Parliamentary control over public expenditure is a fundamental tenet of democratic accountability, ensuring that the executive spends public money efficiently, effectively, and in accordance with legislative approval. In India, this control is exercised through various mechanisms, both before and after the expenditure. However, the assertion that this control is declining is a widely debated concern, supported by several observations.

Traditional Mechanisms of Parliamentary Control:

1. Budgetary Process: Parliament's primary control is through the annual budget. It debates and votes on the Demands for Grants, scrutinizes the Finance Bill, and approves appropriations.
2. Parliamentary Committees: Post-budgetary control is exercised by financial committees like the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Estimates Committee, and Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU), which examine past expenditures, estimates, and PSU performance, respectively.
3. Audit by CAG: The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) audits government accounts and submits reports to Parliament, which are then examined by the PAC.
4. Debates and Questions: MPs can raise questions, initiate debates, and move cut motions to scrutinize government spending.

Reasons for the Perceived Decline in Control:

1. Executive Dominance and 'Guillotine': The executive, backed by a majority in Parliament, often dominates the legislative agenda. A significant portion of the Demands for Grants is passed without discussion due to the application of the 'guillotine' (a procedural device to put all outstanding demands to vote at once), severely limiting detailed scrutiny.
2. Lack of Time and Detailed Scrutiny: Parliament's increasing workload and limited sitting days mean that complex budgetary documents and expenditure proposals do not receive adequate time for in-depth examination. MPs often lack the specialized expertise and research support to effectively scrutinize intricate financial details.
3. Growth of Supplementary Demands and Ordinances: Frequent recourse to Supplementary Demands for Grants and financial ordinances bypasses the regular parliamentary scrutiny process, allowing the executive to incur expenditure without prior detailed legislative approval.
4. Weakening of Committee System: While parliamentary committees are crucial, their recommendations are often advisory and not binding on the government. Delays in submitting reports, lack of follow-up on recommendations, and the government's discretion to accept or reject them can dilute their effectiveness.
5. Technical Complexity of Budgets: Modern budgets are highly complex, involving intricate economic data and technical jargon. Many MPs, without adequate support staff or specialized knowledge, find it challenging to engage in meaningful scrutiny.
6. Party Discipline: Strong party discipline often means that MPs vote along party lines, even if they have reservations about certain expenditure proposals, thereby reducing independent scrutiny.
7. Focus on Policy over Finance: Debates in Parliament often tend to focus more on broad policy issues rather than granular financial details, leading to less rigorous examination of expenditure.

Conclusion:

While the institutional mechanisms for parliamentary control over public expenditure formally exist, their practical effectiveness has indeed seen a decline. The combination of executive dominance, time constraints, the technical complexity of budgets, and the weakening of scrutiny mechanisms has led to a situation where Parliament's role in holding the executive accountable for public spending is often more ritualistic than substantive. Reinvigorating this control would require reforms such as more parliamentary sitting days, enhanced committee powers, better research support for MPs, and a stronger commitment from both the executive and the legislature to uphold the spirit of financial accountability.