Page:29357 2016 1 1501 44512 Judgement 11-May-2023.pdf/71

PART J them the will of the people, it is essential to scrutinize the link of accountability between the civil service professionals and the elected ministers who oversee them. Since civil service officers constituting the permanent executive exercise considerable influence in modern welfare state democracies, effective accountability requires two transactions: “one set of officials, such as the bureaucracy, who give an account of their activity, to another set, such as legislators, who take due account and feed their own considered account back into the political system and, through that mechanism, to the people.”

104. In Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, this Court held that an individual minister is answerable and accountable to people for the acts done by the officials working under him. This Court observed that:

“The Government acts through its bureaucrats, who shape its social, economic and administrative policies to further the social stability and progress socially, economically and politically…The Minister is responsible not only for his actions but also for the job of the bureaucrats who work or have worked under him. He owes the responsibility to the electors for all his actions taken in the name of the Governor in relation to the Department of which he is the head… he bears not only moral responsibility but also in relation to all the actions of the bureaucrats who work under him bearing actual responsibility in the working of the department under his ministerial responsibility.”

105. In the concurring opinion in the 2018 Constitution Bench decision, Justice Chandrachud highlighted the intrinsic link between government accountability and the principle of collective responsibility. The judgment underscored the