Discuss the role and limitations of Department-Related Standing Committees in ensuring executive accountability, with reference to recent controversies over agenda-setting.

Department-Related Standing Committees (DRSCs), 24 in number and serviced by both Houses, are the "mini-Parliaments" that scrutinise ministries' demands for grants, Bills and policy performance away from the floor's partisan glare [2]. Their utility, however, depends on how their agenda is set — a tension visible in the Home Affairs Committee's August 2026 meeting [5].

Role in securing executive accountability

• Continuous, expert scrutiny: DRSCs examine ministries year-round; the Home Affairs Committee is presently seized of subjects like Crime against Children, internal security and disaster management, summoning officials of the concerned ministries [1].
• Depoliticised deliberation: closed-door proceedings, an anti-defection-free space and multi-party composition (31 members drawn from both Houses) allow evidence-based questioning rather than sloganeering [1].
• Legislative quality: pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills and examination of demands for grants strengthen financial control over the executive.
• Institutional continuity: recommendations and Action Taken Reports create a documented trail of executive response.

Limitations exposed by agenda-setting controversies

• Chairperson's discretion: at the meeting of 25 August 2026, chaired by Radha Mohan Das Agarwal, Opposition members led by Ajay Maken sought to set aside the listed agenda to debate alleged police excesses during the July 20 Jantar Mantar protest; the request was rejected [5].
• The sub judice convention: the ground of refusal was that the Supreme Court had constituted a committee on the allegations — the Rules of Procedure bar members from discussing matters pending before courts, which can shrink the oversight space [3][5].
• Recommendations are advisory, not binding, and referral itself is shrinking — only 16% of Bills in the 17th Lok Sabha went to committees [4].
• Thin secretarial and research support, high member turnover and low attendance dilute scrutiny.

DRSCs remain Parliament's most effective accountability instrument, but their strength lies in consensual agenda-setting rather than majority control. Codifying criteria for admitting members' subjects, mandatory referral of significant Bills and stronger research support would restore the committee system as a genuine forum of collective legislative oversight.