Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Question Hour

Question Hour is the opening one-hour segment of each sitting in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, the lower and upper houses of India's Parliament, during which Members of Parliament submit questions to government ministers on matters pertaining to administration, policy execution, and public affairs. This procedure, enshrined in the rules of both houses, enables MPs to seek clarifications, highlight issues, and compel ministerial responses, thereby enforcing legislative oversight over the executive branch. Questions are classified into three principal types: starred questions, which receive oral answers in the House with opportunities for supplementary queries; unstarred questions, addressed via written replies; and short-notice questions, reserved for urgent public concerns requiring immediate attention. Originally scheduled from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on weekdays, the timing has been subject to procedural amendments, such as extensions or adjustments during sessions, to accommodate evolving parliamentary demands. Regarded as the most dynamic phase of proceedings, Question Hour underscores parliamentary democracy by fostering transparency and accountability, though its efficacy can vary based on the volume of questions admitted—typically 20 starred questions per house per day—and the government's prioritization of responses. Admitted questions cover diverse domains, from infrastructure development and economic policies to social welfare schemes, reflecting the breadth of governmental responsibilities. While not without procedural constraints, such as ballot systems for question selection and limits on supplements, it remains a cornerstone mechanism for voicing constituent grievances and scrutinizing executive actions.

Definition and Purpose

Overview of Question Hour

Question Hour constitutes the first segment of sittings in the and of the Indian Parliament, dedicated to Members of Parliament (MPs) posing questions to ministers on administrative matters, policy implementation, and governmental operations. This procedure allows MPs to seek clarifications, elicit information, and scrutinize executive actions across various domains of . In the , it typically spans from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon during sessions, while in the , an amendment effective from April 25, 2017, shifted it to 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. to align with procedural efficiencies. The primary function of Question Hour is to facilitate legislative oversight, compelling the government to provide accountable responses and thereby bridging the information gap between the and representatives of the . submit questions in advance—generally up to 15 days prior—to ensure ministers can prepare informed replies, with a limit of five questions per member per day, including repeats. This structured mechanism underscores Parliament's role in democratic , as ministers are obligated to address queries directly, often leading to revelations of policy shortcomings or achievements. Through this hour, asserts its constitutional prerogative to hold the responsible, fostering transparency in processes that affect . The format includes both oral and written questions, with selected starred questions receiving verbal responses and opportunities for supplementary probing, enhancing the depth of parliamentary debate. Disruptions or curtailments, as occurred during the 2020 monsoon session amid the , have occasionally limited its scope, prompting debates on procedural reforms to preserve its efficacy.

Role in Holding Government Accountable

Question Hour serves as a primary mechanism in the Indian Parliament for Members of Parliament (s) to scrutinize the executive branch by posing questions to ministers on the of laws, policies, and administrative actions, compelling the government to provide public explanations and justifications. This process enforces through oral responses to starred questions, which allow up to two supplementary questions per for probing deeper into inconsistencies or details, thereby exposing potential lapses or requiring clarifications on , program outcomes, and rationales. Unstarred questions, answered in writing, further contribute by eliciting data on metrics such as expenditures or beneficiaries, enabling MPs to highlight discrepancies between promises and performance. The format promotes transparency, as ministers must respond within specified time limits—typically three minutes for starred question answers—fostering a direct confrontation that can reveal withheld information or policy shortcomings to the public and media. Historical instances demonstrate its impact; for example, in 1957 during the second , questions raised by MP uncovered the Mundhra scandal, involving unauthorized investments by the in companies owned by , which prompted a judicial inquiry and the resignation of Finance Minister on December 13, 1957. This case led to regulatory reforms in , illustrating how Question Hour can catalyze investigations and corrective actions. However, its efficacy is constrained by procedural realities, such as disruptions that reduced operational time to % of scheduled slots in the and 47% in the during the (2014–2019), with uncompensated lost time limiting the number of questions addressed. Additionally, restrictions on question scope—prohibiting inter-ministerial inquiries or broad policy critiques beyond specific portfolios—limit comprehensive oversight, as the responds only to matters under his direct ministries. Despite these limitations, the institution remains vital for eliciting verifiable data, such as in queries on convictions or rural employment scheme dues, which inform legislative debates and public discourse on governance failures.

Historical Development

Origins in British Parliamentary Tradition

The practice of parliamentary questioning in the British House of Commons emerged as a mechanism for members to seek information and hold ministers accountable, evolving from ad hoc inquiries in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The first recorded parliamentary question occurred in the House of Lords in 1721, when Earl Cowper asked the government whether there was any truth to rumors of negotiations involving the Pretender. In the Commons, oral questions to ministers were permitted irregularly prior to the 1880s, often arising spontaneously during debates or addresses, without a structured format or dedicated time, reflecting the gradual assertion of legislative oversight over executive actions amid the development of cabinet government. By the mid-19th century, the volume of questions increased, prompting procedural refinements; written questions became common from around , while oral ones gained precedence for urgency. A pivotal occurred in , when the established a fixed daily at the commencement of business for oral questions, typically lasting about 30-45 minutes initially, to accommodate ministerial responses and prevent disruption to other proceedings. This allocation underscored the principle of collective ministerial responsibility, whereby the government answers to for and , a norm solidified during the as prime ministerial authority centralized. Further evolution distinguished general Question Time from specialized sessions, such as , which began experimentally in 1961 and became permanent on October 24, 1961, allocating 15 minutes weekly for direct interrogation of the premier. Over time, rules prohibited supplementary questions initially but permitted them from 1901 onward, enhancing interactivity while maintaining order through notice requirements and ministerial preparation. This framework prioritized empirical scrutiny of government conduct, fostering without adversarial excess, though practices varied with procedural standing orders revised periodically to balance efficiency and accountability.

