The doctrine of the separation of powers is a fundamental concept in democratic governance that aims to prevent the abuse of power by dividing it among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the state. India, like many other democracies, follows a system of separation of powers, but it’s important to understand that it’s not a rigid separation. In this article, we’ll explore how India’s separation of powers works, the provisions in the Indian Constitution for checks and balances, and the role of parliamentary committees in ensuring accountability.
Table of Contents
India’s Functional Separation of Powers
In India, the separation of powers is functional rather than rigid. This means that while each organ of the state has its specified roles, there is some overlap in their functions. Here’s a breakdown of the key functions of each branch:
- Legislature: The legislative organ, embodied in the Parliament, is responsible for making laws.
- Executive: The executive branch, which includes ministers and members of Parliament, is tasked with implementing and enforcing these laws.
- Judiciary: The judiciary’s role is to act as a check on the legislative and executive branches, ensuring that they adhere to the constitution and the rule of law. This principle is known as the system of checks and balances.
Provisions in the Indian Constitution for Checks and Balances
The Indian Constitution contains several provisions that help maintain a system of checks and balances, which is crucial for the accountability and control of power. Some of these provisions include:
- Article 50: It directs the state to take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive.
- Article 74 and 163: These articles restrict the courts from inquiring into the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President and the Governor.
- Article 122 and 212: These articles restrict the courts from questioning the validity of proceedings in the Parliament and the state legislatures.
- Article 121 and 211: These articles prevent the Parliament and state legislatures from discussing the judicial conduct of judges unless there is a resolution for their removal under consideration.
- Article 361: It provides immunity to the President and the Governor from being answerable to any court for the exercise of their powers and duties.
Checks and Balances in India
Checks and balances in India are maintained through various mechanisms, such as:
- Judicial Review: The judiciary has the power to review and nullify laws that violate the constitution, ensuring that the other branches do not overstep their boundaries which refers to Ultra Vires.
- Appointment of Judges: Judges are appointed by the President of India or a collegium of executive members, which prevents excessive influence from any one branch.
- Parliamentary Form of Government: This system ensures a clear relationship and collective responsibility within the executive, preventing arbitrary actions.
- Independence of Judiciary: While some aspects of judges’ appointments and removals are within the purview of the legislature and executive, the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental principle.
Challenges to the Separation of Powers
Despite the checks and balances in place, India has faced challenges to its separation of powers, particularly due to the concept of judicial activism. This has led to instances where the judiciary has taken on roles that some argue should belong to the legislature. Such instances are sometimes criticized as judicial overreach.
For example, the Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan case saw the Supreme Court issuing guidelines on sexual harassment in the workplace, a function many believed should have been the legislature’s responsibility. Additionally, there have been cases where the legislature reversed court orders through ordinances, challenging the separation of powers.
Role of Parliamentary Committees
In Ensuring Accountability Parliamentary committees play a crucial role in checking accountability within the Indian government. These committees act as a bridge between the Parliament, the executive, and the public. They oversee the executive’s actions, delegate tasks efficiently, and provide expertise on various matters referred to them. Through their work, parliamentary committees help prevent misuse of power and promote objective, non-partisan discussions.
Administrative reforms
Administrative reforms in India have been a critical component of the nation’s governance system, aiming to enhance efficiency, transparency, and accountability within government structures. Over the years, various committees and commissions have been established to address administrative challenges and recommend improvements. Let’s delve into the details of some of the most notable administrative reform initiatives in India:
N. Gopalaswami Ayyangar Report (1950)
This report focused on the reorganization of the machinery of the central government. Report was titled – ‘Reorganization of the Machinery of Central Government’.The objective was to streamline and improve the functioning of central government departments and agencies. Reorganizing government machinery was seen as a way to make it more efficient and responsive to the needs of the public.
A.D. Gorwala Committee (1951)
The A.D. The Gorwala Committee emphasized the need for a clean, efficient, and impartial administration. This committee recognized the importance of having a bureaucracy that operates with integrity and serves the public impartially. It recommended measures to enhance the efficiency and ethical conduct of government officials.
Paul Appleby Reports (1953 and 1956)
Paul Appleby was an American expert who was invited by the Government of India to suggest reforms in the Indian administration. His reports in 1953 and 1956 made 12 recommendations on administrative practices and the organization of public administration. Out of which only two were selected – First is to set up the Indian Institute of Administration and Second is setting up of a central office to provide leadership. These reports aimed to modernize and make the Indian administration more effective and responsive.
