Doctrine of Public Accountability

Introduction

This paper analyses how this doctrine has developed in the context of judicial decisions in India. After researching various Apex Court decisions in this regard, the paper then throws the light on Corruption being the wicked which is an obstacle for good governance and public accountability. Also, the paper looks into the Right To Information act which has helped in making public officials accountable for their acts and lastly two recent cases, Medical Council of India and Commonwealth Games, have been discussed which show that much needs to be done in India so that the public officials can be disciplined and India can become a corruption-free and transparent nation. 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.

Meaning of public Accountability

The basic aim of this 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.

Doctrine is based on the premise that the authority given in the hands of Public Authority is on public trust which must be exercised in the best interest of the Public. In every democratic society, it is of utmost importance that the citizens get sufficient information and knowledge about the functioning of the government. Democracy cannot survive without accountability to the public. The basic purpose of accountability is the openness of the government. The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence depend on full disclosure of facts.

Public accountability is a result of when judges act as a legislator (who legislates from the bench) rather than like a customary or traditional court. It is one of the examples for self- assumption of power of legislature by the judiciary. Unfettered discretion is always an issue of contradiction in practical life.

The concept of public accountability is a matter of vital public concern. All the three organs of the government, viz. The legislature, executive and judiciary are subject to public accountability.

Public Accountability means the mandatory 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 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.

An important element of Public Accountability is transparency, without it, this doctrine cannot be enforced. And by the Right of information’s tool, we can find out the arbitrariness in the action of public authority and Rule of Law.

The concept of accountability on its own does not necessarily imply public accountability. Public accountability goes hand in hand with representative democracy and its associated rights of citizens and obligations for political representatives and public officials. The ultimate value of public accountability is that the elected public representatives and public officials are required to conduct public dialogue among themselves on what they do and intend doing, and on the suppositions is that secrecy on matters of public management conceals maladministration, mismanagement, and corruption. The ethical base of public accountability is the level of an 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.

APPLICATION OF DOCTRINE IN INDIA

In A.G. of India v. Amritlalprajivandas

The concept of constructive trust and equality to enforce public accountability as lay down in the Reid case was followed by the Supreme Court of India in this case. In this case was dealing with the challenge to the validity of the ‘illegally – acquired properties’ in clause (c) of section 3(1) of the smugglers and foreign exchange manipulators (forfeiture of property) Act, 1976 (SAFEMA). The Act provided for the forfeiture of properties earned by smuggling or other illegal activities whether standing in the name of other parties. The court upheld the validity of the Act.

The scope of this Doctrine was amplified in DDA v. Skipper Construction Co.

Where court held that whenever the general public is cheated by illegal possession of properties, a court can pass necessary orders ignoring of the fact that there was a fiduciary relationship or not or whether a holder of public office was involved or not, and the court further held that courts in India are both, courts of law and courts of equity.

There are many cases, in which the Supreme Court has applied this Principle by granting appropriate relief to the aggrieved parties or by directing the defaulter to pay damages, compensation, or costs to the persons who have suffered, here we are mentioning few of them.

Arvind Dattatraya Dhande v. State of Maharashtra [8]

The Supreme Court set aside an order of transfer of a police officer observing that the action was not taken in the public interest but was a case of victimization of an honest officer at the behest of persons interested to target such officials. “It is most unfortunate that the government demoralizes the officers who discharge the duties honestly and diligently and bring to book the persons indulging in black marketing and contra banding the liquor."

In S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India, 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 one individual, however, "all-wise" he may be. When vast powers are exercised by an institution that is 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.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION AS A TOOL FOR ENFORCING PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY IN INDIA

An important factor responsible for the absence of popular participation in the governance process is the lack of information. Commenting on the need for an open Government, the Supreme Court of India observed that the demand for openness in the Government is based on the reason that “democracy does not 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.”

In 1975 in the case of Raj Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh held that:

The Supreme Court of India observed that in a government like ours, where all the agents of the public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few secrets. The people of the country have a right to know any public act.[12]

In 1982 in the S.P. Gupta case held that:

The Court emphasized that an open Government is the new democratic culture of an open society towards which every liberal democracy is moving and our country should be no exception.

RTI act came into force from the year 2005, so 1975 to 2005 Supreme Court gave judgments based on the Right to know. RTI is an effective tool to play a role in administrative because it is under the citizens’ power. RTI applies to all governmental bodies and also to the judiciary and legislature.

conclusion

In all communities, the formation of public governance is largely dependent on its contextual parameters, including social structure, economic condition, political atmosphere, cultural pattern, and technological trends. The nature of governance often changes depending on the powerfulness and speed of transition in some of these surrounding factors. In the current age, one of the most significant phenomena affecting public governance is the revolution in information, which the researcher believes a good tool to ensure the accountability of public authorities.

As India is one of the leading countries venturing into e-governance. Recently, the Indian government has set the target of delivering at least 25 percent of its dealing and service electronically. Public servants are indeed accountable directly to members of the public themselves and on occasion to their professional consciences.

The author is Dhruvi Anajwala, 3rd year, Gujarat National Law University

References

1. Takwani, C., &Thakker, M. (2010). Lectures on administrative law. Lucknow: Eastern Book Co.
2. Essays, UK. (November 2013). The Meaning of Public Accountability Law Constitutional Administrative Essay. Retrieved from https://www.uniassignment.com/essay-samples/law/the-meaning-of-public-accountability-law-constitutional-administrative-essay.php?vref=1.
3. A.G. of India v. Amritlalprajivandas1994 SCC (5) 54.
4. H.R Seervai, Constitutional Law of India: A Critical Commentary, 34(2008).
5. DDA v. Skipper Construction Co1996 SCC (4) 622.
6. Arvind DattatrayaDhande v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 6 SCC 169.
7. S.S. Dhanoa v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 567: AIR 1997 SC 3067.
8. Essays, UK. (November 2013). The Meaning of Public Accountability Law Constitutional Administrative Essay. Retrieved from https://www.uniassignment.com/essay-samples/law/the-meaning-of-public-accountability-law-constitutional-administrative-essay.php?vref=1
9. Raj Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333).
10. S.P. Gupta case AIR 1982 SC 149, 1981 Supp (1) SCC 87, 1982 2 SCR 365.