Introduction and Evolution in Indian Parliament

Question Hour was formally introduced in the Indian Parliament following the adoption of the in 1950, with the first commencing operations in 1952. In the , parliamentary rules from the outset allocated the first hour of each sitting to questions, enabling members to seek oral and written responses from ministers on administrative matters, reflecting an adaptation of British Westminster traditions to India's federal structure. This daily practice underscored the mechanism's role in executive accountability from the parliament's inception. In the , the upper house, questions were first posed on May 27, 1952, during its inaugural session that began on May 13. Initially, only a half-hour slot was designated for questions on select days, with the procedure formalized from July 21, 1952, excluding Fridays initially to accommodate private members' business. This staggered approach differed from the Lok Sabha's uniform daily scheduling, allowing the to prioritize legislative debates while gradually incorporating interrogative functions. The evolution of Question Hour in both houses involved progressive standardization to enhance efficiency and coverage. By July 1964, the extended the session to include Fridays and established a full daily Question Hour, aligning it more closely with practices and ensuring consistent ministerial scrutiny across parliamentary sittings. Procedural refinements followed, such as adjustments to the number of admissible questions per member—initially unlimited in until the late 1960s, when caps were imposed to manage workload—and the introduction of stricter notice requirements to filter substantive queries. Further adaptations addressed logistical and productivity challenges. In the , a temporary shift of Question Hour to 2-3 p.m. in aimed to reduce morning disruptions but was quickly reversed due to inefficacy; by November 2014, during the 233rd session, the timing was permanently adjusted to 12-1 p.m. to optimize sitting hours and overlap less with other business. These changes, informed by parliamentary committee recommendations, balanced the need for thorough responses with the demands of a growing legislative agenda, though they occasionally sparked debates on diluting the hour's primacy. Over decades, the institution has thus matured from an interrogative tool to a structured cornerstone of parliamentary oversight, with rules codified under Rule 38 of the and analogous provisions in the .

Procedural Framework

Types of Questions

In the Indian Parliament, questions during Question Hour are primarily classified into three categories: starred, unstarred, and short-notice questions, each governed by distinct procedural rules to facilitate ministerial accountability. Starred questions are those for which a member seeks an oral answer on the floor of the House, marked by an asterisk to indicate eligibility for supplementary questioning. These questions, limited to 20 per sitting in the Lok Sabha after a ballot selection process, allow members to probe further based on the minister's response, enabling real-time scrutiny of government actions. In the Rajya Sabha, up to 15 starred questions are typically admitted per day. Unstarred questions require a written reply from the , printed in the official parliamentary records, and do not permit oral answers or supplementary follow-ups. These are suitable for detailed or statistical inquiries where immediacy is not critical, with answers provided within a specified timeframe, often by the next sitting or as scheduled. Unlike starred questions, unstarred ones can number in the hundreds per session but are addressed non-orally to manage parliamentary time. Short-notice questions address matters of urgent public importance and can be admitted with fewer than 10 days' notice, receiving an oral answer similar to starred questions, inclusive of supplementaries. Admissibility depends on the Speaker's or Chairman's approval, prioritizing exceptional circumstances like sudden policy shifts or crises, and they may be taken up after the regular Question Hour or as directed. This type ensures flexibility for unforeseen events while maintaining procedural rigor.

Question Admissibility, Notice Periods, and Scheduling

In the , the admissibility of questions is governed by Rules 41 to 44 of of and Conduct of , which stipulate that a question must seek factual on a of importance within the government's responsibility, without containing arguments, inferences, ironical or offensive expressions, imputations, or hypothetical inquiries. Questions are inadmissible if they relate to matters under judicial , , repetitive issues previously answered, or administrative details better suited for written replies; the makes the final determination after examination by the Question Branch. Similar criteria apply in the under Rules 47 to 50, emphasizing precision and relevance while prohibiting opinion-seeking or sub-judice references. Notice periods require members to submit questions to the Secretary-General at least 15 clear days before the sitting day, calculated from the session are issued, though the presiding officer may permit shorter for urgent matters with justification. Starred questions, eligible for oral answers and supplementaries, and unstarred questions, limited to written responses, follow this timeline, while short-notice questions for matters of urgent public importance can bypass the full period if approved. In practice, notices must not exceed 150 words and adhere to prescribed forms to facilitate timely processing. Scheduling involves initial scrutiny for admissibility, followed by separate ballots for starred and unstarred questions to determine priority among admitted ones, with the Speaker resolving ties or disputes. Questions are allotted to specific days based on ministry groupings—five groups (A to E) in the , rotating Monday through Friday—to ensure balanced coverage, excluding Saturdays and special sessions without Question Hour; typically, up to 20 starred questions are listed daily, but only the first five to eight may be reached within the hour due to time constraints and supplementaries. The employs a parallel system with ministry groups (I to V) assigned to weekdays, but its Question Hour timing shifted to 12:00 p.m.–1:00 p.m. from the 233rd Session in 2014, allowing integration with other business. This ballot-driven selection promotes fairness but can limit coverage, as only a fraction of submitted notices (often thousands per session) are orally addressed.

Conduct and Supplementary Questioning

During the Question Hour in the and , starred questions—those designated for oral answers—are addressed sequentially as listed on the agenda, with the relevant minister providing a verbal response from their seat or the podium. The presiding officer ( in or Chairman in Rajya Sabha) calls upon members to pose supplementary questions immediately following the minister's initial reply, ensuring the process remains focused and time-bound within the hour allotted (typically 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in and 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. in ). These supplementaries must pertain strictly to the subject matter of the original starred question and aim to elicit further factual clarification, without introducing new topics or requiring extensive ministerial preparation. Supplementary questions require no advance notice and are asked orally by members recognized by the presiding officer, who exercises discretion in selection to balance participation and adhere to the session's time constraints—usually permitting 2 to 4 per starred question, though this varies based on the agenda's demands and the urgency of subsequent items. The member who submitted the original starred question is typically given priority for the first supplementary, followed by others on a rotational or equitable basis, fostering broader scrutiny while preventing dominance by any single participant. Ministers respond extemporaneously to these follow-ups, often drawing on prepared briefs, with answers expected to be concise to allow progression through the listed questions (up to 20 starred questions per day in each House). The presiding officer enforces during this phase, intervening to curtail irrelevant, repetitive, or argumentative supplementaries, and may disallow questions that stray into matters of better suited for other parliamentary forums. In practice, this oral exchange tests ministerial preparedness and enables real-time accountability, as supplementaries can probe inconsistencies or omissions in the primary response, though the absence of pre-submitted follow-ups limits their depth compared to scripted inquiries. Proceedings are recorded verbatim for the official parliamentary record, with no or formal resolutions arising directly from Question Hour exchanges. Short-notice questions, treated similarly to starred ones when admitted for urgency, also permit supplementaries under the same guidelines, provided they address matters of public importance with justification for abbreviated notice periods (less than 15 clear days).

