In countries with a parliamentary system of government, the government is formed through the parliament. Parliamentary oversight is necessary to make the work of the executive and the government accountable to the legislature to maintain the balance of power and end arbitrariness. It is necessary to review, monitor, regulate and direct government policies, programs, budgets and procedures to make them cost-effective, inclusive, balanced, equitable, transparent and universally accepted.

Parliamentary oversight is indispensable to make the government's operations legal, economical, effective and citizen-friendly, as the oversight mandate is vested in the sovereign parliament that has the people's vote. 

Parliamentary oversight increases government accountability. Credibility and trust towards Parliament increases. Public resources are used sparingly and efficiently. Corruption and corruption are minimized. Public institutions are governance friendly. It helps to comply with the law. Citizen voices are addressed.

It works to increase transparency in the working process, to have policy guidelines with reviews, to increase financial discipline, to identify and suggest corrective ways to complete programs and projects on time. Likewise, development and construction will be dynamic, development will be sustainable and human-centered, and overall quality will be improved. Through monitoring, the effectiveness of law enforcement will increase and good governance will be promoted, and it will help to protect human rights and institutionalize democracy. Parliamentary oversight that is evidence-based, policy-oriented, methodical and planned enhances the credibility of the overall parliamentary process. The practice of

surveillance The beginnings of

parliamentary surveillance are as old as Parliament itself. Various instruments are currently used for parliamentary oversight. Discussions in the assembly, various proposals, resolution proposals, proposals of public importance, question and answer, discussions on policies, programs and budgets, studies, investigation special committee reports, confidence and no-confidence votes to the government help in monitoring.

Impeachment, parliamentary hearings, field study visits, monitoring of government assurances, question-and-answer, committee procedures such as report analysis, inviting relevant ministers or officers of regional bodies to a meeting and discussing them, asking questions, finding evidence, discussing bills, committee instructions, suggestions , issues such as requesting information, addressing complaints and complaints in the field help the monitoring. .

Listening to the stakeholders, analyzing the implementation and impact of policies, programs and budgets, forming case-specific sub-committees to carry forward the process, conducting on-site monitoring, requesting subject-specific reports, studying and making suggestions, identifying problem-solving options, studying delegated laws Carrying out corrective procedures, conducting follow-up tests and monitoring the implementation of directives are also under the terms of reference of the committee. It is the responsibility of the civil society and the sovereign parliament to evaluate the principle and behavior of these activities and how to evaluate the process and results.

In Australia, policy questions are handled through the monitoring committee of the electoral system. Legislation review committee monitors laws, Public Accounts Committee monitors the use of public finances. In the US, there is monitoring, evaluation and review regarding the health measurement of the democratic system, the issue of making the executive accountable to the legislature, the exercise of balance of power, and the implementation of public policy. In the UK, parliamentary monitoring is done through means such as parliamentary motions, questions and answers, hearings, searches, and reviews. 

In India, the policies, programs and plans of the public sector bodies are monitored and reviewed whether they have/have not given the expected results, whether they are in accordance with the law or not, whether they have ethical procedures or not. Regional Monitoring Committees are active for monitoring in Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, citizen engagement in the legislative process has been enhanced through live broadcasting of committee meetings and online platforms for public relations.

Surveillance is also widely used in Nepal. But it is necessary to strengthen the monitoring according to public expectations. It is necessary for Parliament to be dynamic for compliance with the law, economic discipline, end of political corruption, simplification of work process, speedy and agile service delivery and protection of civil rights.

Parliamentary oversight continues, although absolute poverty is 20.3 percent despite vast resources. Per capita income is 1456 US dollars. The import-export imbalance is in the ratio of 91:9. Human Development Index is 0.601. 15 percent of the population does not have access to transportation within 30 minutes. 15 percent of the population does not have access to drinking water. Nepal ranks 71st out of 142 countries in the Rule of Law Assurance Index.

In such a scenario, more emphasis on parliamentary studies and research, continuous updating, theory-based policy, evidence-based legislation, systematic planning for results-based monitoring, active Parliament, functional clarity, use of abundant expert assistance, practicalization of research results, committee and monitoring activities. End of duplication, capacity building of secretariat, law making, monitoring and strengthening in democratic representation are citizen expectations.