Administrative accountability of local governments
Administrative Accountability of Local Governments
Administrative accountability refers to the responsibility of local government officials and bodies to act within the law, uphold good governance, ensure transparency, and be answerable for their actions and decisions. Local governments, being the closest to the people, must be accountable not only politically but also administratively and legally.
Key Elements of Administrative Accountability:
Legality: Local government officials must act within the scope of their legal powers.
Transparency: Decisions and actions should be open to public scrutiny.
Answerability: Officials must explain and justify their decisions to higher authorities or the public.
Corrective mechanisms: There should be processes for review, redress, or punishment in case of abuse or negligence.
Mechanisms of Accountability:
Judicial review (courts reviewing legality)
Ombudsman or anti-corruption bodies
Internal audits and control systems
Public participation and transparency laws
Case Law Illustrating Administrative Accountability of Local Governments
1. Marbury v. Madison (1803, U.S.) (Foundational case on judicial review)
Though not about local governments specifically, this case establishes that courts have the power to review and invalidate government actions that exceed legal authority. This principle applies to local governments: their administrative actions can be challenged in courts if they violate the law.
Significance: Local government actions must be legally valid; courts act as a check to ensure this accountability.
2. Ridge v. Baldwin (1964, UK)
This case dealt with the dismissal of a police officer without a fair hearing by a local authority. The House of Lords held that the dismissal was invalid because the officer was not given the opportunity to be heard, violating principles of natural justice.
Explanation:
Local authorities are bound by principles of procedural fairness.
Decisions affecting rights or interests must be made following due process.
Accountability means officials cannot act arbitrarily or unfairly.
3. Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (2008, India)
This case is more broadly about government accountability but relevant for local governance as well. The Supreme Court emphasized the responsibility of public authorities, including local bodies, to protect fundamental rights and ensure equality.
Explanation:
Local governments must act in a manner consistent with constitutional rights.
They can be held accountable for discriminatory or unconstitutional policies.
4. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978, India)
This case determined that even public corporations and statutory bodies, which may include local government agencies, are subject to administrative law principles. Actions taken by such bodies must be lawful and fair.
Explanation:
Local government corporations are not immune from judicial review.
Their administrative actions can be challenged for abuse of power.
5. Case of Kentucky Local Government v. Public Service Commission (U.S. 1976)
This case involved a dispute over local government regulation of utilities. The court held that local governments are accountable to state laws and must not exceed their delegated powers.
Explanation:
Local governments have delegated powers and must act within them.
They are accountable to higher governmental authorities and the public.
Summary of Accountability Principles from Cases:
Marbury v. Madison: Courts can invalidate illegal administrative actions.
Ridge v. Baldwin: Procedural fairness and natural justice must be followed.
Ashoka Kumar Thakur: Protection of constitutional rights by local bodies.
Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board: Local public bodies subject to judicial review.
Kentucky Local Government v. PSC: Local government must act within delegated authority.
RELATED Blog
0 comments