Recent Developments

Procedural Reforms and Adjustments

In response to the , the suspended Question Hour during the Monsoon Session of 2020, substituting it with written responses to unstarred questions to prioritize legislative business amid shortened sittings. Similar procedural adjustments were applied in the Monsoon Session of 2021, where Question Hour and private members' bills were omitted to accommodate a curtailed and focus on urgent government priorities. These suspensions extended to the Winter Session of 2024, during which Question Hour was not conducted in either house, reflecting a pattern of reallocating time to expedite passage under tight session schedules. Post-pandemic restoration of Question Hour has occurred, but effective utilization remains limited; for example, in the Session of 2025, it operated for only 23% of its scheduled time in the and 6% in the , primarily due to repeated adjournments over procedural disputes. No formal amendments to core rules—such as the 15-day notice period for starred questions or limits on supplementary queries (typically up to five per question)—have been adopted since 2020, though session-specific adjustments continue to adapt to productivity challenges and legislative demands.

Suspensions and Disruptions in Practice

Suspensions of members during Question Hour typically occur when presiding officers, such as the Speaker in the or Chairman in the , determine that an 's behavior constitutes grave disorder or contempt of the House, often involving persistent sloganeering, protests, or refusal to adhere to procedural norms. For instance, in the , the Speaker may name an for after warnings, leading to their removal by marshals, with the motion adopted by or . This practice aims to restore order but has been invoked more frequently in recent sessions amid heightened partisanship, as seen in the Winter Session of 2023 when 146 opposition MPs were suspended across both Houses for disrupting proceedings over a security breach incident on December 13, preventing any substantive Question Hour functioning for several days. Disruptions in Question Hour practice manifest through opposition-led protests demanding discussions on urgent issues, such as policy failures or scandals, which override the scheduled questioning and lead to adjournments sine die if unresolved. In the Rajya Sabha's 254th Session (Monsoon 2021), over 76% of Question Hour time was lost to such interruptions, with entering of or raising placards, prompting the Chairman to assert that disruptions equate to . Similarly, in the Lok Sabha's Monsoon Session of 2025, Question Hour operated smoothly only after six consecutive days of disruptions over demands for debates on operations like "," highlighting how procedural tools like supplementary questions are sidelined by orchestrated unrest. Empirical data from parliamentary records indicate that between 2014 and 2020, disruptions accounted for 30-60% of Question Hour losses annually, often escalating to suspensions when protests persist beyond initial adjournments. In practice, suspensions extend beyond the session day, with durations varying from days to the session's end, and committees reviewing grave cases, though bulk suspensions like the 143 in December 2023 bypassed extended scrutiny, drawing criticism for undermining opposition scrutiny roles. Disruptions frequently cluster around high-stakes issues, such as electoral revisions or security lapses, as in August 2025 when Rajya Sabha proceedings, including Question Hour, were washed out over Bihar's voter list revisions, resulting in nearly 57 hours of total time loss. While intended as accountability mechanisms, these practices have led to zero functioning of Question Hour on 15 of 19 days in some Rajya Sabha sessions, eroding the empirical oversight intended by the procedure. This pattern underscores a causal link between unaddressed demands for debate and procedural breakdowns, with presiding officers balancing order against democratic expression, though data shows minimal reciprocity from the ruling side in facilitating resolutions.

Effectiveness and Criticisms

Empirical Evidence of Impact

Empirical analyses of Question Hour in the reveal patterns in legislative behavior rather than direct causal links to policy outcomes. A study covering 1980 to 2009, utilizing a of questions asked during this period, found significant differences in activity levels between national and subnational party legislators, with the former more likely to engage in questioning as a mechanism for party signaling and constituency representation, though without quantified evidence of subsequent governmental actions or reforms. Similarly, examinations of the Trivedi Centre for Political Data's Indian Parliament (TCPD-IPD), encompassing approximately 298,000 question-answer pairs from 1999 to 2019, indicate that discussions during Question Hour mirror prevailing political and socio-economic tensions, such as economic policies or regional issues, but primarily serve descriptive rather than prescriptive functions in influencing executive decisions. Disruptions substantially undermine the procedural impact of Question Hour. In the , approximately 33% of scheduled Question Hour time was lost to interruptions in analyzed sessions, while the figure reached 59% in the , limiting opportunities for oral responses and supplementary questioning essential for real-time accountability. These losses correlate with reduced effectiveness, as curtailed sessions shift to written unstarred questions, diminishing interactive scrutiny and public visibility of ministerial responses. Quantitative topic coverage further highlights uneven impact. Between 1999 and 2019, only 0.3% of parliamentary questions referenced , despite its growing relevance, suggesting Question Hour inadequately prioritizes emerging global challenges. On health-specific issues like , merely 134 questions were raised across both houses from 2001 to 2020, with 101 in the , indicating sparse attention to priorities and limited follow-through to interventions. While some questions have historically exposed irregularities—such as financial mismanagement—empirical studies provide scant data linking Question Hour directly to measurable shifts, with participation often driven by dynamics over substantive . Overall, evidence points to informational and representational roles, but causal impacts on governance remain under-documented and constrained by procedural inefficiencies.

