Illuminating Governance: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Doctrine of Public

Accountability and the Transformative Role of RTI

Introduction :

In the intricate tapestry of governance, the Doctrine of Public Accountability stands tall,
serving as a beacon that illuminates the corridors of power. Rooted in democratic principles,
this doctrine encapsulates the essence of responsible governance, demanding transparency,
ethical conduct, and responsiveness to the needs of the governed. A crucial partner in this
journey towards open governance is the Right to Information (RTI), a powerful mechanism
that empowers citizens to seek insights into the functioning of public authorities. In this
exploration, we delve into the symbiotic relationship between the Doctrine of Public
Accountability and RTI, examining their evolution, challenges, and the transformative impact
on modern governance

The Essence of Public Accountability :

At its core, the Doctrine of Public Accountability embodies the idea that those entrusted with
power must be answerable for their decisions and actions. It extends beyond the mere
disclosure of information; it encapsulates a commitment to ethical conduct and the judicious
use of authority. In a democratic framework, public accountability forms the bedrock,
fostering trust between the governed and the governing. It is a dynamic concept that evolves
with societal expectations, encompassing not only financial transparency but also ethical
decision-making and responsiveness to citizens’ concerns.

The Empowering Role of RTI :

Enter the Right to Information, a potent tool that breathes life into the principles of public
accountability. RTI, often considered the lifeblood of transparency, allows citizens to seek
information from public authorities. This mechanism serves as a bridge, connecting the
governed with the machinery of governance. By providing citizens with the means to access
information, RTI empowers them to scrutinize government actions, ensuring alignment with
public interest and ethical standards. It acts as a tangible manifestation of public
accountability, transforming governance from a closed system into an open dialogue between
authorities and citizens.

The Symbiotic Relationship :

The interplay between the Doctrine of Public Accountability and RTI is akin to a dance,
where each partner complements the other’s moves. RTI becomes the practical expression of
public accountability, offering citizens a tool to hold authorities accountable. When citizens
exercise their right to information, they unravel the inner workings of governance, enabling a
nuanced evaluation of decisions, policies, and the overall conduct of public officials. This
reciprocal relationship reinforces the democratic fabric, ensuring that governance is not an
opaque monolith but a transparent and accountable process.
Doctrine of Public Accountability

In the last decade, Doctrine of Public Accountability has been materialising steadily as a facet
of administrative law. The development of this doctrine is key in establishing a check in the
increase of misuse of power by government servants and provision of a just and speedy relief
to people who may have suffered at the hands of such exploitation. The premises of this
doctrine is that the administrative authorities power and discretion is a public trust placed in
their hands and should be exercised in realisation of such conviction.

Evolution of The Doctrine :

The Doctrine of Public Accountability had and continues to have its growth through cases
discussed and argued upon in courts. The case of Attorney General of Hong Kong v Reid
(1993) is one of the most illustrative cases of bribes and constructive trusts i.e., a judicial
remedy for a party deprived of their rights due to a person holding their property through
illegal means.

In this case, a prosecutor appointed by the Crown was paid in bribes for burying criminal
cases. With that bribe money, he purchased certain properties. It was held by the court that a
gift received and accepted by a public officer as payment to breach his public duties is a
bribe. Further, it was held that there existed a fiduciary duty, therefore, the owners are
constructive trustees of the Crown. This meant that money was owed to the person who had
suffered by the fiduciary, and he had to hold money acquired as a constructive trust.

This case was further followed in India by the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General
of India v Amritlal Prajivandas (1994). In this case, the validity of the SAFEMA Act (1976),
which mandated release of properties that were received as incentives for smuggling or some
other malafide activity.

The Doctrine was further elaborated upon in the famous case of DDA v Skipper Construction
Corporation (1996). In this case, the general public was prioritised and said to be defrauded
even if there existed a fiduciary relationship or not or there was involvement of a public
officer or not. The Supreme Court said that it has the authority to pass orders irrespective of
the above-mentioned requirements, if there was an illegal acquirement of properties. It was
also held that Indian courts are not simply courts of law but also courts of equity.

Through another judgment, Nilabati Behera v State of Orissa (1993), courts now award
compensation and exemplary costs are imposed on fundamental rights violation because of
power abuse by a public officer. In this case, it was held that recognition of such a claim
exists under public law. Human rights of the aggrieved were recommended to be given
constitutional protection through public law review under Article 226 and Article 32 of The
Constitution of India (1950). There is also evidence of Judicial Activism in this doctrine as
courts recognize the proper accountability of authorities that do not discharge their statutory
duty efficiently.

Challenges and Criticisms :

However, this alliance is not immune to challenges. Critics argue that an excessive reliance
on RTI can burden administrations and impede effective decision-making. Striking a delicate
balance is essential; the right to information must be wielded judiciously to avoid hindering
governance while still serving its fundamental purpose. Additionally, concerns about the
misuse of RTI requests for personal or malicious purposes underscore the need for thoughtful
regulation and responsible usage.

Conclusion :

In conclusion, the alliance between the Doctrine of Public Accountability and the Role of
RTI represents a dynamic force in the ongoing quest for transparent and responsible
governance. This symbiosis not only upholds democratic principles but also acts as a
safeguard against the abuse of power. As we navigate the complexities of modern
governance, this partnership remains indispensable, ensuring that the pillars of power are
illuminated by the guiding principles of accountability and transparency. It is through this
synergy that we forge a path towards a more inclusive, responsive, and ethically grounded
governance, where the voice of the citizenry resonates in the halls of power.

Blog Link : https://sparshul17292762.blogspot.com/2023/10/a-critical-analysis-on-doctrine-

of.html