DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

VISHAKAPATNAM

TOPIC

DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

SUBJECT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

FACULTY

Dr. P. SRI DEVI

STUDENT NAME

L. SAI RADHA KRISHNA

ROLL.NO & SEC

2016055/A

~1~
 ABSTRACT

Accountability may be defined in several ways. First it is the responsibility of a government

and its agents to achieve previously set objectives and to account for them in public; secondly
it is the commitment required from public officials- individually and collectively- to accept
public responsibility for their actions and inactions; and finally, it is the obligation of a
subordinate to keep his or her superior informed of the execution of responsibility.

Public accountability means the obligation to answer publicly- to report, to an acceptable standard of
answering, for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the public in important ways. It is the
obligation to answer to answer for a responsibility conferred. The obligation to answer publicly arises
as a fairness obligation whenever authorities intend something that would affect the public in
important ways. Thus the obligation extends beyond answering for responsibilities formally or legally
concerned

In a federal system like that of India, public accountability is a two way process involving upward
accountability and downward accountability. Upward accountability comes through the governmental
control over administrative authorities like power to dissolve them, approval of budget, auditing of
budgets etc. Downward accountability is to public which is relatively weak and it comes primarily
through their mandate in elections.

This is the brief about the project topic and the main project consists of the evolution of doctrine and
its functionality in India and cases relating to public accountability.

~2~
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me through

the course of the project. I would like to thank our teacher who encouraged and supported me
for doing this project. And I am sincerely grateful to them.

~3~
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

EVOLUTION OF THE DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTION OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND STATE

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND PARLIAMENT

CONTEMPORARY VIEW ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

CORRUPTION – AN IMPEDIMENT IN TRANSPARENCY

MAJOR FINDINGS

CONCLUSION

SUGGESTIONS

BIBILOGRAPHY

~4~
Research problem:

This project report seeks to appraise the doctrine of public accountability and its growth,
position and relevance in India.

Rationale of the study:

The study is significant to find the rationale behind the working of the three organs of the
State – Legislature, Executive and Judiciary and the exercise of their power in favour of
public interest.

Objective of the study:

 To analyze the evolution of doctrine of public accountability in India.

 To seek out the evils hampering the transparency of the government.
 To study the mechanisms to enforce public accountability.
 To study the working of the doctrine in the contemporary times and draw out
appropriate conclusions

Nature of study:

The nature of the study in this project is doctrinal and is primarily descriptive and analytical.

Sources of data:

This project is largely based on secondary and electronic sources of data. Books, case laws,
journals & other reference are primarily helpful for the completion of this project.

Scope of the study:

This research seeks to highlight the doctrine of public accountability and its enforcement in
the three organs of the government – legislature, executive and judiciary.

Hypothesis:

Public accountability means the obligation to answer publicly – to report, to an acceptable

standard of answering, for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the public in important
ways. The obligation to answer publicly arises as a fairness obligation whenever authorities
intend something that would affect the public in important ways.

~5~
 INTRODUCTION

Accountability refers to the process of holding persons or organisations responsible for

performance as objectively as possible. India, as a parliamentary democracy, has elected
legislatures that have oversight functions over the Executive and an independent judiciary
that can hold both the legislative and executive arms of the state accountable. It has a variety
of independent authorities and commissions that perform accountability functions vis-à-vis
different parts of the government. Public accountability is the hallmark of modern democratic
governance. Democracy remains a paper procedure if those in power cannot be held
accountable in public for their acts and omissions, for their decisions, their policies, and their
expenditures. Public accountability, as an institution, therefore, is the complement of public
management.1

A traditional cornerstone of democracy is the notion that each political representative and
public official is subject to what is known as accountability. Accountability may be defined
in several ways. First it is the responsibility of a government and its agents to achieve
previously set objectives and to account for them in public; secondly it is the commitment
required from public officials – individually and collectively – to accept public responsibility
for their actions and inactions; and finally, it is the obligation of a subordinate to keep his or
her superior informed of the execution of responsibility.

