Individual Responsibility

The term individual responsibility finds its mention in Article 75 of the Indian constitution. According to which ministers are individually responsible to the president. The concept of individual responsibility comes from the Westminster model.

Introduction

Individual Ministerial responsibility is a concept in which the ministers are responsible not only for their own acts but also for the departments in control. It further provides a basis for accountability for the government hence the minister is under obligation to answer the parliament for the malpractices. 

Definition

The definition of individual ministerial responsibility is given by Sir Ivor Jennings which has two elements. The first element is that the minister is responsible for both his personal and general conduct and the second element being that the minister is also responsible for the acts done or not done by the officials of his department. 

Doctrine

The doctrine is a convention to control the arbitrary power of the government. It creates a system of checks and balances in the government. It further also acts as a watchdog and protects the social interest. 

Origin

The concept developed with the coming of political parties. It came into being in the nineteenth century after the ministers thought to gain dominance over the ministerial department.  It originated in the UK mainly because it has an unwritten Constitution and as no statue was present regarding this convention.  

Aspects

There are three aspects to individual ministerial responsibility-

1. it basically is the misuse of the position for their personal gains. 
2. -it concerns with the various ministerial portfolio
3. ‌ this minister is responsible for all its arms and departments.

In terms of responsibility of the ministers the constitution tells us about three main responsibilities –

1. Collective responsibility– Collective responsibility (mentioned in Article-75) is the core principle on which our parliamentary system works. According to this principle the council of ministers are collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This further means that they have joint responsibility towards Lok Sabha for their being in confidence or commission or not being in confidence i.e. omission
2. Individual responsibility-It also finds mention in Article 75 of the constitution. It states that the ministers holds office in the pleasure of the president from which we can infer that the president has the power to remove the minister even if the council of ministers enjoys majority or confidence on the floor of the house but there is an important condition to it .As we all know that India has parliamentary form of government that we have taken from Britain .Since India follows the Westminster model wherein the president is not the real executive and is mere a rubber stamp it needs to exercise its power under the real head that is the council of ministers headed by the Prime minister. According to article 74 of the constitution the president exercises his power under the aid and advice of the council of ministers headed by the prime minister. Thus, we can conclude the president can remove the ministers only on the advice of the prime minister.
3. No legal responsibility– In Britain every order is countersigned by the minister and in case of violation the minister is held responsible while in India there is no such provision of legal responsibilty.it is not required that a presidential order is countersigned by the minister. Hence in India we have the system of no legal responsibility.

 Difference between individual and collective responsibility

It differs from the concept of collective responsibility since here the accountable minister has to take the entire blame and resign and the rest of the ministers don’t have to pay for the repercussions of the single minister. While in the collective responsibility the entire cabinet swim or sink together. Further it is found that if any case of corruption, misbehavior in ministry or any such case will ultimately cause the minister to resign even if the minister has no knowledge about it because ultimately the minister is the captain of the ship of his ministry despite being unaware of the case minister led the accused civil servant or personnel employed

Criteria for removal 

1) In case of poor performance of a minister the Prime Minister can advise the President to dismiss him or ask the minister to resign 

2) in case of difference of opinion or dissatisfaction also the Prime minister can ask the President for removal.

Importance

1. The principle is important since it makes the minister accountable for every decision he takes.
2. It further helps the minister to scrutinize the affairs of his ministry to work effectively. 
3. In order to maintain collective responsibility, there is a need for individual responsibility.

Current scenario

It has found that the concept has eroded and lost its significance in the current context. This basically means that the ministers nowadays use the blame card on previous governments or ministers for any such act also they have become more ignorant and are not bothered.

Conclusion

Individual responsibility is important as it motivates the minister to do good, it makes it accountable to the government for its actions and further failing to do so he may have to face the consequences or may have to resign. Thus, this doctrine is crucial for the effective functioning in the government.