But I don't understand what that means in context of AG. Why would AG receive this summary and from whom?@sbhati a summary of the facts and legal points in a case given to a barrister to argue in court.As per google😀
@Usain_bolt@AzadHindFauzBut shouldn't AG, as a lawyer, prepare these legal arguments herself, rather than accept these, presumably from other lawyers?
Okay I understand. Thanks!@AzadHindFauzOkay so AG will receive these briefs and only give advice to petitioners about how they can take their case forward?
He may also appear for them if the other litigant is not the government.
I think AG has to take permission if she is defending someone in a criminal case or accepting directorship of a company. And in no case, can she appear or advise against the government. For civil cases, in which government is not the other party, I think government's permission is not needed.AG is not a public servant. He can carry on with his private practice with one rider that in cases concerning government he has to take its permission. Is this right ?
Laxmikant mentions this only.I think AG has to take permission if she is defending someone in a criminal case or accepting directorship of a company. And in no case, can she appear or advise against the government. For civil cases, in which government is not the other party, I think government's permission is not needed.AG is not a public servant. He can carry on with his private practice with one rider that in cases concerning government he has to take its permission. Is this right ?
Scroll article says : He has to take permission from Law ministry for defending a private client.
I think that not fixed probably means not fixed by law. Even if they are not physically demarcated, even Sanctuaries must have boundaries. Otherwise how would we classify that land as revenue or forest. I think probably Sanctuaries will be demarcated in Forest department maps.Are boundaries of Wildlife Sanctuaries fixed? I've read somewhere that boundaries of National Parks are fixed but not that of WS. However, how can WS exist without having fixed boundaries?No, they are not specifically specified. I live near a local Wildlife Sanctuary and haven't seen any demarcation as such.
Idea is same, context is different. Earlier it was within the context of protectionist socialist economy where the major concerns were protecting domestic industry, saving foreign exchange etc. Now its within the context of a liberalized economy aiming at growth and job creation by leveraging exports, FDI etc.is there any real difference between self sufficiency and self-reliance?
"Going back to "self-sufficiency" that Nehru and Indira Gandhi tried would be a terrible idea
(flopped, India grew at 3.5%) and "self-reliance" is the main idea behind this scheme."
I think then, the main difference is in the degree of formality. My boss may give me the responsibility of doing a task and if I don't do it, he may reprimand me for being irresponsible. This is an informal sort of punishment. However, if violate a company rule related to my official position, the punishment would be according to the rules and regulation. It will be more formal. This would be a way of holding me accountable. So we can probably conclude that:I think in a general sense both are quite similar and can be used interchangeably sometimes. They are different when we are speaking of institutions and governance.
In that case, responsibility is a general concept that tells you whose job is it is to do a certain task. Accountability is a way of actually enforcing that responsibility - it tells you not only who is responsible, but who can be held responsible.
A person who is accountable for a certain task is dutybound to answer questions about whether it was completed, how it was completed, when it can be expected to be completed etc., and if the answers are not satisfactory, the person may even have to face some penalty. Accountability is usually fixed on a certain person or institution through laws and rules.
Sometimes someone can be responsible for doing a certain task, but not be accountable for it. MPs have the responsibility to debate in the house, but they are not accountable to a court for what they say (of course, ultimately they are accountable to the public opinion - but there is no direct institutional mechanism for enforcing it)
Conversely, someone may not be responsible for something, but is still accountable for it. It isnotexpected of ministers to be responsible for writing every clause of a law that comes out of their ministry, but if some question is asked about it in Parliament, they would still be accountablefor it and have to answer it.
Usually when some process doesn't run properly, the problem isn't that no one is responsible for it, but that no one is accountable for it.
Responsibility is the duty to do something, while accountability is formally enforced responsibility with provisions of penalty.
Do you think this formulation is correct?
Also, I think your example of accountability without responsibility may not be totally correct. The minister may not be responsible for drafting each clause of the statute, but she is surely responsible to oversee the formulation of draft and present it in the house. Thus, her accountability to fellow legislators stems from this responsibility. I think accountability must necessarily include an aspect of responsibility. Do you agree with this?
