Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Council of Ministers operates on the foundational principles of individual and collective responsibility, inherited from the Westminster model. These principles define the accountability of ministers to the Parliament and the public. Recent debates surrounding ministerial conduct and judicial scrutiny highlight the ongoing tension between these principles. The concept of 'tort of misfeasance' further complicates the scenario, bringing the judiciary into direct conflict with the executive. Understanding the nuances of these principles and their implications is crucial for effective governance and upholding the rule of law.
Individual Responsibility
Individual ministerial responsibility signifies that each minister is accountable for their personal actions and decisions taken within their designated portfolio. This includes actions of officials working under them. It’s a moral and political accountability, not a legal one in most cases. A minister is expected to resign if they are found to have acted improperly or if their actions bring disrepute to the government. The principle is rooted in the idea that ministers must be personally answerable for their departments' performance.
Collective Responsibility
Collective responsibility dictates that the entire Council of Ministers is jointly responsible for the decisions and actions of the government. This means that even if a single minister disagrees with a policy, they are expected to publicly support it. If a minister publicly dissents, they are expected to resign, and the government can choose to dissolve the Parliament. This principle ensures unity and a cohesive government image.
Consequences of 'Individual Responsibility' and Tort of Misfeasance
The 'tort of misfeasance' refers to a wrongful act or omission by a public official, resulting in damage or injury to another person. If a Supreme Court finds a Minister guilty of tort of misfeasance, the consequences under individual responsibility are significant:
- Resignation/Removal: The minister is expected to resign voluntarily. Failure to do so can lead to a vote of no-confidence or a formal censure motion in Parliament.
- Impeachment (Indirect): While impeachment is primarily for the President, a persistent crisis of confidence stemming from a minister's actions can destabilize the government and trigger early elections.
- Criminal Prosecution: While rare, a court finding of tort of misfeasance can potentially lead to criminal prosecution if the actions constitute a criminal offense. Article 102 of the Constitution deals with disqualification for holding office.
- Civil Suit: The injured party can file a civil suit against the minister for damages.
- Loss of Reputation and Political Career: The damage to the minister’s reputation can be irreparable, effectively ending their political career.
The Supreme Court’s judgement carries significant weight and can trigger a constitutional crisis if the government attempts to shield the minister. The power of judicial review, enshrined in Article 32 of the Constitution, ensures that the executive remains accountable to the judiciary.
Landmark Cases & Examples
While there aren't many direct instances of ministers resigning solely due to a Supreme Court finding on tort, the principle has been invoked indirectly. The Bofors scandal, though not a direct tort case, led to intense scrutiny and resignations. The 2G spectrum allocation case also highlighted issues of ministerial responsibility, even though it didn’t directly involve a finding of tort.
Limitations and Challenges
The principle of individual responsibility often faces challenges, particularly when dealing with politically sensitive cases. Governments may be reluctant to take action against ministers due to political considerations. The doctrine of ‘public interest’ can sometimes be invoked to shield ministers, blurring the lines of accountability.
| Principle | Description |
|---|---|
| Individual Responsibility | Minister accountable for personal actions and actions of officials under them. |
| Collective Responsibility | Entire Council of Ministers is jointly responsible for government decisions. |
Conclusion
The principles of individual and collective responsibility remain cornerstones of India’s parliamentary democracy. However, the intersection of these principles with judicial scrutiny, particularly in cases involving tort of misfeasance, highlights the need for greater transparency and accountability within the government. Strengthening mechanisms for independent investigation and ensuring swift action against erring ministers are essential to uphold the rule of law and maintain public trust. The judiciary's role in safeguarding constitutional principles remains vital, even when it involves challenging the executive.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.