Public accountability means the obligation to answer publicly- to report, to an acceptable

standard of answering, for the discharge of responsibilities that affect the public in important
ways. It is the obligation to answer to answer for a responsibility conferred. The obligation to
answer publicly arises as a fairness obligation whenever authorities intend something that
would affect the public in important ways. Thus the obligation extends beyond answering for
responsibilities formally or legally concerned. Responsibility is the obligation to act and
accountability is the obligation to report on the responsibilities. These are separate
obligations. The purpose of having authorities answer publicly for their responsibilities is to
let citizens make reasonably informed decisions about the safety and fairness of authorities’
intentions. When citizens are reasonably informed they can act to condemned, alter or halt
authorities’ intentions. This means that citizens have more control over what affects them.

1
Meaning of Public Accountability Law Constitutional Administrative Essay, Uniassignment

~6~
The ethical base of public accountability is the level of accord created between government
authority and the government’s accountability to the public. The true function of public
accountability should be not to focus on negative aspects only. The concept of public
accountability is a matter of vital public concern. All the three organs of the government-
legislature, executive and judiciary are subject to public accountability.

In various cases, the Supreme Court has applied the above principle by granting appropriate
relief to aggrieved parties or by directing the defaulter to pay damages, compensation or costs
to the person who has suffered. Very recently in Arvind Datttaraya v. State of Maharashtra2,
the Supreme Court set aside order of transfer of a public officer observing that the action was
not taken in public interests but was a case of victimized of an honest officer. ‘it is most
unfortunate that the Government demoralize the officers who discharge their honestly and
diligently and brings the persons indulging in black marketing and contra banding liquor.”

In a federal system like that of India, public accountability is a two way process involving
upward accountability and downward accountability. Upward accountability comes through
the governmental control over administrative authorities like power to dissolve them,
approval of budget, auditing of budgets etc. Downward accountability is to public which is
relatively weak and it comes primarily through their mandate in elections.

EVOLUTION OF DOCTRINE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA

The basic purpose of the doctrine of public accountability is to check the growing misuse of
power by the administration and to provide speedy relief to the victims of such exercise of
power. The doctrine is based on the premise that the power in the hands of administrative
authorities is a public trust which must be exercised in the best interest of the people.
Therefore, the trustee (public servant) who enriches himself by misusing his office must hold
the property/benefit acquired by him as a constructive trustee.

The celebrated decision of the Privy Council in the A.G. of Hong Kong v. Reid 3 (1993) case
has greatly widened the scope of this principle. Lord Templeman observed that engaging in
bribery is an evil practice which threatens the foundations of any civilised society. Any

2
(1997) 6 SCC 169: AIR 1997 SC 3067
3
[1993] UKPC 36

~7~
benefit obtained by a fiduciary, through a breach of duty, belongs in equity to the beneficiary
(the state). All legal principles require to be interpreted subject to this basic norm.

The Privy Council further observed that when a bribe is accepted by a fiduciary (public
servant) in breach of his duty, then he holds that bribe in trust for the person to whom the
duty was owed. If the property representing the bribe decreases in value, the fiduciary (public
servant) must pay the difference between that value and the initial amount of the bribe
because he should not have accepted the bribe and incurred the risk of loss. If the property
increases in value, the fiduciary is not entitled to any surplus in excess of the initial value of
the bribe because he is not allowed by any means to make a profit out of a breach of duty.

It was further held that a gift accepted by a person in fiduciary position as an incentive for
breach of duty constituted a bribe, and although in law it belonged to the fiduciary, in equity
he not only becomes a debtor for the amount of the bribe to the person to whom the duty was
owed but he also holds the bribe and any property acquired therewith in constructive trust for
the person.