Key Challenges and Party Political Dynamics

Frequent disruptions constitute a to the Question Hour, resulting in substantial loss of allocated time for questioning. In the , data from 2015 to 2019 indicate that 60% of scheduled Question Hour time was lost to interruptions, with similar patterns observed in the where approximately 33% of the hour was affected during the same period. These disruptions, often triggered by protests over policy disagreements or pending issues, prevent ministers from addressing listed questions and limit MPs' ability to hold the accountable. In the (2019-2024), Question Hour operated for only 60% of its planned duration, underscoring the persistent erosion of this parliamentary tool. The selection and prioritization of questions exacerbate these issues, as only about 20 starred questions are typically slated for oral answers per sitting despite thousands submitted weekly, with the or Chairman exercising discretion that can favor certain themes or . Supplementary is further constrained, generally limited to 1-3 follow-ups per question within tight time limits of 1-4 minutes, curtailing probing into ministerial responses and reducing the hour's investigative potential. Recent sessions highlight the severity: during the 2024 Winter Session, Question Hour was non-functional for 15 of 19 days in the due to ongoing protests, while functioning inadequately in the . Party political dynamics intensify these challenges, as opposition parties often resort to disruptions when their questions—frequently targeting policies—are deprioritized or disallowed on grounds of admissibility. Empirical analysis of Question Hour participation from 1980 to 2009 reveals that MPs from opposition parties asked a higher volume of questions and focused more on substantive critiques of actions compared to members, whose queries tended to align with governmental narratives. This partisan divergence contributes to procedural friction, with ruling coalitions accused of leveraging agenda control to admit fewer adversarial questions, though historical data shows all major parties have employed similar tactics when in opposition, perpetuating a cycle of selective engagement and stalled oversight. In only 24% of listed cases during the were questions answered orally as planned, amplifying perceptions of dominance in shaping parliamentary scrutiny.

Reforms and Proposals

Government-Led Initiatives

In 2022, the , under the direction of its Chairman, amended its procedures to extend sitting hours from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. and shift the Question Hour from the initial hour to 12 p.m. to 1 p.m., aiming to allocate more time for legislative business while preserving the questioning mechanism. This adjustment, implemented during the government's tenure, sought to enhance overall productivity in the by prioritizing debates and bills after oral questions, though it drew mixed responses on whether it diluted the prominence of ministerial accountability. A similar shift occurred in the , where Question Hour now commences at noon following amendments to Rule 38 of its procedures, reflecting a procedural reform to streamline session agendas. The government has advanced digital initiatives under the broader framework to modernize Question Hour operations, including the adoption of the National e-Vidhan Application () for paperless parliamentary processes. This enables electronic submission of questions through MP portals managed by the and Secretariats, reducing paperwork and expediting admissibility checks, with over 90% of questions now processed digitally as of 2023. Additionally, ministerial replies are uploaded to official websites immediately post-Question Hour, enhancing public access and transparency, as mandated by guidelines from the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs. Live webcasting and telecasting of Question Hour via , launched in 2021 by merging and channels, represent another government-backed effort to broaden outreach, allowing real-time public scrutiny of exchanges. These measures, part of the Digital Sansad initiative, have increased average viewership of proceedings by facilitating online archives and multilingual broadcasts, though empirical data on direct impact on remains limited. Critics argue such technological upgrades, while efficient, do not address core issues like question clubbing or evasion, but proponents highlight their role in democratizing oversight beyond physical chamber attendance.

Calls for Structural Changes like PM's Question Hour

Proposals to introduce a dedicated in the Indian have gained traction among parliamentary experts as a structural reform to bolster direct accountability of the executive to the . Unlike the current Question Hour, where ministers typically respond to queries on their portfolios and the rarely participates personally—appearing only sporadically, such as four times in the between 2014 and 2019—a PMQH would mandate the 's presence once a week to field unscripted questions from Members of Parliament (MPs). This format, inspired by the United Kingdom's (PMQs), aims to address the dilution of oversight when the holds key portfolios like personnel, , and without routine scrutiny. In April 2025, Devender Singh, a former additional secretary in the , advocated for institutionalizing PMQH in his book The Indian : Samvidhan Sadan to Sansad Bhawan. Singh argued that such a session would serve as a "safety valve" for MPs to raise urgent public concerns, foster spontaneous debate, and compel the to engage directly, thereby reviving legislative vibrancy amid declining Question Hour productivity—where only about 60% of scheduled time was utilized in the in recent sessions due to disruptions. He proposed limiting it to 30-45 minutes with prioritized questions from opposition leaders and random selections to ensure broad representation, emphasizing that without such innovations, risks becoming a mere "" for government agendas. Earlier calls echo similar concerns over the 's evasion of direct questioning. In 2019, analyst Niranjan Sahoo urged amending Lok Sabha rules to allocate fixed time for the to answer on portfolios under his charge, noting that procedural loopholes allow delegation to junior ministers, undermining the spirit of . By 2023, amid sessions where Question Hour was suspended—such as the 2023 monsoon session—opposition MPs highlighted the absence of any mechanism to interrogate the , contrasting it with robust traditions in systems. Proponents contend that PMQH would not only enhance but also mitigate disruptions by channeling adversarial energy into structured confrontation, though skeptics within ruling circles have dismissed it as potentially theatrical, favoring existing ministerial channels. Despite these endorsements, no formal legislative motion or government initiative has advanced PMQH implementation as of October 2025, reflecting entrenched resistance to altering the executive's informational dominance in Question Hour proceedings.

Notable Events and Scandals

Mundhra Scandal (1957)

The Mundhra Scandal erupted in 1957 when the (LIC), a government-owned entity, invested approximately Rs 1.25 crore in shares of failing companies controlled by Calcutta-based businessman , ostensibly to support their stock prices and relieve Mundhra of unsold shares. These investments, made without full adherence to LIC's investment committee protocols and at inflated prices, raised suspicions of undue favoritism toward Mundhra, who had close ties to bureaucratic and political figures. The episode highlighted potential conflicts of interest in public , as LIC policyholders' funds were deployed to bail out a private speculator amid a broader involving operators and officials. The scandal's exposure traced directly to parliamentary proceedings during Question Hour in the Lok Sabha, underscoring the mechanism's role in governmental oversight. It began with an unstarred question on September 4, 1957, posed by MP to Finance Minister , inquiring about LIC's investments in Mundhra's firms; Krishnamachari's evasive response failed to quell doubts. On December 16, 1957, independent MP escalated the matter with a pointed supplementary question and speech, detailing how LIC had purchased shares in Mundhra's six companies—such as and Bengal Potteries—without proper valuation or competitive bidding, effectively using public premiums to prop up failing enterprises. Gandhi's intervention, leveraging tracked share price manipulations, compelled Prime Minister to appoint the Das Commission on December 17, 1957, to investigate. The Das Commission, headed by Justice , reported in 1958 findings of procedural irregularities, including unauthorized decisions by LIC officials under Krishnamachari's oversight, though it cleared him of direct . Consequently, Krishnamachari resigned as Finance Minister on February 13, 1958, marking a rare instance of high-level triggered by legislative scrutiny. faced arrest in March 1958, was convicted of cheating and in 1961, and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. This event, independent India's first major financial controversy, affirmed Question Hour's efficacy in unearthing executive malfeasance through adversarial questioning, despite initial ministerial denials.