Quoting from the Red Book? ;) That is why I asked. It says responsibility cannot be assigned. But as I said in the question, we do sometimes talk of "giving responsibility".Can someone clarify the difference between responsibility and accountability? At some places, it is written that responsibility cannot be assigned to someone while accountability can. But we do sometimes say "I am giving you the responsibility of doing XYZ". Is that an incorrect use of the term?Accountability isanswerabilityof a person for his decisions to aformal system. Responsibility ismoral obligationof an individual to behave with an essence of commitment to duty. For eg- Lal Bahadur Shastri took personal responsibility of a train accident and resigned, although he can not be held accountable for this. It is given in more detail in forum's red book on ethics, you may refer it.
Accountability cannot be from inside. Accountability must be answerability to someone outside.Can someone clarify the difference between responsibility and accountability? At some places, it is written that responsibility cannot be assigned to someone while accountability can. But we do sometimes say "I am giving you the responsibility of doing XYZ". Is that an incorrect use of the term?Yes its the correct statement as you are assigning responsibility because you have accountability to devour responsibilities. If I am right, I had seen it in Atul Garg sir videos where he said that accountability is something within yourself, inside you, listening to your conscience while responsibility is something very external, which has been assigned and has little liability than accountability.
Accountability cannot be from inside. Accountability must be answerability to someone outside.Can someone clarify the difference between responsibility and accountability? At some places, it is written that responsibility cannot be assigned to someone while accountability can. But we do sometimes say "I am giving you the responsibility of doing XYZ". Is that an incorrect use of the term?Yes its the correct statement as you are assigning responsibility because you have accountability to devour responsibilities. If I am right, I had seen it in Atul Garg sir videos where he said that accountability is something within yourself, inside you, listening to your conscience while responsibility is something very external, which has been assigned and has little liability than accountability.
That's the impact or external stimuli associated with your inner conscience and decision, which you have taken because you are accountable to something. Responsibility is shareable while accountability can't be.
Yes accountability, when shared, gets diluted. But still I don't see how accountability can only be within oneself.
I am leaning towards this conclusion. Responsibility is the duty to do something. It may be given to us by someone else (e.g. my father gives me the responsibility to arrange for snacks when guests are coming home) or we may take it upon ourselves to be responsible for something (e.g. work is being distributed in a group task and I take it upon myself to do one part of the task). Now, accountability means answerability if we don't do what we were responsible for. If we are obligated to provide an explanation for our failure to do what we were required to do, to an external agency, we are being held accountable. So essentially:
Responsibility is our duty to do something. Accountability is answerablity if we fail to fulfil our responsibility.
@sbhatiPFMS is type of MIS ?
I think it would be simply be an information repository.
Wikipedia defines MIS as “ A management information system is an information system used for decision-making, and for the coordination, control, analysis, and visualization of information in an organization.”
But this is too abstract for me. That is why I asked for some examples.
Can anyone explain what a management information system (MIS) is, with some real world examples?MIS is something which generates information which supports management function and facilitates decision- making process.
Consider government as an Organization and vaccinating the citizens against covid to be the objective of this organisation to be achieved, COWIN portal can be considered as a MIS which generates various kinds of information like stock availability, numbers of jabs given, wastage of vaccine doses and likewise, all such information helping in management of the vaccination strategy as well as providing inputs to facilitate coordination among various agencies of the organisation ie the government involved in vaccination process, as well as providing inputs for future course of action/s based on real time scenarios and all of these above mentioned things finally contributing to the ultimate objective of the govt(org) that is to vaccinate the citizens.
Okay I understand now. So in a way its the modern alternative of the file system. Rather than recording information on paper, you put it into a computer. This information can then be processed to generate useful insights which can help in management. Thanks!
As far as I know, there is no specific definition of 'civil servants' in India but I guess you can consider all bureaucrats to be civil servants. Also, 'civil servants' would be a subset of 'public servants.' The ones who are considered 'public servants' is defined by the IPC and there's a specific definition in the Prevention of Corruption Act (only for the purposes of the Act). So as per the definition of IPC it would include judges, members of the military, someone who is paid by the govt. etc. This would include the Ministers (Karunanidhi case) as well, but I don't think it extends to all politicians.
Section 21 in The Indian Penal Code (indiankanoon.org)
Now in a more general sense, I think you can consider 'civil servants' to be employed by the govt. while 'public servants' are those who serve the public which would include politicians, activists and so on, but this is not the legal or official definition of 'public servant.'
That makes sense. Generally, the term public servant should include politicians. But in context of specific laws, the term would mean whatever the law says it means. Thanks for clarifying.
