Parliamentary Committees, Civil Services & Other Accountability — Administrative Law Notes

Parliamentary Committees, Civil Services & Other Accountability

Accountability is not the job of the courts alone. Inside Parliament, small committees quietly do the heavy lifting of scrutiny; inside the administration, a permanent, neutral civil service is meant to keep the machine honest; and outside both, bodies like the State Human Rights Commission guard the citizen. Together they form the wider web of administrative accountability.

What are the other accountability mechanisms?

Beyond the Ombudsman, CVC and courts, several institutions hold the administration to account:

A. Parliamentary Committees

Parliament works largely through committees that scrutinise the executive in detail:

• Public Accounts Committee (PAC) — examines the CAG’s audit reports and government accounts, checking whether money was spent as sanctioned.
• Estimates Committee — examines the budget estimates and suggests economies.
• Committee on Public Undertakings (COPU) — scrutinises public undertakings (Topic 2).
• Committee on Subordinate Legislation — scrutinises delegated legislation (Unit 2).
• Departmentally Related Standing Committees — examine the working and demands of ministries.

These committees are the detailed engine of parliamentary control, doing the scrutiny the full House has no time for.

B. The Civil Services

A permanent, politically neutral, merit-based civil service is itself an accountability mechanism: it provides continuity, applies the law impartially, and is meant to advise ministers frankly and implement policy honestly. Civil servants are protected (Art. 311) and disciplined (conduct rules), so that they serve the law rather than the party in power.

C. State Human Rights Commission (SHRC)

Constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, the SHRC (and the National Human Rights Commission at the Centre) inquires into complaints of human-rights violations by public authorities, recommends compensation and action, and thus checks administrative excess affecting rights.

On committee scrutiny: “Parliamentary committees are the eyes and ears of the House; through them the legislature exercises a continuous and detailed scrutiny over the administration that the House as a whole could never manage.”

In Simple Terms: Accountability also runs through parliamentary committees (PAC on audit, Estimates, COPU on undertakings, Committee on Subordinate Legislation) that scrutinise the executive in detail; through a permanent, neutral civil service that applies the law impartially and is protected under Article 311; and through the State Human Rights Commission (under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993) that checks rights violations by the administration.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Other accountability mechanisms"]:::root
    ROOT --> PC["Parliamentary Committees<br/>PAC · Estimates · COPU · Subordinate Legislation"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> CS["Civil Services<br/>neutral, merit-based; Art. 311 protection"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> HR["State Human Rights Commission<br/>Protection of Human Rights Act 1993"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — Which body checks what?

Facts. A citizen finds (i) that a ministry over-spent its sanctioned budget, and (ii) that the police violated a detainee’s human rights.

Rule. Financial irregularity is scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee on the CAG’s report; human-rights violations by public authorities are inquired into by the State/National Human Rights Commission.

Apply. The over-spending is examined by the PAC (parliamentary committee) through the CAG audit; the custodial rights violation is taken up by the SHRC under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

Conclusion. Different wrongs are matched to different accountability bodies — financial to the PAC, rights violations to the Human Rights Commission — each part of the wider accountability web.

Case Laws

• D.K. Basu v State of West Bengal (1997) — custodial safeguards enforced through human-rights accountability.
• State of Bihar v Bihar Distillery (1997) — emphasised institutional accountability of the administration.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Administrative Law topics