Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The phrase "The one-man committee determined there was no need to take action" encapsulates a common outcome in administrative investigations, particularly in India. While seemingly conclusive, such a determination raises critical questions about due process, objectivity, and the potential for overlooking systemic issues. One-man committees are frequently constituted by governments to investigate sensitive matters, offering speed and perceived impartiality. However, their inherent limitations – a single perspective, potential for bias, and lack of comprehensive scrutiny – necessitate careful consideration. This answer will delve into the implications of such a finding, examining the strengths and weaknesses of one-man committees and the importance of robust accountability mechanisms.
Understanding One-Man Committees
One-man committees are inquiry bodies comprising a single individual appointed to investigate a specific issue. They are often favored for their efficiency and cost-effectiveness. However, their reliance on a single viewpoint presents inherent challenges.
Advantages of One-Man Committees
- Speed and Efficiency: They can be constituted and deliver reports quickly compared to multi-member commissions.
- Cost-Effectiveness: Lower administrative and logistical costs.
- Perceived Impartiality: The appointment of a respected individual can lend credibility to the inquiry.
Disadvantages and Concerns
- Lack of Diverse Perspectives: A single individual may overlook crucial aspects or be influenced by personal biases.
- Limited Scrutiny: Absence of peer review or cross-examination can compromise the thoroughness of the investigation.
- Potential for Executive Influence: The appointee may be susceptible to pressure from the government or other vested interests.
- Accountability Concerns: The responsibility rests solely on one person, potentially diminishing accountability.
Implications of a 'No Action' Determination
When a one-man committee determines "no need to take action," several implications arise:
- Closure of Investigation: The matter is often considered closed, potentially preventing further inquiry even if evidence suggests wrongdoing.
- Erosion of Public Trust: If the determination is perceived as biased or inadequate, it can erode public confidence in the government and the investigative process.
- Perpetuation of Systemic Issues: Without addressing underlying problems, the issues may recur.
- Lack of Deterrence: Failure to take action sends a signal that misconduct will not be punished.
Safeguards and Best Practices
To mitigate the risks associated with one-man committees, several safeguards are essential:
- Clear Terms of Reference: Precisely define the scope of the inquiry and the expected outcomes.
- Transparency: Make the committee's proceedings and report publicly available, subject to legitimate confidentiality concerns.
- Independent Selection Process: Ensure the appointee is chosen based on merit and impartiality, avoiding political considerations.
- Right to Representation: Allow individuals or entities affected by the inquiry to present their views.
- Judicial Review: Provide for judicial review of the committee's findings to ensure fairness and legality.
- Supplementary Investigations: Allow for further investigation by other agencies if new evidence emerges.
Examples of One-Man Committees in India
India has frequently utilized one-man committees. For example, the Justice Verma Committee (2012) was formed after the Delhi gang rape case to review laws related to sexual assault. While its recommendations were significant, the implementation faced challenges. Similarly, the Justice Srikrishna Committee (2014) was appointed to examine the issue of internet freedom and net neutrality. The committee’s report sparked debate and influenced policy discussions.
| Committee Name | Year | Subject Matter | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justice Verma Committee | 2012 | Laws related to sexual assault | Recommendations for stricter laws and faster trials |
| Justice Srikrishna Committee | 2014 | Internet Freedom & Net Neutrality | Report influenced policy discussions on net neutrality |
| Justice Lodha Committee | 2015 | Reforms in the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) | Recommendations for structural reforms in BCCI governance |
Conclusion
The determination of a one-man committee that "no action is needed" should not be accepted at face value. While such committees can be useful tools for investigation, their inherent limitations necessitate robust safeguards to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. A reliance on a single perspective can lead to flawed conclusions and a failure to address systemic issues. Strengthening the selection process, ensuring transparency, and providing for judicial review are crucial steps towards building public trust and ensuring that investigations are conducted effectively and impartially. Ultimately, a multi-pronged approach, combining the efficiency of one-man committees with the rigor of independent oversight, is essential for good governance.
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.