Accountability and Responsiveness: Problems and Perspectives

In one line

Accountability asks whether an official can be called to answer for what he did; responsiveness asks whether he does what the citizen actually needs; and the Indian civil service is criticised on both counts for reasons that are structural rather than personal.

In the words a student can write in an exam: accountability is the obligation of an official to answer for the exercise of his authority to a person or body entitled to demand an account, and responsiveness is the readiness of the administration to attend and adapt to the needs and grievances of the citizens it serves. The two are distinct: an administration may be fully accountable in the sense of being auditable and reviewable, and yet be slow, rigid and indifferent. The problems in India are structural, arising from the tension between security of tenure and accountability, from rule bound procedure that displaces the purpose of the rule, from the diffusion of responsibility across a hierarchy and a file, and from the absence of measurement, and the reform perspectives address each of them.

Accountability and responsiveness distinguished

The two can pull against each other, and saying so is the mark of a good answer. An official who fears being held accountable for a wrong decision will avoid deciding, refer the file upwards, ask for another opinion and insist on one more document. That is perfect accountability and complete unresponsiveness.

The accountability mechanisms as they apply to the civil service

Each is treated in full elsewhere; here they are gathered as they bear on the individual officer.

1. Hierarchical. The officer answers to his superior, whose control includes inspection, reporting and the annual assessment.
2. Political. The minister answers to the legislature under Articles 75(3) and 164(2), and the officer answers to the minister. Anonymity means the officer is not publicly named, which is what makes ministerial responsibility work.
3. Financial. The Comptroller and Auditor General under Article 148 and the reports laid under Article 151, examined by the financial committees: [Congressional and Parliamentary Committees].
4. Disciplinary. Departmental proceedings, subject to Article 311's requirement of an inquiry with charges and a reasonable opportunity of being heard: [Civil Services in India: Nature, Organisation, Powers and Functions].
5. Criminal. The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988: [The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988].
6. Vigilance. The Central Vigilance Commission and departmental vigilance officers: [The Central Vigilance Commission].
7. Judicial. Judicial review, subject to the limit that the court examines legality and not merit: Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1989 SC 1899.
8. Public. The Right to Information Act 2005, and the press.