In order to understand how collective responsibility transit into individual
liability we have to keep few things in mind.
Article 75 deals with collective responsibility as well as individual
Collective responsibility is the convention
whereby individual members of the government are held accountable for the
actions and decisions of government as a whole. It is a constitutional
convention that has existed since the 18th century and is considered a
cornerstone of cabinet government.
Article 75 obviously expresses that the chamber of clergymen is by and large
capable to the Lok Sabha. This implies all the priests own joint duty to the
Lok Sabha for every one of their demonstrations of omission and commission.
At the point when the Lok Sabha passes a no-certainty movement against the
chamber of priests, all the pastors need to leave including those clergymen
who are from the Rajya Sabha. Each pastor need not leave independently; the
abdication of the PM adds up to the renunciation of the whole gathering of
the entire council of ministers.
It states that the ministers hold office during
the pleasure of the president, which means that the President can remove a
minister even at a time when the council of ministers enjoys the confidence
of the Lok Sabha. However, the President removes a minister only on the
advice of the Prime Minister.
If there should arise an occurrence of a distinction of sentiment or
disappointment with the exhibition of a pastor, the Prime Minister can
request that he leave or exhortation the President to excuse him. By
practicing this force, the Prime Minister can guarantee the acknowledgment
of the standard of aggregate duty.
In this unique circumstance, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar watched - "Aggregate duty
can be accomplished uniquely through the instrumentality of the Prime
Minister. Subsequently, except if and until we make that office and bless
that office with legal position to designate and excuse clergymen, there can
be no aggregate obligation."
Jumping up and sinking together is this Council of Ministers. They keep a
portion of assistance within the authoritative branch right now. Therefore,
in the Council of Ministers, a demonstration of general disapproval towards
all pastors is an aim. Consequently, Prime Ministerial renunciation
disintegrates the Council of Ministers; free consent is unnecessary. A vote
of doubt against a single clergyman may, on the other hand, be a vote
against the entire Council of Ministers.
Yet, that is focused on this
movement's states. Frequently, the authoritative branch will actually pursue
a priest, openly from the chamber of clergymen from which the individual is
an individual. In such situations, the minister can only resign. Through
their particular shortcomings, clergymen may even be brought to the fore for
their illegal demonstrations on the off chance that they are persuaded by
Because its most prominent power lies in the strength of the Cabinet, the
law of collective obligation can be seen as central to the functioning of
the National Structure. The principle of open duty means that the Council of
Ministers is accountable for the overall administration of government
issues. In Parliament, all clergymen work or fall together, and the
organisation is run as one.
Collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers give way to a
ministerï¿½s individual liability only if there is a mistake of single or
individual minister in the council of ministers. But the main thing is it is
in judgeï¿½s hand and he have to decide this wheather the liability is
collective or individual.
In the 2G spectrum case A Raja 2g case (Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh
) as coated by former supreme court judge Ashok kumar ganguli said
that telecom minister A Raja acted unilaterally in the 2G spectrum mess and
his cabinet collegues are not to be blamed and it is not correct to apply
the principle of collective cabinet in the case related to the distribution
of 2G license on a first come first serve bases.
It is right on the part to
dismiss the opposition contention of collective responsibility of the
government in 2G spectrum case because what A Raja did was outside his
course of operation . Hadnï¿½t been the act was done in that course of
operation in which he had accountability for then the cabinet would have
been liable but in this case this act was unilateral so the liability would
give way to individual ï¿½s liability and discard the collective
responsibility of council of ministers.
Written By: Adarsh
Please Drop Your Comments