Q.Why is legislature control over executive so necessary in parliamentary system?
You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.
Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →Legislative control over the executive is essential in a parliamentary system because, in this system, the executive is drawn from and governs only for as long as it retains the confidence of the legislature — without a strong, continuous mechanism of legislative control, this core principle of accountability would exist only on paper.
A parliamentary executive, by definition, is one that depends on majority support in the legislature (the Lok Sabha, at the national level). This dependence is not a one-time event that happens only at the moment of appointment — it has to be a live, ongoing relationship, or the whole design of the parliamentary system collapses into an executive that, once in office, answers to no one. This is exactly the personality-cult danger the makers of India's Constitution were trying to avoid when they rejected the presidential alternative in favour of the parliamentary system.
The chapter's own account of collective responsibility shows why continuous control matters: the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, meaning a Ministry that loses the confidence of the House is obliged to resign — a vote of no-confidence, even against a single minister, brings down the entire Council. This is a genuinely powerful check: it means the executive can never take the legislature's support for granted between elections, and must continue to govern in ways that retain majority backing. …
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.