills. Though private member Bills are rarely enacted in to law, individual MPs drafting such laws are also free to pursue any process for drafting their Bill, as per their convenience. They may follow a process more participatory than that of a Government Bill, or merely introduce their personally drafted Bill without any consultation whatsoever. As a matter of principle, this supports Nick’s theoretical position that the law making process does not require pre-legislative scrutiny.
Nick also discusses the importance of getting “…more parliamentary involvement at this earlier drafting stage. MPs (from all parties) could play an important role in giving feedback in drafting…” I would just like to state that a number of Ministries, if not all, have Parliamentary Consultative Committees, with the Minister as Chairman. These Consultative Committees discuss a number of issues regarding the day to day functioning of the Ministry. They do not currently, have any clear-cut role regarding draft legislation. A start could perhaps be made by institutionalizing pre-legislative scrutiny by these parliamentary Consultative Committees.
I believe that creating pre-legislative scrutiny as a process is more a statement of principle as a commitment towards greater democratization. It fits less well within the conventional understanding of the law-making process. However, there are a number of factors which in fact militate towards greater participation through these mechanisms: (a) Patrick French points out the increasing trend towards “hereditary” politics, (b) the erosion of Parliamentary incentives for deliberating legislation, (c) the ease with which Ministries can disregard recommendations of Standing Committees (see Action Taken Reports w.r.t. the higher education Bills), etc.

3 thoughts on “Why have pre-legislative scrutiny for Acts of Parliament?

  1. Great post. It would be interesting for someone to do a study of the Parliamentary Consultative Committees in the Ministries to see how they go about consulting MPs (and how political party dynamics works) and whether MPs really have the resources to contribute in a meaningful manner. I think the ideal is a multi-party consultation (with MPs and the public) when drafting. I just think you also have to think about tradeoffs in the time and resources involved and what sorts of biases in these inputs you are likely to get. That said, I agree that strengthening pre-legislative consultation in a way that lets the ministries know they are being scrutinized is a positive step forward. Even if the consultation ends up only being with corporate and civil society elites, at least you are having an elite debate where before you had far less.


  2. Thanks Nick! I agree such a study of Consultative Committees is very necessary and may give a lot of interesting findings. However, I do not think any such information about meetings is in the public domain in any organized manner. Off the cuff, I would think MPs with clout/resources would be more useful to Ministries than those without. And, I completely agree that there may be some form of multi-party consultative process. The only source of tension (theoretically) that I foresee is having voters and representatives both giving advice to the executive (elected by the voters through these representatives) in the same public forum seems a little bizarre. Maybe not wrong/illegal, just bizarre, right?
    Also, formal consultative processes with elites (corporate or civil society ones) would also be better for another reason: it may then become harder to justify informal “consultations” with members of these elite groups, if there are strong, transparent, formal mechanisms in place. While interest group capture would still remain a concern, rent-seeking activities would probably come down.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s