Puducherry Licence Scandal

In 1974, during a session of the , the licence scandal emerged when MP Tul Mohan Ram from questioned irregularities in licence allocations during Question Hour. Traders from had submitted a memorandum to the Union Commerce Ministry, purportedly endorsed by signatures from 21 Members of , seeking preferential licences for items such as yarn and other under the restrictive regime. The query by highlighted that many of the signatures were forged, exposing a where local merchants exploited parliamentary to bypass standard procedures for scarce import quotas, a common practice amid India's licence-permit raj. This revelation implicated officials in the Commerce Ministry, including potential oversight failures under Minister L.N. Mishra, and drew immediate parliamentary scrutiny, with opposition members demanding accountability for the misuse of legislative endorsements. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi responded by ordering a formal into the affair on September 14, 1974, pledging severe action against those responsible, amid pressure from party members and broader concerns over in import controls. The episode underscored Question Hour's mechanism for uncovering executive malfeasance, as the pointed interrogation prevented routine evasion and forced governmental transparency, though the probe's outcomes remained limited by the era's political dynamics leading into the . No major prosecutions followed directly, but it contributed to public and legislative distrust in licence distribution processes.

Other Significant Instances

In 1951, parliamentary questions in the highlighted the Jeep scandal, independent India's inaugural major case, stemming from a 1948 contract signed by , then Indian High Commissioner to the , for purchasing 200 surplus army jeeps at inflated prices totaling approximately Rs 80 lakh, with many vehicles undelivered or substandard. The inquiries revealed procedural lapses, including bypassing standard procurement protocols and potential kickbacks to intermediaries, prompting the government to appoint a one-man commission under V. Narasimhan, which confirmed irregularities but recommended no prosecutions due to insufficient evidence of personal gain by Menon. The cash-for-questions scandal erupted in November 2005 when a by news channel captured 11 MPs from various parties, including BJP, , and , accepting bribes ranging from Rs 15,000 to Rs 1 lakh to introduce pre-scripted questions in during Question Hour or related proceedings. The exposures, involving MPs like Lalo Devi and , who were filmed receiving cash at hotels, led to privilege motions, an probe confirming guilt in most cases, and the unprecedented expulsion of all 11 from their respective houses on December 23, 2005, marking a rare instance of parliamentary self-correction amid widespread condemnation for undermining legislative integrity. In recent years, the 2023 expulsion of MP from the echoed cash-for-query concerns, following allegations by BJP MP that she accepted gifts and funds from a businessman to pose targeted questions against the and others, supported by evidence of shared login credentials for her parliamentary portal. The Ethics Committee, after a two-month inquiry involving witness testimonies, substantiated claims of unethical conduct in violation of privilege rules, resulting in her removal on December 8, 2023, by , though Moitra contested it as politically motivated without direct proof of .

Comparative Perspectives

Question Hour in Other Legislatures

In the United Kingdom's , which serves as the model for many parliaments, oral questions to ministers are held daily from to , typically lasting around one hour, with a specific (PMQs) session every Wednesday at noon enduring at least 30 minutes. Up to 25 oral questions are allocated to specific ministers on a rostered basis, with submissions required three days in advance, though topical questions and urgent matters allow for without-notice inquiries, followed by supplementary questions at the Speaker's discretion. Answers must remain confined to the question's scope, avoiding debate, with lengthy responses often deferred to written form to maintain brevity. Canada's conducts a daily lasting 45 minutes, commencing at 2:15 p.m. (or 11:15 a.m. on Fridays) during sittings. Questions are posed without notice to ministers, including the , with the Opposition Leader receiving initial priority for three questions, followed by proportional allocation among recognized parties; supplementary questions are permitted without needing to directly arise from the original. No strict rules govern answer content beyond brevity and relevance to ministerial responsibilities, allowing deferral or refusal in certain cases. In Australia's , Question Time occurs daily at 2:00 p.m. during sittings, generally spanning one hour. Questions without notice alternate between government and opposition members on a proportional basis, targeting ministers' public affairs responsibilities, with supplementary questions allowed. Ministers must provide relevant responses but may take matters on notice for later written reply if immediate detail is unavailable. New Zealand's Parliament features a daily Question Time at 2:00 p.m., extending 45 minutes or longer, with exactly 12 oral questions allocated proportionally by party size. Questions are lodged by 10:30 a.m., enabling preparation, while supplementary questions depend on the Speaker's judgment; answers require conciseness and relevance, prohibiting arguments or imputations, with ministers able to decline responses contrary to . These mechanisms, like their counterparts, emphasize through unscripted exchanges, though variations in notice requirements and durations reflect adaptations to local parliamentary needs.