First Administrative Reform Commission (1966)
The First ARC was set up in January 1966 as a Commission of Inquiry. Its primary objective was to examine the public administration of the country and make recommendations for reform and reorganization where necessary. The Commission aimed to address various aspects of public administration in India.
Initially chaired by Shri Morarji R Desai, MP, it was later led by Shri K. Hunmanthaiya, M.P., after Shri Morarji R Desai, MP, became the Deputy Prime Minister of India. The other members of the Commission included Shri H.C. Mathur, M.P., Shri G.S. Pathak, M.P., Shri H.V. Kamath, M.P., and Shri V. Shankar, I.C.S., who served as the Member Secretary.
Areas of Focus: The First ARC covered a wide range of areas, including:
- The machinery of the Government of India and its procedures or work
- The machinery for planning at all levels
- Centre- State relationships
- Financial administration
- Personnel administration
- Economic administration
- Administration at the State level
- District administration
- Agricultural administration
- Problems of redress of citizens grievances
The Commission was empowered to devise its own procedures, appoint Committees, and Advisors to assist it in its work. It set up 20 Study Teams, 13 Working Groups, and one Task Force to make in-depth studies of specific agencies and organizations.
The First ARC submitted 20 reports, containing 537 major recommendations, before winding up in mid-1970. These recommendations covered a wide spectrum of administrative issues and provided a comprehensive roadmap for reforming India’s administrative and governance systems. The Commission submitted the following 20 reports before winding up in mid-1970 –
1. Problems of Redress of Citizens Grievances (Interim)
2. Machinery for Planning
3. Public Sector Undertakings
4. Finance, Accounts & Audit
5. Machinery for Planning (Final)
6. Economic Administration
7. The Machinery of GOI and its procedures of work
8. Life Insurance Administration
9. Central Direct Taxes Administration
10.Administration of UTs & NEFA
11.Personnel Administration
12.Delegation of Financial & Administrative Powers
13.Centre-State Relationships
14.State Administration
15.Small Scale Sector
16.Railways
17.Treasuries
18.Reserve Bank of India
19.Posts and Telegraphs
20.Scientific Departments
The above 20 reports contained 537 major recommendations. Based on inputs received from various administrative Ministries, a report indicating implementation position was placed before the Parliament in November,1977.
The recommendations of the First ARC had a significant impact on India’s public administration. They led to the creation of new policies, procedures, and institutions that aimed to improve the efficiency, transparency, and accountability of government operations. Many of these recommendations were implemented in subsequent years, contributing to the modernization of India’s administrative machinery.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC):
The Second ARC was established on August 31, 2005, with a similar objective of reforming the public administrative system. It aimed to create a more proactive, responsive, accountable, sustainable, and efficient administration at all levels of the government.
The Second ARC was chaired by Shri Veerappa Moily and comprised members such as Shri V. Ramachandran, Dr. A.P. Mukherjee, Dr. A.H. Kalro, Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan, and Smt. Vineeta Rai as Member Secretary.
The Second ARC presented 15 reports to the government, addressing a wide range of governance issues, such as right to information, ethics in governance, crisis management, local governance, and more.
The Commission was requested to suggest measures to achieve a proactive, responsive, accountable, sustainable and efficient administration for the country at all levels of the Government. It had presented the following 15 Reports to the Government for consideration:
1. Right to Information
2. Unlocking human capital
3. Crisis Management
4 4. Ethics in Governance
5. Public OrderÂ
6. Local Governance
7. Capacity Building for Conflict Resolution Â
8. Combating Terrorism
9. Social Capital
10.Refurbishing of Personnel Administration
11. Promoting e-Governance Â
12.Citizen Centric Administration
13.Organisational structure of Government of India
14.Strengthening Financial Management System
15.State and District Administration
The Government constituted a Group of Ministers (GoM) on 30th March, 2007 under the Chairmanship of the then External Affairs Minister – Mr. Pranab Mukherjee to consider the recommendations of the Second A.R.C. and to review the pace of implementation of the recommendations as well as to provide guidance to the concerned Ministries/ Departments in implementing the decisions. It has since been reconstituted under the Chairmanship of the Union Finance Minister on 21.08.2009. Out of 15 reports the Group of Ministers considered thirteen reports.
