How the failure of Indian Parliament to meet during the lockdown affected the accountability in the country.

As the COVID-19 pandemic spread, governments around the world responded by imposing a lockdown in order to enforce social distancing norms. Through these lockdowns, the Government restricted to various fundamental rights such as right to movement, right to assemble, etc. The government has also spent large sums of money as a part of the pandemic response.
Yes, we know that governments are dealing with an unprecedented crisis but this doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be held accountable during the pandemic.

In a parliamentary democracy, it is the primary responsibility of the parliament to hold the executive, i.e. the government, accountable for its actions.
To understand the importance of parliament in holding the government accountable, let's look at the statement made by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in the constituent assembly while making a case for parliamentary democracy as opposed to a presidential democracy. He agreed that a presidential setup would provide for more stability, but on the other hand, a parliamentary democracy would be the best-suited model especially for a large country to hold the executive accountable for its acts or omissions and commissions.

Dr. Ambedkar and the constituent assembly favored accountability over stability while establishing India as a parliamentary democracy. Thus like any other parliamentary democracy, the Indian parliament was designed to hold the executive accountable.

During the pandemic, parliaments around the world have met virtually through video conferencing.
For example, the Canadian parliament met during the lockdown and questioned its government response to the pandemic.

Even in countries that have been badly affected by the COVID pandemic such as Britain, Italy, Brazil and France, the respective parliaments have met and have held their government accountable.

But the parliament of the world's largest democracy is yet to meet and hold the Modi government accountable for its pandemic response. Over the last 2.5-3 months, the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha and the parliamentary standing committees have failed to meet and as a result they have failed to question the government as to on what basis, the lockdown was imposed and extended across the country. The parliament has not been able to question as to how the Disaster management act was used to give the central government complete powers over the states . How the Disaster management act which doesn't have any pandemic specific provisions has been used to deal with COVID-19 pandemic.

If the Indian parliament and the parliamentary committees had met through video conferencing, just like other parliaments of the world, then probably, a pandemic specific legislation could have been introduced as it has been done in few other countries. The government has not been held accountable for the expenditure that it has incurred as a part of the pandemic response. The government hasn't been questioned over the suspension of rights such as the right to movement, right to assemble, etc. The parliament has failed to highlight the privacy concerns of the Aarogya Setu application and it has failed to hold the government accountable for its failure in the migrant crisis.

If the parliament and the standing committees had met, the could have even questioned the government over instances of police brutality that were reported across the country during the lockdown.

This is just an elaboration as to how the inability of the parliament to function during the lockdown had affected accountability in the country.

The reason why the parliament and the parliamentary committees have not met is that the presiding officers of the parliament, i.e. the speaker of the Lok Sabha and the chairman of the Rajya Sabha and the government, they have failed to summon the parliament and the presiding officers have refused to permit the parliamentary committees to meet through video conferencing.
Under article 85 of the Indian constitution, the government through the President can summon the parliament to meet at such a time and place as he thinks. So, in the interest of upholding accountability, the government and the president could have summoned the parliament at a suitable place where social distancing norms could have been enforced.
Then with regard to parliamentary standing committees, members of opposition political parties have been requesting the presiding officers to allow them to meet through video conferencing but the presiding officers have denied such permission by stating the rules of procedure of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

The rules of procedure of the house state that parliamentary committees can meet only within the premises of the parliament, but the very same rules also provide for an exception and it allows the presiding officers to let the parliamentary standing committees meet outside the parliament as well.
The arguments of the members of the opposition parties are that by making use of the exceptional provisions and the rules, parliamentary standing committees could have been allowed to meet through video conferencing. But the permission was denied by the presiding officers on the grounds that such video conferencing could compromise the confidentiality of the meetings of the parliamentary committees.

But there is no point in insisting on confidentiality as far as the meetings of the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha are concerned because the meetings of these 2 houses are already telecasted live on the TV. Yes, the business of the standing committees has to be kept confidential and secret, but for this, the government and the parliament could have come up with appropriate IT security solutions in order to secure these video conferences.

It is an irony that the world's largest democracy which labels itself as a hub for IT has not been able to provide a platform for its parliamentary committees to meet.