Lessons for Indian Implementation

Implementing a dedicated Prime Minister's Question Hour (PMQH) once a week, modeled on the United Kingdom's (PMQs), could enhance direct accountability of the executive in India's , where the seldom participates in the existing daily Question Hour. In the UK, PMQs occurs every for at least 30 minutes, allowing the Leader of the Opposition up to six questions followed by supplements from other , compelling the to respond publicly and fostering oversight despite its adversarial nature. Adopting this in would prioritize urgent national issues, serving as a "safety valve" for to grill the PM on portfolio-related matters, potentially reducing overall disruptions by concentrating high-stakes scrutiny into a structured slot. Canada's daily , lasting 45 minutes with mandatory Prime Ministerial attendance, demonstrates the value of routine executive exposure, where opposition leaders allocate questions among party members to probe policy implementation effectively. For , integrating elements like pre-allotted question slots and limits on supplements (e.g., 4-6 per primary query) could streamline proceedings, countering frequent adjournments that plague the current system—evident in sessions where only a fraction of starred questions receive oral replies due to protests. The Speaker's enforcement of time limits and relevance, as practiced in systems, would be crucial to prevent evasion, with from PMQs showing sustained media scrutiny that amplifies public accountability despite criticisms of performative exchanges. To avoid pitfalls observed abroad, such as UK PMQs' descent into personality-driven clashes that dilute substantive debate, Indian reforms should mandate follow-up written responses for unresolved points and prioritize evidence-based questioning over rhetoric. Australia's Question Time, with its daily format and ministerial rotations, underscores the need for balanced minister coverage, suggesting India expand starred question ballots to ensure diverse representation while curbing government dominance in question selection. These adaptations, grounded in causal links between structured formats and higher response rates, could elevate Question Hour's efficacy without overhauling the daily framework, as evidenced by reform calls emphasizing rule amendments for PM-specific accountability.