Judicial response in India is based on this concept of trust and equity which was developed in
Reid’s case. Thus while deciding the constitutionality of clause (c) of Section 3 (1) of the
Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976
(SAFEMA), which provided for the forfeiture of properties earned by smuggling or other
illegal activities whether standing in his name or other parties, the apex court took recourse to
the principle of trust and equity. The Supreme Court in D.D.A. V. Skipper Construction Co 4.,
(1996), not only further followed the above principle but enlarged its scope by stating that
even if there was no fiduciary relationship or no holder of public office was involved, if it is
found that someone has acquired properties by defrauding the people, and if it is found that
the persons defrauded should be restored to the position in which they would have been but
for the said fraud, the court can go ahead with the necessary orders.

Thus, the concept of public accountability was extended to the private sector which is very
relevant in this age of privatisation and globalisation of economy. The court further held that
all properties must be immediately attached. The burden of proof to prove that the attached
properties were not acquired with the aid of monies/properties received in the course of
corrupt deals shall lie on the holder of such properties.

4
1996 (4) SCC 622

~8~
In order to strengthen public accountability further in the State of Bihar v. Subhash Singh5
case (1997), the court held that the head of the department is ultimately responsible and
accountable unless there are special circumstances absolving him of the accountability. The
court has strengthened accountability procedures by applying the contempt law against those
who deliberately violate court orders. The court has also imposed cost personally against
erring officers for delay in the discharge of duties. In the same manner where the public
servant has caused a loss to the public exchequer, the court has allowed the government to
recover such loss personally from the erring officer. It has now become an established law
that the courts can award compensation and exemplary cost for the abuse of power and
violation of human rights by the state.

ENFORCEMENT AND PROTECTION OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

In various cases, the Supreme Court has applied this principle by granting appropriate relief
to aggrieved parties or by directing the defaulter to pay damages, compensation or costs to
the person who has suffered.

Thus, in the case of defective construction of houses by statutory authorities, a complaint

made by the “consumer” regarding use of substandard material and delay in delivering
possession was held maintainable and the instrumentality of State was held liable to pay
compensation. In Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v State of Maharashtra6 , the Supreme Court set
aside an order of transfer of a police officer observing that the action was not taken in public
interest but was a case of victimization of an honest officer at te behest of persons interested
to target such officials. “It is most unfortunate that the Government demoralizes the officers
who discharge their duties honestly and diligently and brings to book the persons indulging in
black marketing and contra banding liquor.”7

In S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India8, the Supreme Court indicated that when important
functions are to be performed and a body is armed with uncontrolled powers, it is both
necessary and desirable that such powers are not exercised by an institution which is

5
AIR 1997 SC 1390
6
(1997) 6 SCC 169: AIR 1997 SC 3067
7
C.K. Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law, (6th Ed. 2017)
8
1991 SCR (3) 159

~9~
accountable to none, it is politic to entrust its affairs to more hands than one. It helps to
ensure judiciousness as also want of arbitrariness.

Other instances of protective measures:

a) Personal liability:

A breach of duty gives rise in public law to liability which is known as "misfeasance in
public office". Exercise of power by ministers and public offices must be for public good
and to achieve welfare of public at large. Whenever there is abuse of power by an
individual, he can be held liable. An action cannot be divorced from the actor. A public
officer who abuses his official position can be directed to pay compensation, damages or
costs.

In Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India9, the Petroleum Minister made
allotment of petrol pumps arbitrarily in favour of his relatives and friends. Quashing the
actions, the Supreme Court directed the Minister to pay fifty lakh rupees as exemplary
damages to public exchequer and fifty thousand rupees towards costs. It may be,
however, be stated that in a review petition, the Supreme Court applying wrong principles
of criminal law (Sections 405-09, Indian Penal Code), set aside the order of payment of
damages holding that there was no criminal breach of trust on the part of the Minister
though the Court affirmed the finding recorded in the main judgment that an action of
allotment of petrol pumps to ‘kiths and kins’ by the Minister was arbitrary, discriminatory
and mala fide.

