Non-judicial means of holding the executive branch of government to account and promoting fairness and integrity in government, including:
š Non-Judicial Means of Holding the Executive Accountable
While courts play a critical role in checking executive power through judicial review, many non-judicial mechanisms are equally vital to ensure that the executive acts within legal and ethical bounds.
These mechanisms are part of the broader administrative law and governance framework. They include:
ā Key Non-Judicial Accountability Mechanisms:
| Mechanism | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Parliamentary Oversight | Through debates, question hour, committees (PAC, Estimates Committee), and motions (like no-confidence) |
| 2. Ombudsman (Lokpal/Lokayukta) | Independent anti-corruption body to investigate complaints against public officials |
| 3. Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) | Oversees vigilance administration and investigates corruption in central government departments |
| 4. Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) | Audits public expenditure and reports misuse or inefficiency |
| 5. Right to Information (RTI) | Empowers citizens to seek information and hold government accountable |
| 6. Media and Civil Society | Investigative journalism and public campaigns play watchdog roles |
| 7. Whistleblower Mechanisms | Allow insiders to report wrongdoing without fear of reprisal |
š§āāļø Detailed Case Law Explanations (4ā5 Key Cases)
1. Raja Ram Pal v. Honāble Speaker, Lok Sabha (2007) 3 SCC 184
Context:
Members of Parliament were caught in a sting operation accepting bribes for raising questions in Parliament.
Issue:
Could the internal disciplinary action of Parliament be subjected to judicial review, or does Parliamentary privilege override accountability?
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld Parliamentās power to expel members for unethical conduct.
However, it also held that judicial review is permitted to check procedural fairness.
Significance:
Demonstrated how Parliamentary procedures themselves are a check on executive misconduct.
Reaffirmed that non-judicial forums like Parliament must act fairly and are not beyond scrutiny.
2. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary (Coal Scam Case) (2014) 9 SCC 516
Context:
The CAG's audit report revealed irregular coal block allocations by the executive, causing massive loss to the exchequer.
Role of Non-Judicial Mechanism:
The CAG report served as a trigger for public interest litigation and policy overhaul.
Parliament discussed the report and media coverage led to wide-scale public scrutiny.
Held:
The Supreme Court cancelled illegal allocations.
Acknowledged the vital role of CAG in exposing executive misconduct.
Significance:
Showed how audit reports by constitutional authorities like CAG help in holding the executive accountable outside of court.
3. Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) 11 SCC 731 (CVC Case)
Context:
The appointment of a Central Vigilance Commissioner was challenged for violating principles of transparency and fairness.
Issue:
Whether the appointment process violated norms of good governance and whether CVC could act independently of the government?
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized that institutions like CVC must remain independent and be appointed through proper procedures.
Stressed the need for transparency and fairness in appointments to non-judicial oversight bodies.
Significance:
Reaffirmed the role of statutory bodies like CVC in ensuring executive accountability through investigation and vigilance, not court proceedings.
4. CBI v. Ratan Lal Nahata (1997) 7 SCC 451
Context:
The CBI, under the supervision of the CVC, was investigating corruption in high places.
Issue:
Extent of independence of investigating agencies from the executive.
Held:
The Court stressed the importance of independent functioning of investigative and vigilance bodies.
The CVCās supervisory role must ensure freedom from political interference.
Significance:
Highlighted how non-judicial bodies like CVC and CBI function as checks on executive excesses and corruption.
5. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raj Narain (1975) 4 SCC 428 (RTI precursor)
Context:
Raj Narain sought disclosure of expenses incurred on then PM Indira Gandhiās election campaign.
Issue:
Could the government refuse to disclose information citing secrecy?
Held:
The Court held that people have a right to know about public affairs.
This case laid the foundation for the Right to Information movement.
Significance:
Although the RTI Act came later in 2005, this case embedded the principle that transparency is a democratic necessity.
RTI later became a powerful non-judicial tool for holding government departments and officials accountable.
š§¾ Summary Table of Case Law
| Case Name | Mechanism Involved | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Raja Ram Pal v. Speaker | Parliamentary Oversight | Parliament can discipline its members; still subject to fairness |
| Coal Scam Case (2014) | CAG Reports | CAG reports can expose executive corruption |
| Common Cause v. UOI | CVC | Appointment and independence of vigilance bodies matter |
| CBI v. Ratan Lal Nahata | CBI, CVC | Investigative bodies must remain autonomous |
| Raj Narain Case | RTI (pre-RTI era) | Right to know is part of democracy |
š Conclusion
While courts remain essential, non-judicial accountability mechanisms are equally important to maintain:
Transparency in governance
Ethical standards in public administration
Protection against abuse of executive power
These institutions work proactively (unlike courts, which are reactive) and strengthen participatory democracy.
Non-judicial means like RTI, vigilance bodies, parliamentary scrutiny, audit institutions, and civil society engagement act as the first line of defence against executive overreach.
RELATED Blog
0 comments