References

  1. [1]
    General Information - Digital Sansad
    It is during the Question Hour that the members can ask questions on every aspect of administration and Governmental activity.
  2. [2]
    Question Hour - Digital Sansad
    The Question Hour used to start at 11.00 a.m. and conclude at 12.00 noon on five days a week. Consequent upon amendment to Rule 38 of the Rules of Procedure and ...
  3. [3]
    What are Question Hour and Zero Hour, and why they matter
    Sep 3, 2020 · Question Hour is the liveliest hour in Parliament. It is during this one hour that Members of Parliament ask questions of ministers and hold them accountable.
  4. [4]
    The Curtailment of the Question Hour in the Indian Parliament
    Sep 14, 2020 · Question Hour is also seen as a manifestation of democracy since in its duration, a Minister is duty-bound to give replies to questions asked, ...
  5. [5]
    Role of Parliament in holding the government accountable - PRS India
    Nov 22, 2017 · In the 16th Lok Sabha, question hour has functioned in Lok Sabha for 77% of the scheduled time, while in Rajya Sabha it has functioned for 47%.
  6. [6]
    [PDF] A Guide to Parliamentary Interventions - Lok Sabha - PRS India
    Lok Sabha usually begins the day's proceedings with Question Hour. Members use Question Hour to hold the government accountable for its policies and actions.<|separator|>
  7. [7]
    Democracy in action: Unpacking the significance of Parliament's ...
    Jul 14, 2025 · And, at the same time, ministers use the Question Hour to highlight achievements of the government. This hour allows the government to quickly ...
  8. [8]
    The relevance of question hour in parliamentary proceedings
    Mar 18, 2025 · For example, in 1957, a financial fraud involving LIC's investments was uncovered, leading to reforms in financial regulations.
  9. [9]
    Ten questions during Question Hour — and what the government's ...
    Apr 11, 2025 · Question Hour serves as a crucial tool to hold the government accountable. Answers to questions asked in Parliament are a veritable goldmine.
  10. [10]
    [PDF] Parliamentary Questions - UK Parliament
    It is generally thought that the first recorded question was asked in the House of Lords. In 1721, Earl Cowper asked the Government whether there was any truth ...
  11. [11]
    50 years of Prime Minister's Questions - UK Parliament
    Question Time is an opportunity for MPs to ask government ministers questions at the begining of the day's business. Before the 1880s oral questions to the ...
  12. [12]
    House of Commons - Procedure - Third Report - Parliament UK
    Questions to Ministers evolved comparatively late in the history of Parliament—long after the basic pattern of parliamentary discussion based on debate arising ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  13. [13]
    https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/rajya-sabha-extends-sitting-hours-changes-timing-of-question-hour
  14. [14]
    [PDF] QUESTIONS AND HALF-AN-HOUR DISCUSSION - Rajya Sabha
    The 'Question Hour' is an important part of the parliamentary proceedings which gives the institution of. Parliament the great significance it possesses.
  15. [15]
    What are the types of questions asked in the question hour? - BYJU'S
    The first hour of every parliamentary sitting is slotted for question hour. During this time, the members ask questions and the ministers usually give ...
  16. [16]
    How MPs ask questions in Lok Sabha - Vajiram & Ravi
    Oct 21, 2023 · They can be asked with less than 10 days' notice, with reasons for the short notice. Like a starred question, they are answered orally, followed ...What is the procedure for... · Different types of questions
  17. [17]
    Explained: How MPs' questions are allowed, disallowed
    Dec 4, 2021 · Next, the questions are examined for admissibility under Rules 41-44 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. Story ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  18. [18]
    Questioning in Parliament - Drishti IAS
    Oct 24, 2023 · The procedure for raising questions is governed by Rules 32 to 54 of the “Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha” and ...
  19. [19]
    Question Hour in Parliament - PMF IAS
    It is a one-hour time period provided to MPs to ask questions to the minister and hold them accountable for the functioning of their ministries. When in session ...
  20. [20]
    Functioning of the 17th Lok Sabha - Vital Stats
    Question Hour was cancelled in the Monsoon Session 2020, due to the pandemic. However, members could ask unstarred questions, which received written responses.
  21. [21]
    Question Hour and Zero Hour in Monsoon Session - Sanskriti IAS
    There will be no Question Hour and the curtailed Zero Hour and no private members'' bills during the upcoming monsoon session of Parliament.Missing: reforms | Show results with:reforms
  22. [22]
    Parliament Functioning in Monsoon Session 2025 - Vital Stats
    When questions are answered orally, MPs can ask supplementary questions. Note: Question Hour was not held during MS 2020 and FS 2024.*17th LS Budget Session ...
  23. [23]
    [PDF] Parliament Functioning in Monsoon Session 2025 - PRS India
    Aug 21, 2025 · Question Hour functioned for 23% of scheduled time in Lok Sabha and for 6% in Rajya Sabha. Lok Sabha. Rajya Sabha. Till 12:52 AM. Till 7:56 PM.
  24. [24]
    Parliament Diary - PRS India
    12 MPs were suspended by the Speaker in Lok Sabha in the Monsoon Session for “grave disorder”. Of these, nine were suspended again. On both occasions, the MPs ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples<|separator|>
  25. [25]
    264 questions raised by suspended Opposition MPs deleted from ...
    Dec 23, 2023 · A record 146 MPs were suspended from both Houses in a span of eight days – from December 14 to 21 – over their refusal to budge on their demand ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
  26. [26]
    Mass suspensions of Opposition MPs raise concerns about India's ...
    Dec 20, 2023 · With 143 MPs suspended in Parliament's stormiest week, Opposition cries “tyranny” while BJP claims “order”. Are there any solutions to the impasse?
  27. [27]
    Disruption is Contempt of the House, asserts RS Chairman - PIB
    During the last six years, over 60% of the valuable Question Hour time has been lost due to disruptions. This state of affairs justifies the growing concern ...
  28. [28]
    Lok Sabha sees smooth functioning of Question Hour after six days ...
    Jul 29, 2025 · Lok Sabha sees smooth functioning of Question Hour after six days of disruption. The House has been witnessing repeated disruptions over the ...
  29. [29]
    List of MPs suspended so far in Parliament's Winter Session
    Dec 20, 2023 · 143 MPs suspended in unprecedented move in Indian Parliament over security breach protest.
  30. [30]
    Parliament proceedings washed out again amid opposition stir
    Aug 9, 2025 · Both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha faced disruptions due to opposition protests demanding a discussion on Bihar's special intensive revision of ...
  31. [31]
    Protests continue on SIR, Rajya Sabha has lost nearly 57 hours in din
    Aug 8, 2025 · The government has consistently refused to hold the debate, leading to a loss of nearly 57 hours of parliamentary time, as reported by Rajya ...
  32. [32]
    Parliamentary Disruptions And Their Implications - PWOnlyIAS
    Jan 2, 2025 · Question Hour did not function for 15 out of 19 days in the Rajya Sabha and for more than 10 minutes on 12 out of 20 days in the Lok Sabha, ...
  33. [33]
    Parliament's Question Hour Was Subverted Before Suspension
    Sep 14, 2020 · The Question Hour withstood a colonial government and was rescinded only rarely during regular sessions of the Parliament in Independent India— ...<|separator|>
  34. [34]
    Question Hour Activity and Party Behaviour in India - ResearchGate
    Aug 5, 2025 · Based on a unique data set of Indian legislators and their behaviour during Question Hour over a 30-year period (1980–2009), the paper ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] What Does the Indian Parliament Discuss? An Exploratory Analysis ...
    Jun 24, 2022 · During the Question Hour, any Member of Parliament in the Lok Sabha (abbrevi- ated: MP) may ask any question to the ministers related to the ...
  36. [36]
    Only 0.3% of Parliament Questions in the Last 20 Years Were About ...
    Jul 26, 2022 · Between 1999 and 2019, only three in every 1,000 questions raised in India's parliament referenced climate change, making it an inadequately ...Missing: effectiveness | Show results with:effectiveness
  37. [37]
    A qualitative analysis of the Parliamentary questions on the issue of ...
    A total of 134 questions on obesity were asked in both the houses, out of which 101 questions were from Lok Sabha and 33 questions were from Rajya Sabha.
  38. [38]
    60% of Question Hour lost due to disruptions: Rajya Sabha research ...
    Sep 3, 2020 · 60% of Question Hour lost due to disruptions: Rajya Sabha ... In an attempt to nullify the Opposition parties' objection to the suspension of ...
  39. [39]