Doctrine of public accountability is one of the most important emerging facets of

administrative law in recent times. The basic purpose of the emergence of the doctrine is
to check the growing misuse of power by the administration and to provide speedy relief
to the victims of such exercise of power. The doctrine is based on the premise that the
power in the hands of administrative authorities is a public trust which must be exercised
in the best interest of the people.

b) Limitations:

The power of judicial review, however, must be exercised cautiously and with
circumspection. A court of law should not act as an appellate authority over the actions

9
(1995) 1 Scale 6

~ 10 ~
 taken by the government or instrumentalities of State. It cannot interfere with policy
decisions. In G.B. Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council10, it was contended that the
project undertaken by the local authority was ‘unconventional’. Repelling the contention,
the Supreme Court stated that the test should not be whether the project was
‘unconventional’ but whether it was ‘impermissible’. There must be a degree of public
accountability in all government actions, but the extent and scope of judicial review differ
in exercise of such power. The administration cannot be deprived of its power of "right to
trial and error" as long as it exercises that power bonfide and within the limits of its
authority.

c) Judicial Accountability:

The doctrine of public accountability applies to judiciary as well. Every organ of the
government is subject to criticism for its flaws and drawbacks and judicial institution is
not an exception to it. An essential requirement of justice is that it should be dispensed as
quickly as possible. It has been rightly said: "Justice is delayed not denied." Delay in
disposal of cases can, therefore, be commented. Whereas comments and criticisms of
judicial functioning, on matters of principle, are healthy aids for introspection and
improvement, the functioning of the Court in relation to a particular proceeding is not
permissible. There should not be biased mind on account of ‘judicial obstinacy’. All
judicial functionaries must possess unflinching character to decide every case objectively
and with an unbiased mind.

Even on administrative side, the judiciary must act judiciously. A judge cannot act in
public controversies nor can he make disparaging remarks against the Chief Justice or
against a brother judge.

d) Public Accountability protections under Administrative Law:

Administrative law provides the framework to ensure that government acts within the
powers allotted it by law and plays by the rules set for everyone. There is no escape for
public officials from legal retribution should they contrary to the law. They are all
responsible for their own actions, regardless of whether or not they do so on the
instructions of their superiors. The rule of law is absolute, from the Prime Minister down.
This, notes Dicey, is the foundation of the constitutional doctrine of ministerial

10
(1991) 3 SCC 91, 94

~ 11 ~
responsibility. The courts and tribunals that are given the responsibility for implementing
administrative law are expected to protect and promote those public service values which
have come to be accepted as fundamental to the protection of equality between citizens.
These include access to services under specified conditions, due process, openness,
procedural fairness, participation, impartiality, accountability and honesty.

e) Right to Information as a tool for enforcing Public Accountability:

An important factor responsible for the absence of popular participation in the governance
process is the lack of information. Commenting on the need for a open Government, the
Supreme Court of India observed that the demand for openness in the Government is
based on the reason that “democracy does no consist merely in people exercising their
franchise once in five years to choose their rulers and once the votes are cast, then
returning into passivity and not taking any interest in the Government."

RTI act is landmark legislation and covers all central, state and local governmental bodies
and in addition to the executive it also applies to the judiciary and the legislature. The
term information under the act covers right to inspect work, documents and records held
by the government and allows for the extraction of certified samples for verification.

There have been demands from different corners of the country that the law should be
amended to refuse information that is not relevant to an applicant. But refusing
information is not the answer to the problem. The answer lies in reducing the ‘need’ for
such information. Proactive disclosures by authorities can be a very positive and people
friendly step. After all, the RTI act itself is based on the principles of ‘Maximum
Disclosure’ and ‘Minimum Exemptions’. The Government offices are flooded with RTI
applications, some of which are indeed frivolous. The problem can only be solved if the
Government voluntarily makes available such information in public domain. The Act also
allows the people to obtain information about the file noting so that people know how any
governmental decision is reached. Instead of lamenting the exposure RTI act could give
any public official, he should consider it as a boon. It will enable him to express his
opinion fearlessly and objectively and give him an effective shield against pressures for
manipulating his notings. In short, if he is honest, he should welcome the exposure. It is
only those who have to hide something that should fear the exposure.

