The oversight functions of the standing committees are an integral part of parliamentary democracy, while the government has the prerogative to execute its policies and carry out the day-to-day administration of the country. But it must be seen whether the execution has been timely, transparent and cost-effective. Overseeing, on the other hand, must not hinder the normal functioning of the executive. In other words, a balance must be struck between the two in order that the JS standing committees can effectively perform their watchdog role and the executive functions of the government are discharged without hindrance.

To tell the truth, the executive has always had a free ride as the committee system could not develop to its full potential, thanks to boycott of parliament and the committees and politicisation of JS bodies. As a matter of fact, the committees have had a roller-coaster ride since the 1990's. Certain gray areas therefore remain in the equations or the working patterns between the JS bodies and the ministries.

Having acknowledged that kind of systemic imbalance and opacity, we would like to say that the demands raised by the standing committees for greater functional authority are justified. The ministries must cooperate with the committees as they work and be willing to implement their recommendations.

The problems arising due to the absence of a well-developed system of working must be sorted out amicably. The ministries feel that the JS bodies are at times 'intrusive' in their bid to gather papers, documents and information. Of course, any debilitating intrusion into the day-to-day functioning of the ministries must be avoided. But then the question remains whether the problems are cropping up because of any deviation from the set procedure or its absence altogether.

We fully endorse the demands of the standing committees and urge the government to get a move on to empower them.