Q.Alok thinks an efficient government + elected PM/Ministers means we don't need a legislature. Do you agree? Give reasons.

Alok's argument only looks at whether government can run efficiently — it ignores the separate question of who checks that government once it is in power, which is exactly what a legislature exists to do.

Alok's argument assumes that once a country has an elected Prime Minister and Council of Ministers who can run the government well, a separate legislature becomes redundant. This confuses two very different jobs. Electing a government decides who runs the administration; a legislature exists to make sure that whoever is running it stays answerable, transparent, and within its constitutional limits while doing so.

Several real functions of a legislature simply cannot be performed by an executive checking itself. No new tax can be imposed, and no rupee of public money can be spent, without Lok Sabha approval — an executive, however efficient, cannot legally authorise its own spending. The legislature also provides a continuous channel for accountability that an "efficient" administration would otherwise lack entirely: through Question Hour, no-confidence motions, and open debate, ministers are forced to explain and defend their decisions in public, in front of elected representatives from every part of the country. Without this, an efficient government very easily becomes an unaccountable one — the exact danger described in the chapter as "Cabinet dictatorship," where a strong Cabinet leads and no institution is left to make it answer for its choices. Finally, the legislature is also the country's most representative institution — it channels the concerns of different regions, communities, and interests into government decision-making in a way a Council of Ministers, however capable, cannot substitute for on its own.