|
Transparency in
Administration
In a democratic set up every
authority, every public institution, every public corporation and the likes of
them where public stake is higher than the private one, the administration
should be as transparent as possible and the underlying thought process should
be to make fullest possible disclosure. Disclosure increases confidence and
assures objectivity.
For the organizations which are
made up of members and which have democratic set up, it is a cardinal
requirement to keep its members informed to the fullest degree. No organization
can claim to be democratic while keeping its own members uninformed.
All judicial, quasi-judicial,
executive and administrative powers are to be exercised by the authorities and
public organizations in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Public institutions and public officers are not above the law. Doctrine of rule
of law is embodied in Constitution.
The Rule of Law, as against the
rule by persons, requires that the exercise of any power by the legislature or
by the judiciary or by the Government or by any other authority must be
conditioned by fair play and equity.
The attitude of every public
organization should be to set an example of the highest standards of
transparency and propriety for the public corporations and the institutes.
Public institutions and public
officers are subject to public accountability.
Right to information has been
embedded in the right to express. Right to express has been guaranteed by the
Constitution.
Even disregarding the Right to
Information Act, the Hon’ble Courts had in the past interpreted that Article 19
of the Constitution which grants right to express is inclusive of right to
information. A citizen cannot express fully if his right to be informed is
denied or curtailed.
As such transparency leads to
greater accountability and that in turn would lead to good governance. Claiming
openness and transparency is one thing and implementing the same in a real sense
is other. The later is the true test of a democratic administration.
In democratic set ups, there
can be but few secrets. The people have a right to know every public act,
everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. They are
entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing.
The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech,
though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is
claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public
security. To cover with veil of secrecy, the common routine business, is not in
the interest of the public.
Principles of natural justice
are applicable to the administrative acts also. Even if authority is not
required by law the application of same is required.
A number of statutes confer
powers on administrative authorities and officers to be exercised by them in
their discretion. The power may be in permissive language such as “may”, “it
shall be lawful”, “it may be permissible”, etc. The question is whether it is
open to the authorities to exercise or not to exercise the power at their sweet
wills. The question is whether the authority can delegate such powers completely
without even caring to see whether the delegated agency is acting properly or
not ?
With the expansion in public
activities and public interest becoming pervasive, larger is the need for public
audit and judicial control. Scope of Judicial review is flexible and dependent
upon facts of case. In recent times, judicial review of administrative action
has become extensive and expansive.
In this era of right to
information to the citizens, to the citizens who may be even unconcerned with
the subject matter, the organizations acting for the benefit of their members
and in public interest should be as transparent and forthcoming in providing
necessary information to its members.
Such information is in public
interest to give as what needs to be made transparent is that objective criteria
are the basis of decision making and that such criteria have actually been
applied in decision making.
For every important decision,
reasons have to be recorded in writing. Sometimes such reasons may not be
allowed to be disclosed due to overriding public interest, but that does not
dispense with the need to record the reasons.
Considering that we are living in a society full of indifference and diffidence
where very few people protest and act against the wrongs done by authorities,
whenever some grievances and dissenting views are expressed, the same should
lead to required introspection and as far as possible should be considered
representative of the larger silent numbers.
The legitimate expectations of
members flow not only from the rights but also from the regular practices and it
is their right to expect that all members have been treated with equality and on
merits. Only transparency can assure that these legitimate expectations are
being fulfilled.
In an organization based on
values and principles, a representative is not an author of those values but he
is accountable for expressing them, making them clear and ensuring that such
values and principles are lived up to the expectations of the members and the
public at large. A true representative is expected to contribute towards
participatory process in a manner that all the members become meaningful part of
the decision making process. |
