What's New

Q. Give an account of the institutional mechanisms available to ensure the accountability of civil servants in India. Also, discuss the challenges in ensuring such accountability.

Answer

Accountability can be defined as the obligation of those holding power to take responsibility and be held answerable for their behavior and actions. In India, civil servants are accountable to both the political Executive and the public. Accountability is needed to ensure responsive, transparent, and honest policy implementation and service delivery to the public at large.

Institutional mechanisms to ensure a civil servant’s accountability in India are

• Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG): The role of the CAG is not limited to financial audit of accounts. In addition, the CAG of India conducts compliance audit and performance audit.
• Central Vigilance Commission (CVC): Under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, the CVC is empowered to undertake an inquiry into any transaction in which a public servant is suspected or alleged to have acted in a corrupt manner.
• Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): Under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the CBI can investigate offences committed by civil servants.
• Political accountability: In a democracy, the political Executives are accountable to the people, and civil servants are accountable to the Ministers.
• Lokpal and Lokayukta: Established under the Lokapal and Lokayukta Acts, 2013, they inquire into the allegations against public servants at the Central and state levels, respectively.
• Citizen’s Charter: It often provides a clear timeline for service delivery.
• Social audit: Citizens participate and analyse the spending of public funds, which also ensures accountability of the Executive.

Legislative mechanisms

• The Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952: It empowers the Central and state governments to set up a Commission with the power of a civil court and to investigate and determine facts in discharging functions.
• The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The Act declares that offences such as taking bribes, misappropriation, etc., and “criminal misconduct” are punishable by 1–7 years of imprisonment.
• The Right to Information Act, 2005: Section 4 of the Act casts a duty on public officials to maintain all records and particulars.

Despite these measures, accountability among civil servants is not fully realized for several reasons, which are as follows

• Low conviction rate: According to the NCRB, the conviction rate under the Prevention of Corruption Act is only about 37%.
• Public-administrative gap: The elitist nature of civil services often keeps the public away from questioning the public officials.
• Permanence of job: Civil servants have Constitutional security when it comes to their service conditions. Punishment for over-reach or misuse of power is usually a transfer, either from a weightier Ministry to a lighter one or from high-profile capitals to geographically remote ones, as witnessed in the case where an IAS officer was evacuating an entire stadium to walk his dog in the national capital.
• Scope of personal discretion: A civil servant has considerable discretion while discharging his/her duties. This makes him/her susceptible to misuse of power and may lead to the fabrication of facts during departmental inquiries.
• Misuse of the RTI Act: Section 8 of the RTI Act empowers the public officials to refuse disclosure of information on certain grounds of national importance. It has given them a shield against public scrutiny.

In order to ensure accountability and to deliver good governance, it is important to strengthen the institutional mechanisms and legislations in this context. In addition, measures should be taken to amend Article 311 of the Indian Constitution to allow for disciplinary actions against civil servants (Santhanam Committee Report), strict implementation of performance budgeting for departments (First ARC Report), and Citizens’ Charters.