Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Administrative accountability, at its core, refers to the obligation of public officials to justify their actions, decisions, and performance to the public and other legitimate authorities. In India, this accountability is currently ensured through mechanisms like parliamentary control, judicial review, Right to Information (RTI) Act, and internal vigilance mechanisms. However, with the proliferation of media – both traditional and new – its role in scrutinizing administrative actions has become increasingly significant. The question of whether media exposure should be formally included in the rules for administrative accountability is a complex one, demanding a careful consideration of its potential benefits and inherent limitations.
Current Mechanisms of Administrative Accountability in India
Currently, administrative accountability in India relies on a multi-pronged approach:
- Legislative Control: Parliament exercises control through questions, debates, and committees.
- Judicial Review: Courts can review administrative actions through writs like habeas corpus, mandamus, and certiorari.
- RTI Act, 2005: Empowers citizens to access information held by public authorities.
- CVC & Lokpal: Institutions designed to investigate corruption and maladministration.
- Internal Vigilance: Each department has its own internal mechanisms for monitoring and addressing misconduct.
Arguments for Including Media Exposure
- Enhanced Transparency: Media can bring to light instances of corruption, inefficiency, and abuse of power that might otherwise remain hidden.
- Increased Public Awareness: Media coverage can inform the public about administrative actions and their impact, fostering greater citizen engagement.
- Deterrent Effect: The fear of media scrutiny can discourage officials from engaging in wrongdoing.
- Speedy Redressal: Media can act as a catalyst for quicker investigation and resolution of grievances. Example: The exposure of the Vyapam scam in Madhya Pradesh by media outlets led to a CBI investigation.
Arguments Against Including Media Exposure
- Lack of Objectivity & Sensationalism: Media often prioritizes sensationalism over accuracy, potentially leading to biased reporting and unfair targeting of officials.
- Trial by Media: Premature media coverage can prejudice investigations and undermine the principles of natural justice.
- Potential for Political Manipulation: Media can be used by vested interests to target officials for political reasons.
- Privacy Concerns: Excessive media exposure can infringe upon the privacy of individuals involved.
- Difficulty in Establishing Veracity: Information disseminated by the media may not always be accurate or verifiable.
A Balanced Approach: Integrating Media Responsibly
Instead of directly including media exposure as a formal rule for accountability, a more pragmatic approach would be to strengthen the existing mechanisms and foster a collaborative relationship between the administration and the media.
- Proactive Disclosure: Public authorities should proactively disclose information to the media, reducing the reliance on investigative journalism.
- Media Workshops & Training: Conducting workshops for journalists on administrative procedures and ethical reporting can improve the quality of coverage.
- Establishment of a Media-Administration Liaison: Creating a dedicated channel for communication between the administration and the media can facilitate accurate reporting and address concerns.
- Strengthening the Press Council of India: Empowering the Press Council to enforce ethical standards and address complaints against media outlets.
- Legal Framework for Responsible Reporting: While upholding freedom of the press, a legal framework that discourages defamation and irresponsible reporting is necessary.
Constitutional & Legal Considerations
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which includes the freedom of the press. However, this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions, including those related to defamation and public order. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, also regulates media reporting on judicial proceedings. Any attempt to regulate media exposure must be carefully balanced against these constitutional safeguards.
| Mechanism | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Parliamentary Control | Direct accountability, representative voice | Time-consuming, politically influenced |
| Judicial Review | Impartial, upholds rule of law | Delayed justice, limited scope |
| RTI Act | Citizen empowerment, transparency | Bureaucratic delays, information manipulation |
| Media Exposure | Rapid dissemination, public awareness | Bias, sensationalism, trial by media |
Conclusion
In conclusion, while media exposure undoubtedly plays a crucial role in highlighting administrative lapses and promoting transparency, formally incorporating it into the rules for administrative accountability is fraught with challenges. A more effective approach lies in strengthening existing accountability mechanisms, fostering a responsible and collaborative relationship between the administration and the media, and ensuring adherence to ethical reporting standards. This will harness the power of the media as a watchdog without compromising fairness, objectivity, and the principles of natural justice.
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.