Good governance and administrative reforms
I. Meaning of Good Governance
Good Governance refers to the process and structures that guide political and socio-economic relationships. It is characterized by:
Transparency
Accountability
Rule of law
Responsiveness
Equity and inclusiveness
Effectiveness and efficiency
Participation
It ensures that power is exercised in a fair, efficient, and transparent manner, and that public resources are used properly to meet the needs of citizens.
II. Administrative Reforms
Administrative Reforms are deliberate changes to the structures, processes, and policies of the administration aimed at improving efficiency, accountability, responsiveness, and service delivery. They aim to:
Reduce corruption
Improve public service delivery
Simplify procedures
Enhance citizen participation
Strengthen institutions
III. Principles of Good Governance (as per UNDP and Indian context)
Participation
Rule of Law
Transparency
Responsiveness
Consensus Oriented
Equity and Inclusiveness
Effectiveness and Efficiency
Accountability
IV. Detailed Case Laws on Good Governance and Administrative Reforms
1. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226
Subject: Corruption and the need for autonomy in investigating agencies
Facts:
This case arose from the famous Hawala scandal, where top politicians were accused of receiving money through illegal channels. The CBI and Enforcement Directorate were criticized for inaction.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court issued a series of directions to insulate the CBI from political interference.
Directed the government to set up the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) as an independent body to supervise the CBI.
Strengthened the autonomy and transparency of investigative agencies.
Relevance to Good Governance:
Emphasized accountability, transparency, and the rule of law.
Marked a significant step in administrative reform by ensuring CBI’s independence.
2. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) 5 SCC 294
Subject: Right to information about candidates
Facts:
A civil society organization demanded that voters have a right to know the criminal, financial, and educational background of candidates contesting elections.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the Right to Know is part of Article 19(1)(a) (Freedom of Speech and Expression).
Directed the Election Commission to collect and disclose such information.
Relevance:
Promoted transparency and citizen participation.
Ensured informed electoral choices, contributing to democratic governance.
A milestone in electoral reforms.
3. Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545
Subject: Right to livelihood
Facts:
Pavement dwellers in Mumbai were evicted without notice. They approached the Court claiming their right to livelihood.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that the right to livelihood is part of the right to life under Article 21.
Eviction without providing alternative shelter was unconstitutional.
Relevance:
Upheld inclusive governance and human rights.
Focused on equity and the responsiveness of the administration.
Paved the way for people-centric administrative decisions.
4. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC 248
Subject: Due process and administrative fairness
Facts:
Maneka Gandhi’s passport was impounded without giving her a chance to be heard.
Judgment:
The Court ruled that any action affecting a person’s rights must be just, fair, and reasonable.
Audi Alteram Partem (hear the other side) is part of natural justice.
Relevance:
Ensured transparency, fairness, and rule of law in administrative actions.
One of the foundational cases establishing procedural fairness as a part of good governance.
5. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
Subject: Police reforms
Facts:
Widespread abuse of power, inefficiency, and political interference in police functioning led to a petition for police reforms.
Judgment:
Supreme Court issued 7 directives for police reforms, including:
Fixed tenure for DGPs
Separation of investigation and law-and-order wings
Establishment of State Security Commissions
Police Complaints Authorities
Relevance:
Aimed at making police accountable, autonomous, and citizen-friendly.
A significant administrative reform case promoting transparency and rule of law.
6. PUCL v. Union of India (Right to Food Case) – (2001 onwards)
Subject: Right to food and government accountability
Facts:
Petition was filed highlighting starvation deaths despite surplus food stocks.
Judgment:
Supreme Court recognized the right to food as part of Article 21 (Right to life).
Directed state and central governments to implement food schemes like Mid-Day Meals, Antyodaya Anna Yojana, etc.
Relevance:
Reinforced the state’s responsiveness and duty to deliver welfare services.
Strong example of social accountability in governance.
Pushed reform in public distribution systems.
7. Aruna Shanbaug v. Union of India (2011) 4 SCC 454
Subject: Euthanasia and right to die with dignity
Facts:
Aruna Shanbaug was in a vegetative state for decades. A plea was filed for passive euthanasia.
Judgment:
The Court allowed passive euthanasia under strict guidelines, balancing right to life and dignity.
Relevance:
Highlighted the compassionate and humane aspect of governance.
Recognized the need for policy reform in healthcare and end-of-life care.
V. Conclusion
Good governance and administrative reforms go hand-in-hand. Through these landmark cases, the judiciary has played a vital role in:
Ensuring accountability and transparency,
Protecting human rights,
Directing institutional and structural reforms,
Enabling citizens’ participation in governance.
These judicial interventions have had long-lasting impacts on India’s administrative and legal frameworks, shaping a governance model that aspires to be more inclusive, efficient, and people-centric.
RELATED Blog
0 comments