~ 12 ~
 PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND STATE

In India the basic principle is incorporated in Section 123 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which
reads as under:

"No one shall be permitted to give any evidence deprived from unpublished official records
relating to any affairs of State, except with the permission of the officer at the head of the
department concerned, who shall give or withhold such permission as he thinks fit."

Section 162 of the Act confers on a court the power to decide finally the validity of the
objection raised against production of document. Section 123 confers a great advantage on
the Government, inasmuch as inspite of non-production of relevant evidence before the court,
no adverse inference can be drawn against it if the claim of privilege is upheld by the court.
Thus, it undoubtedly constitutes ‘a very serious departure’ from the ordinary rules of
evidence.

In the well-known case of S.P. Gupta v. Union of India11, popularly known as ‘the Judges’
transfer case, A privilege was claimed by the Government against disclosure and production
of certain documents. After considering a number of English as well as American cases, the
Court held that the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 should be constructed keeping in
view our new democracy wedded to the basic values enshrined in the Constitution. In a
democracy, citizens ought to know what their Government doing. No democratic
Government can survive without accountability and the basic postulate of accountability is
that the people should have information about the functioning of the Government.

RIGHT TO KNOW:

The modern trend is toward more open government. The right to know is part and parcel of
freedom of speech and expression and is thus a fundamental right guaranteed under Article
19 of the Constitution. It is also equally paramount consideration that justice not only be done
but also be publicly recognised as having been done.

In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Indian Express Newspapers Bombay (P) Ltd12 , Mukarji,
J. Stated: "We must remember that the people at large have a right to know in order to be able
to take part in participatory development in the industrial life and democracy. Right to know

11
1981 Supp (1) SCC 87
12
1989 AIR 190

~ 13 ~
is a basic right which citizens of a free country aspire in the broader horizon of the right to
live in this age of our land under Article 21 of the Constitution. That right has reached new
dimensions and urgency. That right puts greater responsibility upon those who take upon
themselves responsibility to inform."

In the leading case of State of U.P. v. Raj Narain 13, the Supreme Court rightly observed, "In a
government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible,
for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of this country have a right to
know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries.
They are entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing. The
right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute,
is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is claimed for transactions, which can
at any rate, have no repercussion on public security."

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT:

After more than half a century of the commencement of the Constitution which included Part
III (Fundamental Rights) and seven classic freedoms, no right of information was recognised
either by the Constitution or by an Act of Parliament. As seen above, on judicial side, such
right was upheld by the highest court of the country in several cases and it was also described
as a basic right covered by Article 2122 of the Constitution. Parliament, however, did not
consider it proper to enact a law for the said purpose for all this period.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND PARLIAMENT

Parliament serves as a locus of accountability and oversight in a democracy in an at least two

ways. First, Parliament is the agency through which government is held liable. Second,
elections are the mechanism through which parliamentarians are held accountable. The actual
workings of any Parliament will be governed by these considerations.

NON-CONFIDENCE MOTION:

Legislators can introduce a motion of no-confidence in the government, which, if sustained,

would result in the fall of the government. But the effectiveness of no confidence motions as
a disciplining device depends upon the alternatives available to replace a sitting government.

13
1975 AIR 865

~ 14 ~
In a very simple sense, a government with a substantial majority in Parliament is unlikely to
be much deterred by the introduction of no confidence motions. The most egregious failure of
Parliament to prevent abuse of executive powers occurred in 1975 when Indira Gandhi
rammed resolutions approving the presidential proclamation of an internal emergency
through both houses of Parliament, suspending the fundamental rights of citizens. The
Congress party, then in power, voted en masse to approve the emergency proclamations by a
vote of 336 to 59. Even when executive abuses of authority were as flagrant as those involved
in the declaration of an emergency, it proved impossible to break the ranks of a dominant
majority party.

