Parliamentary control of administration
Parliamentary Control of Administration
What is Parliamentary Control of Administration?
Parliamentary control of administration refers to the mechanisms and processes through which the legislature (Parliament) oversees, monitors, and regulates the actions of the executive branch and its administrative machinery. This control ensures accountability, transparency, and legality in government functioning and prevents arbitrary use of power.
Importance of Parliamentary Control
Accountability: Ensures that the government is answerable to the people's representatives.
Transparency: Promotes openness in government decisions and policies.
Prevention of Abuse: Checks misuse or abuse of administrative power.
Policy Oversight: Ensures that administration implements policies as intended by Parliament.
Financial Control: Controls government spending and budgetary allocations.
Methods of Parliamentary Control Over Administration
Question Hour: Members of Parliament ask questions to ministers regarding administration.
Zero Hour: Raising urgent issues without prior notice.
Debates: Discussing government policies and administrative actions.
Committees: Various parliamentary committees like the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Estimates Committee, and Committee on Public Undertakings examine government functioning.
Motions and Resolutions: Calling attention, adjournment, no-confidence motions.
Legislation: Passing laws regulating the administration.
Votes on Account and Budget: Parliament controls government finances.
Important Case Laws on Parliamentary Control of Administration
1. State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) 2 SCR 675
Facts: The question was whether Parliament could legislate on a subject in the State List if it was in the national interest.
Held: The Supreme Court held that Parliament could legislate on state matters under certain circumstances (Article 249, national emergency, etc.) ensuring parliamentary supremacy in such cases.
Significance: This affirmed Parliament’s extensive control and supremacy, including over administration even in state matters, under constitutional provisions.
2. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
Facts: The case involved constitutional amendments and parliamentary powers.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament has wide powers to amend the Constitution, but this power is limited by the basic structure doctrine.
Significance: It indirectly affirms parliamentary control over administration as Parliament frames laws that regulate and control administration, but within constitutional limits.
3. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294
Facts: The case dealt with transparency in elections and the role of Election Commission, an administrative authority accountable to Parliament.
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in administrative bodies functioning under the control or mandate of Parliament.
Significance: The case underscores the role of Parliament and judicial oversight in ensuring administration acts lawfully and transparently.
4. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
Facts: The case dealt with the dismissal of state governments and the use of Article 356.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that the power of Parliament to pass resolutions or laws relating to administration is subject to judicial review and must be exercised within constitutional limits.
Significance: It confirms parliamentary control over state administration but also highlights constitutional safeguards against misuse.
5. Union of India v. Harbans Singh (1966) 1 SCR 209
Facts: This case involved the power of Parliament to enact laws relating to administrative reforms and their impact on service conditions of public servants.
Held: The Court upheld Parliament's legislative competence to regulate and reform administration.
Significance: It confirms Parliament’s broad authority to regulate the administrative machinery through legislation.
6. In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 1964 (1964) 1 SCR 933
Facts: The question was the extent of judicial review over administrative actions taken under laws enacted by Parliament.
Held: The Supreme Court held that while Parliament has control over administration through laws, courts can review administrative actions to ensure legality.
Significance: This case balances parliamentary control with judicial oversight, ensuring administration acts within legal boundaries.
Summary of Key Principles
Parliament’s Supremacy: Parliament holds supreme power to control and regulate the administration via legislation and budget control.
Checks and Balances: Judicial review ensures parliamentary control is exercised within constitutional limits.
Transparency and Accountability: Parliamentary procedures (question hour, committees) enforce executive accountability.
Financial Control: Parliament controls administration through budgetary approval and expenditure scrutiny.
Legislative Oversight: Parliament can enact laws to reform or regulate the functioning of the administrative services.
RELATED Blog
0 comments