Accountability of regulatory bodies
Accountability of Regulatory Bodies in India
What are Regulatory Bodies?
Regulatory bodies are statutory or autonomous agencies established by the government to regulate specific sectors or activities, such as finance, telecommunications, environment, competition, and more. Examples include SEBI (Securities and Exchange Board of India), TRAI (Telecom Regulatory Authority of India), and the Environment Pollution Control Board.
Why is Accountability Important?
Regulatory bodies wield significant powers to enforce laws, issue licenses, impose penalties, and shape policy in their sectors. Accountability ensures these powers are exercised fairly, transparently, and in accordance with law, protecting the public interest.
Types of Accountability:
Legal Accountability: Being subject to judicial review and following the rule of law.
Administrative Accountability: Answering to government authorities or legislature.
Financial Accountability: Proper use of public funds, audited by authorities like the CAG.
Political Accountability: Oversight by elected representatives.
Judicial Accountability: Role of Courts
The judiciary plays a critical role in ensuring regulatory bodies act within their powers (ultra vires doctrine), respect principles of natural justice, and maintain procedural fairness.
Important Case Laws on Accountability of Regulatory Bodies
Case 1: Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857
Context:
The issue was whether a regulatory body (Electricity Board) must follow principles of natural justice.
Key Points:
The Supreme Court held that even regulatory authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice.
This means they must give a fair hearing, act without bias, and provide reasons for decisions.
This case established the baseline for procedural fairness and accountability in regulatory action.
Case 2: Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651
Context:
The case challenged the actions of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
Key Points:
The Court ruled that regulatory authorities must act within the powers granted by their statute.
Their decisions must be reasonable and not arbitrary.
It emphasized that such bodies cannot act in an authoritarian manner and are accountable to law and fairness.
The Court also observed that the legislature intended TRAI to have autonomy but with legal accountability.
Case 3: BCCI v. Cricket Association of Bihar, (2015) 4 SCC 454
Context:
The case involved the accountability and reform of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), a regulatory sporting body.
Key Points:
The Supreme Court ruled that even autonomous bodies like BCCI are subject to public law principles and judicial review.
It emphasized transparency, accountability, and adherence to principles of governance.
The Court appointed a Committee of Administrators to oversee reforms, showing that courts can intervene in regulating bodies when accountability lapses.
Case 4: Vodafone International Holdings BV v. Union of India, (2012) 6 SCC 613
Context:
This case involved the telecom regulator and issues related to tax and regulatory powers.
Key Points:
The Court underscored the limits of regulatory authority and the need for clear statutory backing for regulatory actions.
It stressed that regulatory bodies must exercise power within the framework of law, ensuring transparency and fairness.
This reinforced the principle that accountability means actions of regulatory bodies can be questioned and struck down if ultra vires.
Case 5: Union of India v. R. Gandhi, (2010) 11 SCC 1
Context:
Although primarily dealing with tribunals, this case has implications for accountability of quasi-judicial bodies including regulatory authorities.
Key Points:
The Court held that independence and accountability of members of tribunals and regulatory bodies are crucial.
Arbitrary removal of members undermines accountability and independence.
The case emphasizes that regulatory bodies must maintain balance between autonomy and accountability.
Summary
Regulatory bodies must act within the powers granted by their statutes and follow principles of natural justice.
They are accountable to courts, government, legislature, and public.
Judicial review ensures they do not act arbitrarily or ultra vires.
Cases like Rajasthan Electricity Board, Tata Cellular, and BCCI highlight procedural fairness, transparency, and public accountability.
Courts have reinforced that regulatory bodies cannot evade accountability by claiming autonomy.
RELATED Blog
0 comments