No-confidence motions can be successful only in a very limited scenario where governments
have a small majority, and a small part of that constituent majority has some reason to defect
to another coalition or seek a general election that would result from the dissolution of
government. In the case of coalition governments, where no single party dominates
Parliament, some coalition partners in question would have to prefer an alternative set of
arrangements-essentially a different coalition—rather than face elections. In the Indian case,
no-confidence motions have been successful in bringing down the government only under
such conditions. Since 1989, this has occurred four times. In 1989, the government headed by
V.P. Singh was brought down; in 1990, the Chandrashekhar government met a similar fate; in
1997, the I.K. Gujral government fell; and most recently, in 1999, the A.B. Vajpayee
government was brought down. In an average Parliament, four to five no-confidence motions
are introduced. But their deterrent effect depends upon the contingencies of party politics,
rather than the effectiveness of the mechanism itself.

THE OPPOSITION:

The opposition is the constituent part of Parliament that has the most incentive to use the
statutory powers of Parliament to keep the government accountable. In general, if the
government commands a large share of the seats with unchecked majority control of the
legislature, policy outcomes will reflect the government’s position. If the government has
relatively fewer seats and the opposition has bargaining resources, then policy making could
be shaped by the opposition. The opposition’s ultimate sanctioning weapon is that it might be
a credible alternative in the next general election.

In one sense, the incentives for monitoring and oversight of the executive simply do not exist:
the effort is high and the potential pay-off limited. Opposition parties are likely, therefore, to

~ 15 ~
focus more of their attention on political scandals such as financial scams and corruption
cases, where they can attack individuals rather than try to force institutional and systemic
changes. During the tenure of the BJP-led government from 1999 to 2004, the Congress-led
opposition used all of its might to stall proceedings on various corruption scandals, but did
almost nothing to protest against the systemic governance weaknesses plaguing the country.
When the BJP moved into opposition after it lost the elections in 2004, it began to behave
exactly as Congress had done. Even with an opposition focused on corruption scandals,
Parliament has yielded very few results and almost all of the parliamentary probes into these
scandals have led nowhere. While in some cases this was because the evidence was generally
inconclusive, in other cases it likely reflects collusion within the political class to avoid
institutional changes, which, while improving governance, might adversely affect their
common interests.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES:

Ideally, parliamentary committees would be a venue for the consideration of legislation

introduced in Parliament. The volume and complexity of legislation, the demands on the time
of parliamentarians and Parliament’s preoccupation with the politics of the moment make it
difficult to give legislative business the attention it requires. Parliamentary committees could
also provide a more vigilant locus of accountability.

Each house also has functionally specialized standing committees. The most powerful and
important functional committees deal with financial matters—the Committee on Public
Accounts, the Committee on Estimates and the Committee on Public Undertakings. In order
to improve parliamentary oversight of the executive, a second type of standing committee
known as the departmentally related standing committee (DRSC) was created in 1993,
though three of these committees were created on an experimental basis as early as 1989. In
all, there are 17 DRSCs covering all of the ministries of the Central government. These
committees are elected by both houses of Parliament and vary in size and composition.

It is a simple fact that Parliament itself tends to ignore the reports of its committees. Most
committee reports are not tabled for deliberation and discussion in Parliament at all. The
dilemma is that if the committee reports are at variance with the government the majority has
no interest in having them tabled; however, if they broadly uphold the government’s position,
they are considered superfluous.

~ 16 ~
Unlike committees, say in the United States Congress, parliamentary committees that
examine bills are, for the most part, temporary. They are organized for particular bills and are
usually dissolved after the business of the bill is concluded. As a result, these committees are
unable to do much of the work on legislation and have to rely on the executive for everything,
from information to expertise.

