In India, the judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring accountability of the government. The judiciary is the final arbiter of disputes between individuals, between the government and individuals, and between different branches of the government. The judiciary in India has the power to review and strike down legislation and executive actions that it finds to be unconstitutional or in violation of fundamental rights. This helps ensure that the government is held accountable to the Constitution and to the citizens of India. 

The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability of the government by serving as an independent check on the power of the executive and legislative branches. The judiciary is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that the government operates within its bounds. Some of the ways in which the judiciary helps ensure accountability are as follows:

• Judicial Review: The judiciary has the power of judicial review, which allows it to examine the constitutionality of laws and government actions. If a law or government action is found to be unconstitutional, the judiciary can strike it down, thereby helping to ensure that the government operates within the bounds of the Constitution.
  • In a significant judgement delivered in the I.R. Coelho case (2007), the Supreme Court ruled that there could not be any blanket immunity from judicial review of laws included in the Ninth Schedule. In this case, the court held that judicial review is a ‘basic feature’ of the constitution and it could not be taken away by adding a law under the Ninth Schedule.  The Supreme Court held that the laws placed under the Ninth Schedule after April 24, 1973, are open to challenge in court if they violated Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 or the ‘basic structure’ of the Constitution.
• Powers of Writs: The judiciary also has the power to issue writs, such as habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, and certiorari, to protect the rights of citizens and enforce the rule of law. Using these writs the Supreme court under article 32 and High courts under article 226 can quash arbitrary executive actions which violate the fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens.
• Review of Administrative Decisions: The judiciary can review administrative decisions and hold the government accountable for its actions. If a government action is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or in violation of the law, the judiciary can set it aside, ensuring that the government acts in a responsible and accountable manner. Our higher judiciary is equipped with the power of ‘Due process of law’. Using this power the judiciary can nullify administrative decisions which go against the spirit of the constitution.
• Public Interest Litigation: The judiciary also has the power to entertain public interest litigations, which are legal actions brought by individuals or organizations seeking to protect the public interest. These litigations help to ensure that the government operates in a transparent and accountable manner and that the rights of citizens are protected.
  • Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979): The first reported case of PIL was Hussainara Khatoon vs. State of Bihar (1979) which focused on the inhuman conditions of prisons and under-trial prisoners that led to the release of more than 40,000 under-trial prisoners. Right to speedy justice emerged as a basic fundamental right which had been denied to these prisoners. The same pattern was followed in later cases. 
  • S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India (1982): A new chapter in the PIL movement was initiated by Justice P. N. Bhagwati in the case of S.P. Gupta vs. Union of India. In this ruling, it was established that “any member of the public or social action group acting in good faith” has the right to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of the High Courts (under Article 226) or the Supreme Court (under Article 32) to seek redress for violations of legal or constitutional rights of individuals who, due to social, economic, or other disabilities, cannot approach the Court. This ruling empowered Public Interest Litigation as a significant tool for enforcing “public duties” when executive actions or misconduct caused public harm. Consequently, any citizen of India or any consumer or social action group can now approach the country’s highest court in cases where the interests of the general public or specific segments of the public are at risk.

The higher judiciary using the constitutional powers of judicial review ensure that the political executive do not cross the constitutional boundaries. Arbitrariness and authoritarian tendencies among those in powerful positions is checked and arrested, before it erodes norms of good governance, by the higher judiciary using the novel ‘Basic Structure’ doctrine. Independent judiciary in India has successfully ensured accountability of the political executive using the powers bestowed upon it by the constitution.

The judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability in the Indian government by serving as an independent check on the power of the executive and legislative branches and by protecting the rights of citizens and ensuring that the government operates within the bounds of the Constitution.

Lokpal and Its Role in Ensuring Government Accountability and Combating Corruption

The Lokpal serves as an anti-corruption ombudsman in India. Established under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013, the Lokpal’s primary role is to ensure government accountability by investigating and prosecuting corruption cases. The Lokpal acts as a watchdog over the actions of public servants, including elected officials and bureaucrats, to ensure that they are using their power and resources for the public good and not for personal gain. 

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 facilitated the creation of a Lokpal at the central level with jurisdiction over corruption cases involving all Members of Parliament and central government employees. The functions of the Lokayuktas are similar to those of the Lokpal, but they operate at the state level. Both the Lokpal and Lokayuktas address allegations of corruption against any public officials, including the Prime Minister, while including reasonable safeguards. They both handle investigations into corruption charges and subsequently conduct trials based on their findings. The Lokpal’s jurisdiction encompasses the Prime Minister, except in matters concerning international relations, national security, public order, atomic energy, and space unless a Full Bench of the Lokpal, with the approval of at least two-thirds of its members, consents to an inquiry.

It ensures accountability of executive through several key functions:

• Receiving and investigating complaints: The Lokpal receives complaints of corruption from the public, including anonymous complaints, and investigates them to determine whether there has been any wrongdoing.
• Prosecuting corrupt officials: The Lokpal has the power to prosecute public servants and others accused of corruption, and to recommend the initiation of criminal proceedings against them.
• Imposing penalties: The Lokpal can impose penalties on those found guilty of corruption, including fines and imprisonment.
• Recommending policy changes: The Lokpal can make recommendations for policy changes to the government to help prevent corruption and improve accountability.
• Building public awareness: The Lokpal can play a role in raising public awareness about corruption and the importance of accountability, and can engage with various stakeholders to help promote these values.

The establishment of the Lokpal marks a significant milestone in Indian political history. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013 has presented an effective approach to tackle the persistent issue of corruption and ensure accountability among higher-ranking government officials, including the Prime Minister. 

Other institutions such as the Central Bureau of Investigation also have powers to prosecute cases of corruption against ministers. But the CBI’s role in ensuring accountability of the political executive is often questioned as it operates under the control of the political executive itself and lacks independence. In this context, the Supreme court even called the CBI as a “caged parrot” who acts as per directions of the centre and lacks the required autonomy.