The recommendations of the Second ARC continued the legacy of administrative reforms in India. They emphasized the importance of transparency, ethics, and responsiveness in governance, and several of these recommendations were implemented, leading to improved administrative practices and governance in the country.
Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption (1962)
The issue of corruption has plagued India for centuries, hindering progress and development. In the early 1960s, the Indian government recognized the need for a comprehensive approach to combat corruption. In response, the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption was established in 1962-64, marking a significant turning point in the nation’s fight against this pervasive issue.
The Santhanam Committee, named after its chairperson K. Santhanam, was formed with the primary objective of addressing cases of corruption, malpractice, and maladministration within India. The committee was tasked with recommending measures to prevent and combat corruption effectively.
The committee’s recommendations were groundbreaking and laid the foundation for important institutional developments in India’s anti-corruption efforts:
- The Santhanam Committee suggested the formulation of rules to govern the conduct of civil servants. These rules aimed to ensure transparency, integrity, and accountability among government officials.
- One of the most significant outcomes of the committee’s recommendations was the establishment of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Ministry of Home Affairs adopted the committee’s advice and set up the CBI on April 1, 1963. Initially under the Home Ministry, it later became an attached office to the Ministry of Personnel.
- In 1964, the Indian government heeded the committee’s advice and established the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The CVC’s primary role was to advise and guide various Central Government agencies in the realm of vigilance. Over the years, the CVC evolved and was granted statutory status in 2003.
- The Santhanam Committee recommended a comprehensive review of existing laws, rules, procedures, and practices within government ministries. This critical step was taken to identify potential areas and methods of corruption and prescribe remedial measures.
Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act 2018
In the continuing battle against corruption, the Indian government introduced the Prevention of Corruption Amendment Act in 2018. This amendment aimed to further enhance transparency and accountability within the government, making corruption an even more stringent offense.
The key features of the bill included:
a) Criminalizing Giving Bribes: The amendment made the act of giving bribes a punishable offense, holding both the giver and receiver accountable for corrupt practices.
b) Redefining Criminal Misconduct: The legislation redefined the term “criminal misconduct” to encompass a wider range of corrupt activities, ensuring that more forms of corruption were covered by the law.
c) Prior Approval for Investigation: To prevent harassment and misuse of anti-corruption laws, the amendment mandated prior approval for investigations against public servants.
d) Trial Time Limits: The bill introduced time limits for the completion of trials related to corruption cases, ensuring swift justice.
e) Penalties for Offenses: The amendment imposed stricter penalties for corruption offenses, sending a strong message that corruption would not be tolerated.
Kothari Commission (1976)
The Kothari Commission headed by DS Kothari, also known as the Committee on Recruitment and Selection Methods, was set up in 1976. It was established by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to examine and report on the recruitment system for All India Services (IAS, IPS, and IFS) and Group A and Group B services. The commission recommended a single examination for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) to streamline the selection process.
Sarkaria Commission (1983)
The Sarkaria Commission was established in 1983 to review the working of the existing arrangements between the center and the States. The commission consisted of 3 members – Sarkaria, Shri B Sivaraman and S.R Sen. This commission provided recommendations concerning powers, functions, and responsibilities in various areas to ensure a more effective federal structure in India. It aimed to address issues related to center-state relationships.
Working of the Indian Constitution (2000-2003)
Under the chairmanship of Chief Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, this examination focused on the effectiveness of the Indian Constitution. It aimed to assess how the constitution was functioning and whether any amendments or reforms were needed to better serve the needs of the nation.
Fifth Pay Commission
Established under the chairmanship of Ratnavel Pandian, the Fifth Pay Commission went beyond traditional pay-related matters. It delved into major issues of administrative reforms, seeking to enhance the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Indian bureaucracy.
Conclusion
In the complex landscape of governance, accountability and control serve as the cornerstones of a well-functioning democratic system. These principles, essential for maintaining the trust and confidence of the public, ensure that those in power are answerable for their actions. Through mechanisms like the separation of powers, checks and balances, and administrative reforms, nations strive to create responsive, transparent, and efficient governments. As we navigate the intricate web of governance, accountability and control are not mere ideals but the bedrock upon which the pillars of democracy stand. Embracing these principles, societies can empower themselves to hold their leaders accountable and achieve true democratic governance.
Read More:
