Rigorous public scrutiny by the legislature improves public policy, identifies unintended consequences, and ultimately strengthens public trust and democracy
The Goa Government’s decision to convene the Monsoon Session of the Legislative Assembly for only three days, from August 31 to September 2, deserves careful public scrutiny.
The Chief Minister justified the duration by saying that it had been fixed according to the volume of government business before the House. This explanation overlooks the legislature’s primary purpose. A Legislative Assembly is not convened merely to pass government bills or complete the executive’s agenda. It exists to examine government policies, scrutinize public expenditure, question ministers, debate matters of public importance, and provide every elected representative with an opportunity to speak for the people who elected them. Therefore, legislative time should be determined by the demands of democratic accountability rather than administrative convenience.
The events of the March 2026 Budget Session remain relevant. The session, originally scheduled to continue until March 27, ended on March 16 after the announcement of the Ponda Assembly by-election. Instead of adopting the well-established parliamentary option of a Vote on Account and returning later for detailed financial scrutiny, the Assembly authorised the entire Rs 30,194-crore Budget. Seventy-nine demands for grants, accounting for nearly 80 percent of the proposed expenditure, received no meaningful departmental discussion by the MLAs. Five government Bills and twenty-two private members’ bills remained pending, while hundreds of questions submitted by members never came up for oral discussion.
The government assured the House that members would receive another opportunity during the Monsoon Session to raise unfinished business. The announcement of a three-day session inevitably raises legitimate questions about how this assurance can now be fulfilled. This debate should not be reduced to whether three days are legally permissible. The Constitution does not prescribe a minimum number of sitting days for state legislatures. Article 174 merely requires that no more than six months should elapse between two sessions.
However, India’s most authoritative benchmark for legislative functioning comes from the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), which recommended that state legislatures with fewer than 70 members should meet for at least 50 sitting days every year. Goa, with its forty-member Assembly, falls squarely within that recommendation. Although this benchmark is not legally enforceable, it represents a nationally accepted standard for responsible democratic governance. Measured against that benchmark, the record of the Eighth Goa Legislative Assembly deserves serious reflection. Between March 2022 and March 2026, the Assembly met for only ninety-eight sitting days across 13 sessions. Based on the Commission’s recommendation, it should ideally have met for about 200 sitting days during the same period.
The shortfall is therefore approximately 102 sitting days, meaning the Assembly achieved barely 49 percent of the nationally recommended benchmark. Even the Speaker of the Goa Legislative Assembly has publicly observed that Goa should have at least 30 sitting days every year. By any objective standard, legislative sittings in Goa have been substantially fewer than desirable. The consequences of this extend far beyond statistics. Every sitting day lost means fewer questions answered, fewer departmental decisions examined, fewer opportunities to scrutinise expenditure, and fewer occasions for elected representatives to raise constituency concerns.
Goa faces significant public policy challenges in land-use changes, water security, environmental protection, mining, urban development, agriculture, tourism, public health, education, employment, infrastructure, and fiscal management. These issues deserve sustained legislative attention in the future. Good governance depends not only on efficient administration but also on rigorous legislative oversight. Democracies are strengthened when governments willingly submit themselves to detailed public examination by the legislature. Particular attention must also be given to private members’ bills. They constitute one of the few legislative instruments available to members who are not ministers of the government. Their importance lies not merely in becoming law but also in introducing new ideas, representing citizens’ concerns, and stimulating informed debate. When repeated curtailment of assembly sessions leaves private members’ business without adequate time, the role of ordinary legislators is inevitably diminished.
This issue should not be viewed through a partisan lens. Every government seeks efficiency, but efficiency cannot substitute accountability. Legislatures are intentionally designed to ensure that executive decisions are subjected to questioning, criticism, and debate before receiving democratic approval. Governments with comfortable legislative majorities should have the confidence to welcome longer sessions because rigorous scrutiny improves public policy, identifies unintended consequences, and ultimately strengthens public trust.
The legitimacy of the government is enhanced not only by electoral victory but also by its willingness to remain answerable before the House. Goa’s voters should therefore judge every political party and every MLA by a simple democratic standard: do they support an Assembly that meets often enough to perform its constitutional responsibilities effectively? The Assembly belongs neither to the government nor to the opposition; it belongs to the people of Goa. A three-day session may satisfy administrative requirements, but it does little to bridge the democratic deficit. Goa deserves longer sessions, fuller debates, stronger financial scrutiny, and an Assembly that measures its performance not by the speed with which government business is completed, but by the quality of accountability it delivers to the people.
(Dr Nandkumar M Kamat, who has a doctorate in microbiology, is a scientist and science writer)
