Explain and offer a critical analysis of non-court-based forms of control of governmental action
Non-Court-Based Forms of Control of Governmental Action: Explanation and Critical Analysis
1. Introduction
While courts play a crucial role in controlling government actions through judicial review, non-court-based mechanisms are equally vital for ensuring accountability, transparency, and lawful governance. These mechanisms operate outside the formal judiciary and include administrative, political, legislative, and institutional controls designed to keep government power in check.
2. Types of Non-Court-Based Controls
a) Legislative Control
Parliament and state legislatures oversee the executive through:
Question Hour and Zero Hour to question ministers.
Parliamentary Committees such as Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Estimates Committee.
Vote of Confidence/No Confidence motions.
Legislators have the power to enact, amend or repeal laws, and conduct investigations.
b) Executive and Administrative Control
Hierarchical control within government departments.
Administrative tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies resolving disputes and complaints.
Internal audits and vigilance departments investigate corruption or malpractices.
c) Ombudsman and Lokpal Institutions
Independent bodies like Lokpal, Lokayuktas, and Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) oversee government conduct.
Ombudsmen address grievances, investigate maladministration, and recommend corrective action.
d) Media and Public Opinion
Free press and media serve as a watchdog, exposing government excesses or failures.
Civil society and public activism put pressure on authorities to act lawfully.
e) Right to Information (RTI)
Empowers citizens to access government records.
Enhances transparency and enables public scrutiny of government actions.
3. Critical Analysis: Strengths and Weaknesses
| Strengths | Weaknesses / Challenges |
|---|---|
| Promotes accountability beyond courts | Often depends on political will and independence |
| Facilitates faster resolution of issues | Potential for bureaucratic inertia and inefficiency |
| Engages public participation and awareness | Limited enforceability compared to judicial decisions |
| Reduces burden on courts | May be undermined by lack of transparency or bias |
| Offers specialized expertise | Some bodies lack adequate resources and powers |
4. Case Laws Demonstrating Non-Court Controls
Case 1: Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
Context: CBI's independence was questioned in corruption investigations.
Held: Supreme Court directed CBI reforms, strengthened Lokpal-type oversight.
Significance: Affirmed need for independent agencies beyond courts to control government.
Case 2: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Context: Public Interest Litigation expanding access to justice.
Held: Recognized transparency and public participation as essential non-judicial control mechanisms.
Significance: Highlighted that effective governance requires non-court-based democratic controls.
Case 3: Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
While not a case, the statutory creation of Lokpal institutionalizes non-judicial control.
This was a response to public demand for an independent anti-corruption body.
Reflects evolution in controlling governmental action beyond courts.
Case 4: People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)
Context: Role of CAG in auditing government expenditures.
Held: Supreme Court upheld CAG’s authority to audit all public funds, reinforcing administrative oversight.
Significance: Demonstrates the effectiveness of constitutional watchdogs in government accountability.
Case 5: Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
Context: Transparency in election candidate information.
Held: RTI Act provisions apply to candidates; public access to information upheld.
Significance: Shows how RTI empowers citizens and non-judicial scrutiny over government.
5. Conclusion
Non-court-based controls on governmental action form an essential complement to judicial review. They enable:
Proactive, specialized, and democratic oversight of the executive.
Encourage transparency and public participation.
Reduce the burden on courts.
However, their effectiveness depends heavily on political will, independence, resources, and active citizen engagement. Without these, such mechanisms risk becoming symbolic or ineffective.
To strengthen governance, non-judicial controls must operate in harmony with judicial remedies, ensuring a multi-layered accountability framework.
RELATED Blog
0 comments