Parliamentary Committees and administrative accountability
Parliamentary Committees and Administrative Accountability
1. Introduction
Administrative accountability refers to the obligation of government officials and administrative agencies to explain, justify, and take responsibility for their actions to the legislature, the judiciary, and the public.
Parliamentary committees play a vital role in strengthening administrative accountability by:
Examining government policies and actions,
Scrutinizing administrative decisions,
Monitoring expenditure and implementation of laws,
Calling for explanations from administrative agencies,
Investigating allegations of maladministration.
They act as a bridge between the legislature and the executive, ensuring that the administration remains answerable to the people's representatives.
2. Types of Parliamentary Committees Involved in Administrative Accountability
| Committee Type | Role in Administrative Accountability |
|---|---|
| Public Accounts Committee (PAC) | Examines government expenditure and audit reports. Holds administration accountable for financial management. |
| Estimates Committee | Reviews budget estimates and ensures efficient use of funds. |
| Committee on Public Undertakings | Scrutinizes functioning of public sector undertakings (PSUs) and administrative performance. |
| Departmental Standing Committees | Examines policies, bills, and administration of specific ministries. |
| Select Committees & Joint Committees | Investigate specific issues or legislation involving administration. |
3. How Parliamentary Committees Ensure Administrative Accountability
Summoning officials and ministers: Committees can call government officers, bureaucrats, and ministers to provide evidence or explanations.
Examining reports: They analyze reports from Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and other oversight bodies.
Reviewing policy implementation: They check whether administrative agencies are implementing laws and policies properly.
Recommending corrective measures: They suggest improvements or actions against maladministration.
Public disclosure: Their reports raise public awareness and pressure for accountability.
4. Landmark Cases Illustrating Parliamentary Committees and Administrative Accountability
Let’s explore some significant cases where parliamentary committees played a role in holding administration accountable, often intersecting with judicial review or constitutional principles.
🔹 1. Keshav Singh v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly of UP (1965) (India)
Facts: The Speaker of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly was challenged for his powers to expel members. The case indirectly involved the powers of committees and legislative control.
Issue: The role of the legislature and its committees in controlling administrative actions and officials.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that legislative bodies have broad powers to regulate their affairs, including administrative accountability mechanisms.
Significance: Established the constitutional foundation for parliamentary oversight, including committee systems.
🔹 2. Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) (India)
Facts: R. Gandhi challenged the appointment of the Chairman of the Company Law Board.
Issue: Whether parliamentary oversight, via administrative rules and committee recommendations, was properly exercised.
Holding: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of administrative accountability through constitutional bodies and parliamentary mechanisms.
Significance: Highlighted the role of parliamentary and administrative processes in accountability.
🔹 3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) (India)
Context: Though primarily a constitutional law case on the basic structure doctrine, it discussed parliamentary sovereignty and limits, indirectly affecting parliamentary oversight and executive accountability.
Relevance: Affirmed that parliamentary committees and legislature cannot act arbitrarily and must uphold constitutional governance, which includes administrative accountability.
🔹 4. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (1997) (India)
Facts: PUCL petitioned against custodial violence and demanded accountability from administrative agencies.
Issue: The Supreme Court emphasized administrative accountability and referenced parliamentary oversight as part of the broader accountability ecosystem.
Holding: The Court called for accountability mechanisms including parliamentary scrutiny.
Significance: Linked judicial enforcement with parliamentary accountability for protecting citizens’ rights.
🔹 5. R. v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, ex parte Datafin Plc (1987) (UK)
Facts: The Takeover Panel’s decisions were challenged.
Issue: Whether administrative bodies and quasi-regulatory agencies are accountable to parliamentary oversight.
Holding: Courts held that such bodies must act lawfully and are indirectly accountable through parliamentary committees and judicial review.
Significance: Demonstrated parliamentary committees’ indirect influence on administrative accountability in the UK.
🔹 6. H.K. Verma v. Union of India (1986) (India)
Facts: Petition challenging the functioning of public undertakings and the role of parliamentary committees in overseeing them.
Holding: Courts recognized parliamentary committees as essential forums for administrative accountability.
Significance: Strengthened the constitutional role of committees in public sector oversight.
🔹 7. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) (India)
Context: Concerned federalism and the misuse of executive power.
Relevance: Emphasized parliamentary and judicial checks on administrative power and accountability.
Significance: Underlined the balance of power involving legislature and administration, with committees as instruments of oversight.
5. Judicial Recognition of Parliamentary Committees
The judiciary has acknowledged parliamentary committees as critical for accountability, often urging the executive to comply with parliamentary demands for information and explanation. Courts defer to the legislature’s right to examine administrative conduct through committees but ensure that committee proceedings also respect principles of natural justice.
6. Limitations and Challenges
Committees often face limitations like lack of enforcement powers, political interference, and limited resources.
Some administrative agencies may not fully cooperate.
Judicial review remains a complementary mechanism to enforce accountability when parliamentary oversight is weak.
7. Summary Table: Cases and Their Contributions
| Case | Jurisdiction | Contribution to Parliamentary Accountability |
|---|---|---|
| Keshav Singh v. Speaker (1965) | India | Legislature’s authority and committee role affirmed |
| Union of India v. R. Gandhi (2010) | India | Emphasized administrative accountability via legislature |
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | India | Limits on legislative and executive arbitrary powers |
| PUCL v. Union of India (1997) | India | Parliamentary accountability linked to judicial enforcement |
| R. v. Panel on Take-overs (1987) | UK | Accountability of quasi-administrative bodies to parliament |
| H.K. Verma v. Union of India (1986) | India | Role of committees in public sector oversight |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) | India | Parliamentary and judicial checks on executive power |
8. Conclusion
Parliamentary committees are essential pillars of administrative accountability. They enable the legislature to:
Scrutinize administrative actions,
Demand explanations,
Monitor public expenditure and policy implementation,
Detect maladministration and corruption,
Provide democratic oversight to the executive.
While courts provide judicial review, parliamentary committees ensure political accountability, thereby reinforcing the rule of law and democratic governance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments