Doubt Clearance Thread: UPSC 2021
"When in doubt, observe and ask questions. When certain, observe at length and ask many more questions."
Created this thread as a one stop solution for all members so that all the doubts wherein any conceptual clarification is required can be solved here.
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.
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?
Accountability would not always come with provisions of punishment - In my opinion , we can equate accountability with answerability of your actions, or liability . - formal or informal. Informal examples could be , the minister being accountable to the people for their actions - its not written in the constitution that they are accountable, their is no provisions any where but they are responsible for welfare of people, and can be held accountable also- during elections, press briefing .
The examples seems wrong to me also. We can have example of working of police. The SP or any senior official is accountable to the ministers or to his seniors or even to people for the actions of his subordinate , when he is not directly responsible. In any position , the seniors are held accountable for the act of juniors, even if they are not directly responsible.
sbhati,whatonlydo the nominated Rajya Sabha members count as M.P. for all the intents and purposes of becoming a minister?? if so then do the same also hold true for state legislature?
This info is from Rajya Sabha website. It doesn't clarify wheather nominated RS members can become ministers or not but it says it has not happened till now. 
This is a quora post which gives example of nominated members of lok Sabha who went on to become ministers.
This is The wire article related to Uddhav Thakrey case. It says nominated state council members are not prohibited legally to be ministers but ideally that shouldn't happen. 
So to answer your question:-
At central level ONLY nominated members of Lok Sabha ( not RS) can become ministers.
At state level nominated members of both Councils and Assembly can become ministers.
This info is from Rajya Sabha website. It doesn't clarify wheather nominated RS members can become ministers or not but it says it has not happened till now.
This is a quora post which gives example of nominated members of lok Sabha who went on to become ministers.
This is The wire article related to Uddhav Thakrey case. It says nominated state council members are not prohibited legally to be ministers but ideally that shouldn't happen.
So to answer your question:-
At central level ONLY nominated members of Lok Sabha ( not RS) can become ministers.
At state level nominated members of both Councils and Assembly can become ministers.
Hey, taking all what you said into account, what I concluded is that actually nominated members of both houses can go on to become ministers, because Constitution or any another statute doesn’t specifically exclude them. 😅
The fact that no nominated members have been inducted into the Council til date, or the various reasons on why they are not par with elected members in all aspects - does not negate the fact that they are still perfectly eligible to become ministers.
This info is from Rajya Sabha website. It doesn't clarify wheather nominated RS members can become ministers or not but it says it has not happened till now.
This is a quora post which gives example of nominated members of lok Sabha who went on to become ministers.
This is The wire article related to Uddhav Thakrey case. It says nominated state council members are not prohibited legally to be ministers but ideally that shouldn't happen.
So to answer your question:-
At central level ONLY nominated members of Lok Sabha ( not RS) can become ministers.
At state level nominated members of both Councils and Assembly can become ministers.
Hey, taking all what you said into account, what I concluded is that actually nominated members of both houses could go on to become ministers, because Constitution or any another statute doesn’t specifically exclude them. 😅
The fact that no nominated members have been inducted into the Council til date, or the various reasons on why they are not par with elected members in all aspects - does not negate the fact that they are still perfectly eligible to become ministers.
That is what I was thinking right now😂
But I couldn't find anything concrete on this. May be I assumed things a bit unnecessarily. My fault.
Villanelle,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.
Usain_bolt,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.
Because accountability comes with individual own acceptance of their obligations and own acceptance won't be possible without hearing yourself.
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.
sstarrr,Indian_HumanCan states in India raise loans from outside India?Article 293 states the following:
Subject to the provisions of this article, the executive power of a State extends to borrowing within the territory of India upon the security of the Consolidated Fund of the State within such limits, if any, as may from time to time be fixed by the Legislature of such State by law and to the giving of guarantees within such limits, if any, as may be so fixed.
So the answer to your question would be that state governments can NOT raise loans outside India.
That being said, I think state governments can directly borrow from from bilateral financing agencies abroad for infrastructure projects with the central government providing a counter-guarantee. That is, if the state government fails to pay back the loan, the Centre would pay them back.
What if a state govt wants to borrow but not upon the security of consolidated fund of the state? Would such a limitation then apply? I don't think so.
The infrastructure example is regarding the state 'entities' and not the govt per se, i.e. state govt autonomous bodies or undertakings can borrow directly for infrastructure projects(otherwise they would have to depend on budgetary allocation or local borrowings). In this example too, guarantee is provided by state govt itself and counter guarantee by Central govt.
Can states in India raise loans from outside India?Article 293 states the following:
Subject to the provisions of this article, the executive power of a State extends to borrowing within the territory of India upon the security of the Consolidated Fund of the State within such limits, if any, as may from time to time be fixed by the Legislature of such State by law and to the giving of guarantees within such limits, if any, as may be so fixed.
So the answer to your question would be that state governments can NOT raise loans outside India.
That being said, I think state governments can directly borrow from from bilateral financing agencies abroad for infrastructure projects with the central government providing a counter-guarantee. That is, if the state government fails to pay back the loan, the Centre would pay them back.
What if a state govt wants to borrow but not upon the security of consolidated fund of the state? Would such a limitation then apply? I don't think so.
The infrastructure example is regarding the state 'entities' and not the govt per se, i.e. state govt autonomous bodies or undertakings can borrow directly for infrastructure projects(otherwise they would have to depend on budgetary allocation or local borrowings). In this example too, guarantee is provided by state govt itself and counter guarantee by Central govt.
Then what would the state government provide as security? And in the infrastructure case, state entities can NOT borrow. It is the state government that borrows the money on behalf of the entity.
“The funding arrangements that bilateral agencies such as Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) provide, is either with State governments or central PSUs — State entities are not allowed,” said Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. “If any State entity needs funding for its projects, it has to approach the State government and any such funding would be included under the State’s borrowing limits set by the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM law).”
Can states in India raise loans from outside India?Article 293 states the following:
Subject to the provisions of this article, the executive power of a State extends to borrowing within the territory of India upon the security of the Consolidated Fund of the State within such limits, if any, as may from time to time be fixed by the Legislature of such State by law and to the giving of guarantees within such limits, if any, as may be so fixed.
So the answer to your question would be that state governments can NOT raise loans outside India.
That being said, I think state governments can directly borrow from from bilateral financing agencies abroad for infrastructure projects with the central government providing a counter-guarantee. That is, if the state government fails to pay back the loan, the Centre would pay them back.
What if a state govt wants to borrow but not upon the security of consolidated fund of the state? Would such a limitation then apply? I don't think so.
The infrastructure example is regarding the state 'entities' and not the govt per se, i.e. state govt autonomous bodies or undertakings can borrow directly for infrastructure projects(otherwise they would have to depend on budgetary allocation or local borrowings). In this example too, guarantee is provided by state govt itself and counter guarantee by Central govt.
Then what would the state government provide as security? And in the infrastructure case, state entities can NOT borrow. It is the state government that borrows the money on behalf of the entity.
“The funding arrangements that bilateral agencies such as Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) provide, is either with State governments or central PSUs — State entities are not allowed,” said Finance Minister Arun Jaitley. “If any State entity needs funding for its projects, it has to approach the State government and any such funding would be included under the State’s borrowing limits set by the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM law).”
I read about Kerala issuing Bonds (like masala bonds) in the international market - kerala infrastructure investments bonds in london stock exchnage. This is a external borrorwing, by kerala govt.
So, I think they can borrow, maybe with permission of the central govt if they have some outstanding loans with the centre.
@sstarrrthanks I was confused as approaching SC for violation of FRs also comes under original jurisdiction but here only federal is written
We can approach HC as well for FR violations
Dionysus,
Write your comment…
