Examine the role of the Indian Parliamentary Group in India's multilateral engagement. Should parliamentary diplomacy have a statutory framework?

The Indian Parliamentary Group (IPG) was formed in 1949 under a 1948 motion of the Constituent Assembly (Legislative). It serves as India's National Group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and as the Main Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association [2]. Its role is valuable, but it rests on custom, not law. That gap needs closing, though a rigid statute is not the way to do it.

Role of the IPG in multilateral engagement

• Institutional anchor: the Lok Sabha Speaker is its ex-officio President, and the Deputy Speaker and the Rajya Sabha Deputy Chairman are its Vice-Presidents [2]. This gives delegations high-level leadership.
• Voicing India's positions: a 9-member delegation led by Shri Harivansh goes to the 153rd IPU Assembly, Arusha (October 2026). It will present India's views on counter-terrorism and AI, and take part in the hearing of candidates for IPU President [1].
• Shaping the agenda: Indian MPs have served as IPU committee office-bearers, rapporteurs and drafting-committee members [2].
• Learning and acting at home: the IPU lets parliaments share experience [2]. Partnerships such as WHO–IPU help MPs turn global health goals into national budgets and laws [4].

Limitations

• IPU resolutions do not bind governments. The US at the UN General Assembly called UN–IPU coordination "a pro forma exercise" [5].
• Weak follow-up: IPG annual reports record what delegations did [6], but the Houses rarely debate the outcomes.
• Unclear selection: 7 of the 9 Arusha delegates come from the Lok Sabha [1], and six also went to the 150th Assembly in Tashkent [1][3].

Should there be a statutory framework?

• For:
• Clear rules for choosing delegates (a fair share for both Houses, a mix of parties, rotation).

• Required reporting to Parliament, which would make delegations accountable for public money and outcomes.

• Against:

• Diplomacy needs flexibility, and fixed legal rules could make it rigid.

• Article 118 lets each House regulate its own procedure. A statute could open internal parliamentary matters to legal challenge.

• Calibrated view: a middle path works better than a full Act. The IPG Executive Committee [2] could publish selection rules, and delegation reports could be tabled and discussed in both Houses.

In short, the IPG adds a democratic voice to India's foreign policy that executive diplomacy cannot provide. Written, published rules and regular debate in Parliament, rather than a rigid law, would make it more accountable without losing flexibility. This would match SDG 16's call for accountable institutions and strengthen India's claim to be a model democracy.