NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

JODHPUR

CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE II
ASSIGNMENT CA III

U.G. SEMESTER II
Winter Session (January - April 2016)
Word count 1626

SUBMITTED BY:

SUBMITTED TO:

R. No. 1281

Aakanksha Kumar

Section A

Faculty of Law

TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT............................................................................2
INTRODUCTION..................................................................................3
WHETHER HARSIMRAT KAUR VIOLATED COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY?.7
IF THIS MATTER WERE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN COURT, WOULD THE
ALLEGATION AGAINST MS. KAUR STAND?..............................................9
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.....................................................................11

pg. 2

INTRODUCTION
The Council of Ministers is collective responsible or answerable to the Lok Sabha. Collective
Responsibility means all Ministers share a collective responsibility even for the decisions in
which they have taken no part whatsoever or in which they have dissented at the meeting of
the Council of Ministers, the members of the Council of Ministers express a common
opinion. It means unanimity and confidentiality.1 Cabinet of Ministers is the driving and
steering body responsible for the Governance of the country.2 A Cabinet of Ministers is the
nucleus of the Council of Ministers. It is composed of ministers of various ranks like Cabinet
Ministers, Ministers of State, Deputy Ministers etc. The Council of Ministers is responsible
as a body for the general conduct of the affairs of the Government. All the minister either sink
or sail together in Parliament and the Government is carried on as a unity.
The principle of collective responsibility finds a formal authority in the Indian Constitution.
Article 75 mentions various provisions about ministers. The clause 3 reduces the basic
principle of parliamentary government to a statutory form. Under the principle, a minister, as
a member of Council of Ministers, cannot have a different policy of his own from the rest of
the cabinet. All ministers stand or fall together in the parliament, and the government is
carried on as a unit and as a body commands the confidence of the house and that Cabinets
decisions are the joint decisions of all Ministers. 3 Liability of a single minister lies on whole
cabinet and vice versa. They work as a team and swim or sink together. When the Lok Sabha
passes a no-confidence motion against the council of ministers, all the ministers have to
resign including those ministers who are from the Rajya Sabha.

1 Dattaji Chirandas v. State Of Guj. AIR 1999 Guj. 445.

2 S.R. Bommai v. UOI, (1994) 3 SCC 1
3 State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohd, AIR 1967 SC 122.
pg. 3

As a member of Council of Ministers, a person cannot have a different policy of his own
from the rest of the cabinet. All ministers stand or fall together in the parliament, and the
government is carried on as a unit and as a body commands the confidence of the house and
that Cabinets decisions are the joint decisions of all Ministers. 4 According to the Supreme
Court, Collective Responsibility means that
All members of a government are unanimous in support of its policies and would
exhibit that unanimity on public occasions although while formulating the policies,
they might have expressed a different opinion5
The principle is not limited to merely liabilities and collective decisions only. It is extended to
that ministers must not vote, speak against cabinet decisions and reveal its secrets to public.
The concept of collective responsibility is essentially a political concept. The country is
governed by the party in power on the basis of the policies adopted and laid down by it in the
Cabinet Meeting. Collective Responsibility has two meanings, first that all members of a
government are unanimous in support of its policies and would exhibit that unanimity on
public occasions and the other meaning is that Ministers, who had an opportunity to speak for
or against the policies in the Cabinet are thereby personally and morally responsible for its
success and failure.6
All Ministers share collective responsibility even for decisions in which they have taken no
part whatsoever or in which they might have dissented at the meeting of the Council of
Ministers. Collective Responsibility means the members of Council of Ministers express a
common opinion. It means unanimity and confidentiality.7 It even extends to that the
4 State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohd, AIR 1967 SC 122.
5 Common Cause- A Regd. Society v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2979
6 Id.
7 Supra Note 1.
pg. 4

deliberations of the Cabinet are kept secret and confidential in the future and its publication
can be prevented.8 The duty of the minister is not merely to support the government, but to
restrain from making any speech which is contrary to the cabinet policy or make a declaration
of Policy in a speech upon there is no cabinet decision. A Government after the parliamentary
model, is one united whole and has a joint responsibility. Each member of the government
has to support the others so long as he remains in the government. The Minister has to
support his other Ministers and the other Ministers have to support each other and the Chief
Minister. It is quite absurd for any Minister to oppose or give even the impression of
opposing a colleague of his. Opinions may be freely expressed within the Cabinet. Outside,
the government should have only one opinion. A Minister cannot disown responsibility for
any Cabinet decision so long as he remains a Minister. He cannot both remain a Minister and
criticize or oppose a Cabinet decision or even adopt an attitude of neutrality, or oppose a
colleague in public. By the virtue of article 75 of the Constitution of India, a Council of
Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, it appointed by the President. 75(2) states that the
office is held on the desire of the President and 75(3) makes the Council completely liable to
the House of People or Lok Sabha. 9 The cabinet is responsible to the legislature for every
action taken in any of the Ministries. The Council of Ministers are responsible to the Lok
Sabha not only as an individual alone but collective also.
The object of collective responsibility is to make the whole body of person holding
ministerial office collectively or vicariously responsible for their acts. In the absence of any
political party having all India strong base and support during last several years, there has
been incline to formation of more and more coalition governments. Participating parties of a
coalition government have drastic difference is their core ideologies and policies and this
8 Attorney General v. Jonathan Cape Ltd, [1976] QB 752
9 Supra Note 5.
pg. 5

tends to show in the public speeches and statements of its ministers. This phenomenon is
jeopardizing to the principle of collective responsibility.

pg. 6

WHETHER HARSIMRAT KAUR VIOLATED COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY?

