Q.Dolly vs Sudha debate on Parliament's efficiency (less debate time + walkouts vs governments falling on Lok Sabha floor as vibrancy proof). What other arguments support/oppose each position?

Both Dolly and Sudha have real evidence behind them — declining debate time and disruption support Dolly, while post-1989 governments actually falling on the floor of the Lok Sabha supports Sudha. …

Supporting Dolly (declining efficiency). The chapter explicitly states that over the last two decades, sessions of the Lok Sabha and State Legislative Assemblies, and the time actually spent on debate within them, have both declined. It also notes that Houses have been "plagued by absence of quorum" and by opposition boycotts of sittings — both of which strip away the House's practical ability to debate and control the executive, regardless of its formal powers. Frequent walkouts during Question Hour, mentioned separately in the chapter, cost real legislative time as well. Taken together, these are genuine, documented signs of declining parliamentary efficiency.

Supporting Sudha (vibrancy proof). Since 1989, several governments have actually been forced to resign after losing the confidence of the Lok Sabha — real proof that the no-confidence mechanism is not merely symbolic. Beyond the floor itself, much of Parliament's serious scrutiny work has shifted into committees: more than twenty standing committees now study bills, ministry budgets, and cases of alleged corruption in real depth, and Parliament usually accepts their findings — meaning genuine, substantive work continues even when floor debate looks chaotic or reduced. Question Hour, despite the disruptions, still draws intense member interest and consistently high attendance, and continues to force ministers to answer for issues like price rise and corruption in public. …