Q.Why can Lok Sabha control the executive more effectively than Rajya Sabha?

The Lok Sabha's advantage in controlling the executive comes down to one constitutional fact: the government is answerable to it alone, not to the Rajya Sabha.

The Constitution makes the Council of Ministers responsible to the Lok Sabha, and not to the Rajya Sabha. This single design choice explains almost the entire gap between the two Houses' ability to control the executive. Because the government is answerable specifically to the Lok Sabha, only the Lok Sabha can move and pass a no-confidence motion — described in the chapter as Parliament's single most powerful weapon for ensuring executive accountability. The Rajya Sabha has no equivalent power: it is free to question, criticise, and debate government policy, but it cannot force a government's resignation.

The Lok Sabha also holds exclusive control over the government's finances. Money Bills can only be introduced in the Lok Sabha, and the Rajya Sabha can merely suggest changes or delay such a bill for up to 14 days — it cannot reject or amend it on its own authority. Since financial control is one of the most direct ways a legislature can restrain an executive (by questioning spending and withholding resources), this gives the Lok Sabha a second, independent lever of control the Rajya Sabha does not have.

The underlying reason for this asymmetry is how each House is elected. The Lok Sabha is directly elected by the people through universal adult suffrage, while the Rajya Sabha is elected indirectly, by MLAs. In a democracy where the people are treated as the final authority, the Constitution reserves the decisive powers over the government's survival and its money for the House whose members answer directly to voters.