Tackling the Increasing Backlog of Government Assurances in Parliament
By: Dr. K. Gireesan, Chinmay Bendre
The 18th Lok Sabha constituted the Committee on Government Assurances (CGA) on 4 March 2025. This marks a significant step towards ensuring an accountable executive who is answerable to the citizens of India through the Parliament. The first meeting of the CGA was held on 20 March 2025, with its agenda focusing on the “status of pending assurances” and outlining “its future programs.” In this article, we discuss the role of the CGA in upholding the spirit of parliamentary democracy in India.
About Government Assurances:
Elected representatives gather information from the government through questions, discussions, and motions. When ministers lack immediate answers, they may commit to investigating, taking action, or providing details later. These commitments, made in the House, are known as “Government Assurances.” To ensure institutional accountability, the CGA was formed for the first time on 1 December 1953, reinforcing the government’s accountability to the parliament. The LS committee comprises 15 members, while the RS committee has 10 members.
Functions of the CGA:
The CGA reviews government assurances made in the House and reports on their progress and timelines. Ministries are given three months to fulfill assurances from the date of assurance. The Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs monitors the progress through the Online Assurance Monitoring System (OAMS).
Pendency in the LS:
The data from the OAMS highlights a concerning trend in the pendency of government assurances since the 15th LS. While there are no pending assurances from the 14th LS (2004–2009), the backlog emerges thereafter. As of 30 March 2025, the following pendency rates are recorded as per the LS website:
15th LS (2009–2014): 38 pending assurances out of 5817 (0.65%)
16th LS (2014–2019): 82 pending assurances out of 5389 (1.52%)
17th LS (2019–2024): 494 pending assurances out of 3091 (15.98%)
18th LS (ongoing): 76 pending assurances out of 105 (72.38%)
The OAMS data shows that of the 731 pending assurances, the longest outstanding ones date back to 2009, involving 3 assurances from the Ministry of Minority Affairs (USQ Nos.: 168, 533, 4559) and 2 from the Ministry of Railways (Q. Nos. not available), which are yet to be implemented. Notably, the Ministry of Education has the highest number of pending assurances, with 48 still pending. This is followed by the Ministry of Railways (46), the Ministry of Social Justice (37), and the Ministry of Law (33), among others.
Pendency in the RS:
In the RS, a total of 524 assurances are pending implementation. The longest pending assurance, dating back to 2005, pertains to the Ministry of Education (SQ No. 102). The OAMS data indicates that among the ministries, the Ministry of Civil Aviation has the highest pendency of 37 assurances. This is followed by the Ministry of Railways (33), the Ministry of Law (31), and the Ministry of Commerce (26), among others.
Why is the situation worrisome?
Some government assurances are long-term undertakings requiring attention beyond three months. However, three factors make this situation worrisome:
Firstly, inadequate monitoring mechanisms contribute to delays. For instance, the assurance for USQ No. 1175 (8 August 2011) took the Ministry of Environment 11 years to implement. The CGA, in its 78th Report (2022), observed that such delays reflect insufficient monitoring and follow-up, emphasizing that “sustained efforts need to be made by the Ministry for implementation of these assurances as these are solemn parliamentary obligations.”
Secondly, an increasing number of assurances are being dropped. According to the LS Website, 431 assurances (7.40%) from the 15th LS, 412 (7.64%) from the 16th LS, and 182 (5.88%) from the 17th LS were dropped. Since the last CGA (2023-24) of the 17th LS concluded its term on 5 June 2024 and the next CGA was constituted on 4 March 2025, no assurances have been dropped yet from the 18th LS. However, there remains a possibility that more assurances pending since the 15th LS may still be dropped.
Thirdly, pendency creates a multiplier effect on Ministries. For instance, the LS Website shows that the Ministry of Law has 1 pending assurance from the 15th LS, 3 from the 16th LS, 27 from the 17th LS, and 1 from the ongoing 18th LS. According to the RS Website, the Ministry accounts for 37 pending assurances in the RS, totaling 69 pending assurances overall.
The OAMS data shows that other ministries also face similar backlogs: Railways (79), Education (69), and Social Justice (59), among others.
Reforms required:
Firstly, improved coordination among ministries, states, and agencies is essential. The CGA, in multiple reports on “Requests for Dropping of Assurances (Not Acceded to),” urged ministries to “pursue the matter vigorously” when delays arise from poor coordination, unclear jurisdiction, assurance transfers, pending investigations, or unavailable information.
Secondly, ministries must refrain from seeking to drop assurances on weak grounds, particularly those previously rejected by the committee. The 100th CGA Report (2024) emphasized this in the case of Darbhanga Airport’s development.
Lastly, digitizing data on implemented assurances — including the assurance date, closure date, and time taken — is critical. This measure will enable both the government and civil society to analyze the responsiveness and quality of responses for implemented assurances.
Conclusion:
In a parliamentary system, the Executive’s accountability to the Legislature is vital for upholding democratic principles. Elected representatives rely on timely information to assess government actions. Assurances, as formal commitments made in the House, symbolize this accountability. Ensuring their timely fulfillment is crucial for maintaining transparency, trust, and effective governance.