In the present context the statement of Mrs. Badal supporting and praising the decision of the
Akali Dal Government regarding the de-notification of land allotted for the purpose of
erection of SYL Canal clearly is in contravention to the principle of Collective Responsibility
of the Council of Ministers. Union Food Processing Industries minister Mrs. Harsimrat Kaur
Badal was quoted as saying-" This is the historic day when Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) under
the most dynamic leadership of Sardar Parkash Singh Badal has settled the issue once for all.
We have put a big full-stop on efforts of a gullible Congress led by Capt Amarinder Singh to
cheat farmers and make them believe they were leading the battle against releasing waters
through the SYL canal to Haryana." 10 The above statement of Mrs. Badal clearly shows that
she is in clear disagreement to the decision of her own NDA Cabinet which favours speeding
up the construction of the SYL canal and to this effect has recently filed an affidavit in the
Honourable Supreme Court for speeding up the work on the construction of the canal. Every
Minister must support the decision of the Council, he cannot both remain a Minister and
criticise or oppose a Cabinet decision or even adopt an attitude of neutrality, or oppose a
colleague in public.11 In the present case the above quoted statement of Mrs. Badal clearly
violates the responsibility levied upon her under the principle of Collective Responsibility
due to the virtue of her being a Cabinet Minister. Allegations on her on the violation of the
collective responsibility stand on wish of the Council of Minister. If it considers that she is
violating, she can be removed but it is on the discretion of Council of Ministers and the Prime
Minister alone.
10

http://www.cityairnews.com/content/congress-exposed-double-speak-over-syl-issue-

harsimrat-kaur-badal.

11 M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6th ed. 2010) Pg. 166.
pg. 7

pg. 8

IF THIS MATTER WERE TO BE BROUGHT UP IN COURT, WOULD THE

ALLEGATION AGAINST MS. KAUR STAND?

Collective responsibility is otherwise known as the 'political' responsibility of the ministers as

distinguished from their 'legal' or individual responsibility for any illegal act done by him
personally or under his orders.12 Article 75(3) makes the Council of Ministers responsible
only to the House of People. The Prime Minister and his ministers are collectively
answerable to the House of the People. On no other condition can a Council of Ministers
work as a team. The Court cannot enforce Article 75(3) of The Constitution as it is only the
Prime Minister who enforces Collective Responsibility amongst the Ministers through his
ultimate power to dismiss a Minister.13 The Ministers are appointed by the President on the
advice of the Prime Minister.14 Vote of confidence is the only method by which house of
people can enforce collective responsibility. A motion of No Confidence can be introduced
only in the Lok Sabha. The motion is admitted for discussion when a minimum of fifty
members of the house support the motion. If the motion carries, the house debates and votes
on the motion. If a majority of the members of the house vote in favor of the motion, the
motion is passed and the Government is bound to vacate the office.
Comments and statements made by Harsimrat Kaur Badal may be a violation of the code of
collective responsibility, but it cannot be enforced by the court. As a political responsibility,
this is an authority conceded to the government only. Since the BJP led government is in
majority in the House of People, no-confidence motion cannot be brought. Harsimrat Kaur
Badal would remain as a minister in the Cabinet on the behest of the Prime Minister and the

12 HALSBURY, 4th ed. vol 8.

13 S.P. Anand, Indore vs. H.D. Deve Gowda, (1996) 6 SCC 734.
14 Article 75(1), The Constitution of India, 1950.
pg. 9

rest of the Council. If they wish, Kaur can be asked to resign and vacate but this cannot be
enforced by a third party. A case against her in the Court cannot be brought and any charges
against her would not stand. So it is very clear from the above arguments that the Court
cannot remove Mrs. Badal from her portfolio as the enforcement of Collective Responsibility
is done by the Prime Minister alone.

pg. 10

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES
Attorney General v. Jonathan Cape Ltd, [1976] QB 752.5
Common Cause- A Regd Society v. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 2979-------------------------5
Common Cause- A Regd. Society v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 2979.---------------------4
Dattaji Chirandas v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1999 Guj. 48.------------------------------------------5
Dattaji Chirandas vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1999 Guj. 48,59, AIR 1999 Guj. 48,59------------3
S.P. Anand, Indore vs. H.D. Deve Gowda-------------------------------------------------------------9
S.R. Bommai v. UOI, (1994) 3 SCC 1------------------------------------------------------------------3
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohd, AIR 1967 SC 122------------------------4
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohd, AIR 1967 SC 122.------------------------4
STATUTES
Constitution of India, 1950.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------5
TREATISES
HALSBURY, 4th ed. vol 8.------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
M.P. JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (6th ed. 2010) Pg. 165.--------------------------------7

pg. 11