The most powerful and well-established standing committees are the three finance
committees the Committee on Public Accounts, the Committee on Estimates and the
Committee on Public Undertakings which are authorized to scrutinize government finances.

A CONTEMPORARY LOOK ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

India has always functioned under the clutches of corruption. The two recent major events
which symbolise complete flouting of norms of public accountability are the Medical Council
of India (MCI) scandal and Commonwealth Games (CWG) organisation in Delhi. These two
cases amply make it clear that corruption is deep rooted in Indian society and there is urgent
need to make the public officials accountable for their acts.

MCI president Dr Ketan Desai and two others were arrested in April 2010 for allegedly
accepting a bribe of Rs 2 crore to grant recognition to a medical college in Punjab. The main
objectives of the Medical Council include maintenance of uniform standards of medical
education and recommendation for recognition/de-recognition of medical qualifications of
medical institutions of India or foreign countries. Such incidents clearly go against the
mandate of MCI and the general public is being defrauded by such acts. These public
officials must be held accountable for their acts and most severe punishment must be awarded
so that such acts are never repeated as the public officials have no right to abuse their
statutory authority.

There have been many reports that the CWG games which are to be held in Delhi in October
2010 are also not free of corruption and malpractices. Central Vigilance Commission, CVC,
has said in its observations that the works have been awarded at higher rates, besides poor
site management and quality compromises. CVC also said that work has been allotted to non
eligible companies and there are poor quality assurances. Due to such malpractices and
delays in preparation the work now costs the Government more than 100% of what it was
estimated. The taxpayers have to bear the burden of lack of accountability on part of the

~ 17 ~
Organising Committee. The Government needs to ensure that the people in charge of
organising the games are held accountable for their actions. These people have been given
absolute power and the saying “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" is
wholly applicable in this case.

CORRUPTION – AN IMPEDIMENT IN TRANSPARENCY

Public accountability in India is not as well enforced. Formal accountability systems are put
in place for the most part, but they are not necessarily made to work. Many good laws have
been enacted, but they are not always enforced or monitored. Public agencies are given
mandates and funds, but their performance may not be properly assessed and suitable action
taken to hold them accountable. Public audits of accounts and parliamentary reviews are
done, but follow up actions may leave much to be desired. It is clear that the existence of
formal mechanisms of accountability does not guarantee actual accountability on the ground.

The problem of administrative corruption is perhaps as old as public administration itself.

The enormous expansion of the governmental bureaucracy, both in size and range, has
highlighted the problem of effective public checks and control on public administration. The
adoption of the goals of a social welfare state in almost all developing countries has resulted
in an extension of bureaucracy in size and number. The expansion of governmental tasks
results in the increase in the volume of work where administrative power and discretion can
be used. Where there is power and discretion, there is always the possibility of abuse.

The 14th report of the Law Commission, 1958 had pointed out that that there is a vast sphere
of administrative action in India in which the bureaucracy can exercise discretionary
authority without being accountable to citizens in any way in case of abuse of authority.
There has also been rise in administrative adjudication exhibited by the fact that there has
been rapid increase in number of administrative tribunals.

The problems of executive discretion, delegated legislation and administrative adjudication

are vitally connected with the problem of public accountability of administration.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the most important body which enforces
accountability. It was earlier under the Executive which was proving to be an impediment to
enforce accountability in higher echelons of Government. The Supreme Court separated CBI

~ 18 ~
from executive and vested its superintendence in the hands of Central Vigilance Commission
(CVC). Now CBI does not need prior approval of the Government to investigate corruption
cases. The court also gave several other directions to improve the functioning of the CBI and
to make it the most effective body to enforce transparency in the government functionaries.

