Compare legislative oversight of the executive under the US presidential system with India's parliamentary system. Which is more effective at checking executive unilateralism?

The US separates the executive from the legislature, so Congress checks the President from outside. India fuses the two, so Parliament checks the Council of Ministers from within through collective responsibility under Article 75(3) [4]. The two designs restrain executive unilateralism in different ways, and with uneven success.

Oversight in the US presidential system

• Purse and trade powers: Article I, Section 8 gives Congress, not the President, the power to levy duties and regulate foreign commerce [1].
• Independent committees: legislators are elected separately from the President. So hearings and subpoenas stay active, especially under divided government.
• Impeachment and Senate consent: the House impeaches and the Senate tries. Treaties need two-thirds Senate approval [1].
• Limits: a fixed-term President cannot be removed for policy failure. Congress has also handed trade powers to the executive by statute. In February 2026 the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorise tariffs [2]. Even so, USTR imposed an extra 10% Section 301 duty on Indian goods in July 2026 [3].

Oversight in India's parliamentary system

• Confidence of the House: the government survives only while it commands a Lok Sabha majority. A no-confidence motion can remove it [4].
• Daily accountability: Question Hour, adjournment motions, the opposition-chaired Public Accounts Committee, and CAG audit reports laid before Parliament (Arts. 148–151) [4].
• Limits: the anti-defection law (Tenth Schedule) binds MPs to the party whip [4], so a majority government controls the House. Committee scrutiny has thinned. Only 16% of Bills were referred to committees in the 17th Lok Sabha [5], and about 21% so far in the 18th [6].

Which is more effective?

• In principle, India: Parliament can dismiss the executive outright, while Congress cannot short of impeachment.
• In practice, the US: separation of powers gives sustained, independent scrutiny, and the courts add a further brake [2]. India's checks work best under coalitions and weaken under large single-party majorities.
• Verdict: the US design checks unilateralism more reliably. India's check is stronger on paper but depends on the size of the ruling majority.

Each system has a strength the other lacks: the US has institutional independence, and India has executive removability. India can narrow the gap by making committee referral of Bills the norm, holding longer sessions and giving the opposition more room. This would give real effect to the accountability that Article 75(3) intends.