Governance and Public Policy in India I: Governance, Accountability and Control, and Institutional Mechanisms for Good Governance
2. Accountability and control
- Institutional mechanisms for checks and balances — met across Unit 7 (judicial review, federalism, the Election Commission) and drawn together here as accountability's own structural precondition: no single organ of the state holds unchecked power.
- Legislative control over the executive — question hour, zero hour, no-confidence motions, and the Public Accounts/Estimates Committees (chapter 12) let Parliament scrutinise executive action; administrative and budgetary control — the CAG's audit (chapter 13), the budget's own approval requirement, and departmental rules on expenditure sanction keep spending within legislatively authorised limits; control through parliamentary committees extends this scrutiny into specialised, detailed sessions the floor's time pressure cannot accommodate.
- Judicial control over legislature and executive — judicial review (chapter 12) can strike down both a statute and an executive act as unconstitutional, the courts' own distinctive form of control unavailable to the other two branches over each other.
- Administrative culture, corruption and administrative reforms — a bureaucratic culture inherited partly from colonial administration (hierarchical, rule-bound, sometimes distant from citizens) is itself named as an obstacle to accountability, with repeated administrative reform commissions (the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 2005-09, being the most recent major one) recommending citizen-centric, transparent and less discretionary administration as the remedy to corruption's structural, not merely individual, causes.
3. Institutional mechanisms for good governance I: RTI, consumer protection, citizen charter
| Mechanism | Character |
|---|---|
| Right to Information Act, 2005 | Gives every citizen an enforceable right to request information from any public authority, with a statutory 30-day response deadline, appeal mechanisms (State/Central Information Commissions), and only narrowly defined exemptions — a transparency mechanism widely credited with exposing specific instances of corruption and delay that a citizen previously had no legal handle on at all. |
| Consumer Protection Act (1986, replaced by the 2019 Act) | Establishes a three-tier consumer dispute redressal system (district, state, national commissions) and, in the 2019 update, a Central Consumer Protection Authority with powers over misleading advertisements and product liability, plus e-commerce-specific rules reflecting the changed retail landscape. |
| Citizen's Charter | A voluntary (not legally binding in most implementations) document each public service department publishes stating the specific services it provides, expected standards/timelines, and the grievance-redress process — an accountability tool built on public commitment and reputational pressure rather than statutory enforceability. |
4. Institutional mechanisms for good governance II: grievance redress — Ombudsman, Lokpal, Lokayukta
The Ombudsman is a generic concept (from Sweden, 1809, the term's own origin) of an independent official investigating citizens' complaints against maladministration — a concept India adapted, after decades of committee recommendation (from the Administrative Reforms Commission's own 1966 proposal onward) and public agitation (most visibly Anna Hazare's 2011 movement), into the Lokpal at the Union level and Lokayukta at the state level. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, finally established the Lokpal as a statutory anti-corruption ombudsman with jurisdiction over the Prime Minister (with specified safeguards/exclusions), ministers, MPs and central government officials, empowered to order investigation and, notably, to attach and confiscate assets acquired through corruption — a genuine enforcement power beyond the NHRC's merely recommendatory one (chapter 13); Lokayuktas perform the parallel function at the state level, though their powers and independence vary considerably state to state since each state's own Act defines them.
Key takeaways
- Governance is broader than government, sharing responsibility across state, civil society and individuals; good governance's named characteristics (participation, rule of law, transparency, accountability) and democratic governance's added requirement of electoral accountability structure the concept.
- Legislative (question hour, PAC/Estimates), administrative-budgetary (CAG, sanctioned expenditure), and judicial control (judicial review) together check the executive and legislature, with administrative-reform commissions (2nd ARC, 2005-09) targeting corruption's structural causes.
- RTI (2005, enforceable, 30-day deadline), the Consumer Protection Act (1986/2019) and the Citizen's Charter (voluntary) are three distinct citizen-facing accountability mechanisms, differing sharply in legal bindingness.
- The Ombudsman concept (Sweden, 1809) was adapted into India's Lokpal (Union) and Lokayukta (state) through the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, following decades of committee recommendation and the 2011 Anna Hazare movement.
- The Lokpal's power to attach and confiscate corruptly acquired assets is a genuine enforcement mechanism distinguishing it from the NHRC's merely recommendatory powers.
Practice questions (8)
Attempt each one before opening the answer. Every explanation names the tempting wrong option as well as the right one, because that is where marks are lost.
The World Bank/UNDP's list of good governance characteristics prominently includes:
Show answer
Answer: A — Participation, rule of law, transparency and accountability
This is the standard, frequently-quoted list; the other options describe Niskanen, Follett's rejected option, and Taylor respectively.Democratic governance adds to good governance chiefly the requirement that:
Show answer
Answer: A — Processes themselves be accountable to citizens through free elections
Democratic governance's specific addition is electoral accountability, not the exclusion of the state or civil society, nor mere technocratic efficiency.The Right to Information Act (2005) gives citizens an enforceable right with a statutory response deadline of:
Show answer
Answer: A — 30 days
RTI's own statutory deadline is 30 days (with appeal mechanisms if this is missed), a specific figure NET tests directly.A Citizen's Charter, unlike the RTI Act, is generally:
Show answer
Answer: A — Voluntary and not legally binding in most implementations
The Citizen's Charter relies on public commitment and reputational pressure rather than statutory enforceability, unlike RTI's enforceable right.The Ombudsman concept, from which India's Lokpal and Lokayukta are adapted, originates in:
Show answer
Answer: A — Sweden (1809)
Sweden's 1809 constitutional innovation is the Ombudsman concept's own origin, from which India adapted the Lokpal/Lokayukta after decades of committee recommendation.The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act (2013) was significantly precipitated by which public movement?
Show answer
Answer: A — Anna Hazare's 2011 anti-corruption movement
Anna Hazare's 2011 movement is the specific, widely-cited public pressure behind the 2013 Act's eventual passage after decades of committee recommendation.The Lokpal's power to attach and confiscate corruptly acquired assets makes it distinct from:
Show answer
Answer: A — The NHRC's merely recommendatory powers
The Lokpal's enforcement power is specifically contrasted with the NHRC's recommendatory-only status; the other bodies have their own distinct, unrelated functions.Lokayuktas differ across Indian states chiefly because:
Show answer
Answer: A — Each state's own Act defines their powers and independence
Lokayuktas vary considerably because each state enacts its own Act defining their powers, unlike a single uniform central law or constitutional status.