Fighting against corruption cannot succeed unless the government does something to change
the system under which it has been operating particularly in the area of public administration.
The bureaucracy has to be depoliticized and be left with the authority and power to operate
according to the requirements of the professions. The success or failure of government
depends upon the efficiency of public administration but administration cannot be efficient if
it is interfered with or forced to act contrary to laid down procedures. Simultaneously, the
welfare of employees has to be taken care of. The need for a realistic salary structure is
obvious. This will help curtail corruption as money is a major motive behind corruption.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) is a salient legislation in the area of public
accountability which was enacted to ensure transparency in government functions. The Court
in JMM Bribery14 case held that the Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative
Assemblies are covered within the ambit of public servants under PCA. The court said that
these persons cannot claim immunity from prosecution under Article 105 for any offence
committed outside Parliament/Legislature. This judgment was however criticized on other
ground mainly that Article 105 is not an enabling provision for corruption. The purpose of the
immunity is legislative independence but giving or receiving bribes is not part of legislative
process.

MAJOR FINDINGS

Few of the findings from the project report had been the establishment and enforcement of
the doctrine in different countries.

In England, Crown has the special privilege of withholding disclosure of documents, referred
as ‘Crown Privilege’. It can refuse to disclose a document or to answer any question if in its
opinion such disclosure or answer would be injurious to ‘public interest’. This doctrine is
based on the well-known maxim solus populi est suprema lex (public welfare is the highest
law). The public interest requires that justice should be done, but it may also require non-

14
P.M. Narsimha Rao v. State (1998) 8 SCC (Jour) 1

~ 19 ~
disclosure of evidence in larger public interest. This right can be exercised by the Crown,
even in those proceedings in which it is not a party.

The American legal system believes in disclosure of information and not in secrecy thereof.
The USA government thus is an ‘open government’ than any other country. Though
American Constitution contains no provision as to getting information from the government,
there are certain statues conferring such rights on citizens; for instance, the Administrative
Procedure Act, 1946(APA), Freedom of Information Act, 1966 (FoIA), etc

CONCLUSION

The government’s task does not end by creating institutions, laws and other mechanisms for
public accountability; they have to ensure that these laws are effective. The Indian Judiciary
has played an active role in the evolution of this doctrine and has helped in providing the
Indian citizens an effective tool, by the way of compensation, to redress their grievances and
to affix liability on public officials. The problem of corruption as highlighted in the paper
makes it difficult for the government to make administrative institutions accountable for
proper execution. The Government, by passing legislation like Right to Information act, has
shown its intention for ushering in an era of good governance and such legislation are
welcome as they help in enforcing accountability in administrative authorities. Much needs to
be done in this area and the public officials need to take a step forward and ensure that the
taxpayers’ money is properly utilized and the public functions are carried out smoothly and
transparently. The government should also implement performance appraisal mechanisms
and provide incentives to honest officials so that it encourages other officials to follow suit.
The salaries of Government officials also need to be raised to the level of their counterparts
working in Private sphere so that they don’t feel maltreated and perform their functions
honestly.

~ 20 ~
 SUGGESTIONS

Therefore, in the present-day context, strengthening of the public accountability system

should be the top priority of the government. Any system has three components: structures
and procedures; persons who manage the system; and environment in which the system
works. Improvement is required in all the three components. Every holder of public power,
where public element is present, should consider himself a trustee of society and must exhibit
honesty, integrity, sincerity, faithfulness and transparency in all facets of public
administration.

BIBILOGRAPHY

 Doctrine of Public Accountability, Lawteacher, https://www.lawteacher.net/free-

lawessays/administrative-law/doctrine-of-public-accountability-administrative-
lawessay.php
 Meaning of Public Accountability Law Constitutional Administrative Essay,
Uniassignment,https://www.uniassignment.com/essay-samples/law/meaning-of
publicaccountability-law-constitutional-administrative-essay.php
 C.K. Takwani, Lectures on Administrative Law, (6th ed. 2017)

~ 21 ~