    The Cost of Parliamentary Disruption - Articles by PRS Team
    With Parliament being disrupted routinely, Members of Parliament (MPs) are not able to ask ministers tough questions during question hour to assess the work ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  40. [40]
    PRS Report on the Functioning of 17th Lok Sabha - INSIGHTS IAS
    Feb 15, 2024 · GS Paper 2 ; Question Hour, Question Hour functioned for 60% of the scheduled time in Lok Sabha ; Lack of Diversity and Inclusivity, The Lok Sabha ...
  41. [41]
    https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/house-of-lost-opportunities
  42. [42]
    How productive was Parliament Winter Session - Times of India
    Dec 20, 2024 · The Question Hour, functioned inadequately this session particularly in Rajya Sabha where it was non-functional for 15 out of 19 days. In Lok ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical
  43. [43]
    Disruptions in Parliament and State Assemblies - NEXT IAS
    Mar 12, 2025 · Parliamentary Question Hour and Zero Hour, meant for deliberations, are frequently disrupted. ... Frequent disruptions result in the suspension ...
  44. [44]
    Question Hour: How all parties have contributed to its decline in ...
    Sep 3, 2020 · The rest got wasted on account of disruptions. During 2015-19, the Rajya Sabha held a total of 332 sittings. During this period, 332 hours were ...Missing: effectiveness empirical<|control11|><|separator|>
  45. [45]
    Digital Parliament: India's democracy embraces a new technological ...
    Jun 28, 2025 · To modernise operations, the Lok Sabha has introduced a digital attendance system, enabling MPs to mark presence electronically via tablets and ...
  46. [46]
    https://dailypioneer.com/2025/india/digital-parliament--india---s-democracy-embraces-a-new-technological-era.html
  47. [47]
    [PDF] Parliament Questions Guidelines - Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
    As the replies to the questions are' to be hosted on the Website of Parliament immediatelv after Question Hour, it is requested that the text of Questions/ ...
  48. [48]
    Question Hour Plus Ep-01 | 07 October, 2025 - YouTube
    Oct 7, 2025 · In every Parliament session, Question Hour allows Members to raise key issues and seek accountability from the government.Missing: procedural reforms 2020-2025
  49. [49]
    Parliament's Question Hour Was Subverted Before Suspension
    Sep 14, 2020 · The government's move to cancel the Question Hour is “absolutely unconstitutional” and “defeats the entire purpose of Parliament”, according to ...Missing: examples lapses change
  50. [50]
    Question Hour for Modi: Why Parliament must fix a time for PM to ...
    Aug 8, 2019 · Time has come to amend parliamentary rules to ensure PM Modi answers members' questions related to the ministries held by him.Missing: structural | Show results with:structural
  51. [51]
    Why can't our Parliament have 'PM's Questions' like UK House of ...
    Sep 14, 2023 · The Opposition will not be able to ask Prime Minister Modi any questions this session, since there will be no question hour or zero hour, it ...
  52. [52]
    Introduce PM Question Hour in Parliament - The New Indian Express
    Apr 22, 2025 · Singh asserts that the PMQH should be institutionalised in Parliament to enhance accountability and revive legislative engagement.Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
  53. [53]
    Introduce PM's Question Hour, new book on Parliament suggests
    Apr 20, 2025 · It said the introduction of PM's Question Hour once a week will act as a safety valve, allow members to raise issues of urgent concern and allow ...
  54. [54]
    PM's Question Hour must for...: Book calls for Parl debate format ...
    Apr 20, 2025 · It said the introduction of PM's Question Hour once a week will act as a safety valve, allow members to raise issues of urgent concern and allow ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  55. [55]
    Feroze Gandhi speech that exposed LIC scam—it forced Nehru to ...
    Mar 24, 2024 · On 16 December 1957, Lok Sabha MP Feroze Gandhi spoke how the Life Insurance Corporation invested nearly Rs 1.25 crore to help Calcutta-based stock speculator ...
  56. [56]
    Mundhra scam and the importance of Question Hour - Moneycontrol
    Sep 4, 2020 · The scandal had its origins in an innocuous unstarred question asked in the Lok Sabha on an early September morning 63 years back. However, it ...
  57. [57]
    INDIA: The People's Premiums | TIME
    The scandal broke last November when Nehru's son-in-law, Feroze Gandhi,* rose in Parliament and asked the minister a pointed question: Had the new ...
  58. [58]
    A gandhi who fought corruption - The New Indian Express
    Sep 10, 2019 · Feroze Gandhi tracked the share prices of Mundhra Companies over a fortnight to expose the government. Finance Minister T T Krishnamachari tried ...
  59. [59]
    From the Mundhra Scandal to the license scam, how Question Hour ...
    Sep 3, 2020 · A memorandum, allegedly signed by 21 MPs, was submitted by traders of Puducherry to the Union Commerce Ministry to grant licenses for importing ...
  60. [60]
    2 SCANDALS WHICH CAME INTO LIGHT DUE TO THE QUESTION ...
    It was called the Mundhra Scandal. Haridas Mundhra , a Calcutta-based industrialist and stock speculator got the government owned Life Insurance Corporation ( ...
  61. [61]
    Genesis of the Emergency of 1975-77 - Hindu Vivek Kendra
    It was in this ambience that the Pondicherry Licence scandal broke in Parliament and the then Commerce Minister Lalit Narayan Mishra came directly in the firing ...
  62. [62]
    INQUIRY ORDERED IN INDIAN SCANDAL - The New York Times
    Sep 15, 1974 · Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has ordered an inquiry into a scandal over import licenses at the insistence of members of her own governing Congress party in ...Missing: Puducherry | Show results with:Puducherry
  63. [63]
    [PDF] corruption in politics - CORE
    Charges of corruption were leveled against L.N. Mishra6 in the Pondicherry Licence Scandal Case, Sanjay Gandhi, Devraj Urs,7 Vengal. Rao, D.P. Mishra ...
  64. [64]
    Independent India's Very First Scam : Jeep Scandal - 1948
    Nov 10, 2023 · The jeep scandal in 1948 was first major corruption case in independent India. VK Krishna Menon, the then Indian high commissioner to Britain, ignored ...
  65. [65]
    Flip side of Nehruvian era - The Statesman
    Mar 29, 2018 · The scandal was hushed up and the government announced on 30 September 1955 that the jeep scandal case was closed and there would be no judicial ...
  66. [66]
    Stung: 11 MPs take cash to ask questions in Parliament | India News
    Dec 12, 2005 · A sting operation by a television news channel has caught 11 MPs taking bribe purportedly for asking questions in Parliament.
  67. [67]
    Cash-for-query: 11 tainted MPs expelled - Times of India
    Dec 24, 2005 · A historic vote in Parliament on Friday saw 11 MPs caught in the cash-for-query scandal being expelled from the Houses - a move unprecedented in its scale in ...
  68. [68]
    Mahua Moitra case: Echoes of cash-for-query from 18 years ago ...
    Oct 23, 2023 · Accusing her of accepting money to ask questions in Parliament, BJP Lok Sabha MP Nishikant Dubey has hauled Trinamool Congress (TMC) parliamentarian Mahua ...<|separator|>
  69. [69]
    Prime Minister's Questions and the role of the Speaker - UK Parliament
    PMQs takes place every Wednesday when the House is meeting, at 12 noon, they last at least half an hour. The Speaker calls on MPs in the order they are listed ...
  70. [70]
    [PDF] Background Brief – Comparison of Question Time across Jurisdictions
    This note provides a brief comparison of parliamentary Question Time procedures in the: • Canada House of Commons. • New Zealand Parliament. • United Kingdom ...
  71. [71]
    Questions - Our Procedure - ProceduralInfo - House of Commons
    Oral questions are posed daily during a 45-minute Question Period. Questions are typically addressed to minister about government responsibilities.Summary · Oral Questions · Adjournment Proceedings...
  72. [72]
    Question Time - Parliament of Australia
    Question Time is usually an occasion of special interest not only to Members themselves but to the news media, the radio and television broadcast audience.
  73. [73]
    https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/parliamentary-rules/standing-orders-2017-by-chapter/chapter-7-NON-LEGISLATIVE-PROCEDURES/#_Toc490063170
  74. [74]
    Prime minister's questions (PMQs) - Institute for Government
    May 22, 2024 · Questions to the prime minister (often referred to as PMQs) are held at midday on every Wednesday that the House of Commons sits.
  75. [75]
    The practice of accountability in questioning prime ministers
    In Canada and Australia, Question Period and Question Time are the only oral questioning mechanisms attended by the prime minister. By contrast, in the United ...
  76. [76]
    Exploring and explaining adversarial remarks in oral questions to ...
    Aug 4, 2023 · Questioning mechanisms such as Prime Minister's Questions in the United Kingdom and Question Time in Australia are notoriously adversarial.