CSE 2019   Attend 3 sessions on preparing for CSE 2019 , right from the right preparation strategy, reading the newspaper, making notes to how to write good answers. Orientation session is open to all and mandatory for all CGP Students. Click here for details.
MITRA'S IAS - PHILOSOPHY: Seminar on - 27th Sep. - 5pm & 9th Oct. – 11 am
Foundation Classes: 28th Sep. and 29th Sep.
For more information call us at - Tel. No :- 01145505509, Mob. No-8826469839, 9560928172 or
Mail us at :- mitrasiasclasses@gmail.com
,Website:- www.mitrasias.com

Ministers are not legally responsible for acts, tehn why was A Raja tried in CAG scam?

Just read that ministers in India do not ahve any legal responsibility for official acts, which are executed in the name of the President denoting GOI. The basis of such official acts is ofcourse the advice rendered by teh Minister to President (through PM). But teh courts can't even question the contents of such advise. Then on what basis was A Raja taken on trails in 2G scam? Or can any minister ever be?

Comments

  • Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.
  • sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    and as far as my memory goes, A raja was made to resign before he was put on trial....you are mixing legal responsibility & accountability
  • sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

  • sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    ministers are collectively responsible, not any particular individual.....they sail together and sink together that's why every minister has to submit to cabinet meetings and it's decisions they can't raise voice aginst it even if they are not invited to cabinet meetings
  • sss123 said:

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.


    and as far as my memory goes, A raja was made to resign before he was put on trial....you are mixing legal responsibility & accountability
    he was removed due to electoral concerns and not due to any punitive measures inherent to any acountablity mechanism. There is no such punitive measure against a minister for his act other than removing him from the scene
  • sss123 said:

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    ministers are collectively responsible, not any particular individual.....they sail together and sink together that's why every minister has to submit to cabinet meetings and it's decisions they can't raise voice aginst it even if they are not invited to cabinet meetings
    Raja=====GOI as simple as that, both are equal :D
  • sss123 said:

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    ministers are collectively responsible, not any particular individual.....they sail together and sink together that's why every minister has to submit to cabinet meetings and it's decisions they can't raise voice aginst it even if they are not invited to cabinet meetings
    Onus for proving that raja receives bribes lies on prosecution. So it again depends upon investigating agencies if they want to make case weak
  • sss123 said:

    sss123 said:

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    ministers are collectively responsible, not any particular individual.....they sail together and sink together that's why every minister has to submit to cabinet meetings and it's decisions they can't raise voice aginst it even if they are not invited to cabinet meetings
    Onus for proving that raja receives bribes lies on prosecution. So it again depends upon investigating agencies if they want to make case weak
    hmm, bura haal hai. ministers should be made legally responsible. at lower levels it is insisted that hwatever money the system has been gamed with should be recovered from public servant but at the top, the narrative is completely different.
  • sss123 said:

    sss123 said:

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    ministers are collectively responsible, not any particular individual.....they sail together and sink together that's why every minister has to submit to cabinet meetings and it's decisions they can't raise voice aginst it even if they are not invited to cabinet meetings
    Onus for proving that raja receives bribes lies on prosecution. So it again depends upon investigating agencies if they want to make case weak
    hmm, bura haal hai. ministers should be made legally responsible. at lower levels it is insisted that hwatever money the system has been gamed with should be recovered from public servant but at the top, the narrative is completely different.
    removing raja from his ministry was the maximum that any government can do because final sentence/awarding punishment lies with the apex court
  • sss123 said:

    sss123 said:

    sss123 said:

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    sss123 said:

    Ministers are not legally responsible but where it is written that they cannot be put on trial? same goes with the president also, judicial review is basic feature of our constitution.
    Supreme court cannot question contents of such advise but can look into materials on which this advise is based upon, for example governor's recommendation for president's rule should not be based on frivolous grounds/materials.

    the frivouous ground thing is about the malafide intent being visible in the face. But even if it is visible, it is the GOI which is responsible, which is not any individual. Here Raja could have been tried only for receieving bribes, which could not be tracked. It simply means that if bribe can be camouflaged, a minister can seelout the whole country, without being held responsible for it.

    ministers are collectively responsible, not any particular individual.....they sail together and sink together that's why every minister has to submit to cabinet meetings and it's decisions they can't raise voice aginst it even if they are not invited to cabinet meetings
    Onus for proving that raja receives bribes lies on prosecution. So it again depends upon investigating agencies if they want to make case weak
    hmm, bura haal hai. ministers should be made legally responsible. at lower levels it is insisted that hwatever money the system has been gamed with should be recovered from public servant but at the top, the narrative is completely different.
    removing raja from his ministry was the maximum that any government can do because final sentence/awarding punishment lies with the apex court
    However there are some judicial powers with our parliament like impeachment, for breach of privilege etc.
  • It is true that in India Ministers do not have any legal responsibility for 'official' acts. It only means that they are exempt from legal actions against them for decisions taken in discharge of bona fide 'official' duties. Official duties have to be differentiated from non-official actions by misusing the power of their office. It does not absolve them from personal responsibility of criminal actions committed by them such as taking bribe etc. which are obviously non official acts.

    For example, it is claimed that due to demonetization many people suffered heavily and a few even died in queue waiting for cash. In this case FM cannot be held legally responsible for causing culpable homicide. But if FM favours a company by taking bribe, he is legally responsible for his actions in personal capacity.
  • In case of demonetization also if it can be proven that it was done to favour a few individuals/ parties, then it is not an 'official' act.
  • vandana70 said:

    It is true that in India Ministers do not have any legal responsibility for 'official' acts. It only means that they are exempt from legal actions against them for decisions taken in discharge of bona fide 'official' duties. Official duties have to be differentiated from non-official actions by misusing the power of their office. It does not absolve them from personal responsibility of criminal actions committed by them such as taking bribe etc. which are obviously non official acts.

    For example, it is claimed that due to demonetization many people suffered heavily and a few even died in queue waiting for cash. In this case FM cannot be held legally responsible for causing culpable homicide. But if FM favours a company by taking bribe, he is legally responsible for his actions in personal capacity.

    Actually he can be held responsible, not for culpable homicide but for inefficiency.....manmohan singh was investigated for his official decisions of allocating coal blocks when he was coal minister but he never took any bribe.....it all boils down to investigative agencies, how they paint you in front of court
    Ministers are held accountable for their official acts otherwise under the garb of so called "official acts" they can and will implement anything.....infact their decisions can be judicially reviewed
  • Legal Responsibility:
    If an act of the President is, according to the rules made by him, authen­ticated by a Secretary to the Government of India, there is no scope for a Minister being legally responsible for the act even though it may have been done on the advice of the Minister.
Sign In or Join to comment.

Welcome!

We are a secret self-moderated community for Civil Services preparation. Feel free to join, start a discussion, answer a question or just to say Thank you.

Just dont spread the word ;)

Sign in or join with Facebook or Google

Subscribe to ForumIAS Blog