Individual responsibility

Also called: Article 75(2), Individual ministerial responsibility · Topic: Union Executive: President, Vice-President, Prime Minister and Council of Ministers · NCERT: Class 8, Ch 6 "The Parliamentary System: Legislature and Executive"

Meaning

Individual responsibility means each minister answers for the work of their own ministry. Ministers hold office "during the pleasure of the President" (Article 75(2)) [2]. In practice, this means the Prime Minister can have any one minister removed at any time.

It matters because it lets one minister be held to account without bringing down the whole government. Collective responsibility (the whole Council answering to the Lok Sabha together) cannot do this on its own.

Explanation

How it works

• The legal base is the "pleasure" clause.
• Article 75(2) says ministers hold office "during the pleasure of the President" [2].

• This means no minister has a fixed term. A minister can be removed at any time.

• In practice, the President's "pleasure" is the PM's choice.

• The President appoints other ministers on the PM's advice (Article 75(1)) [2].
• In the same way, the President removes a minister only when the PM advises it.

• So the PM can drop a single minister even when the Lok Sabha still trusts the government as a whole.

• Each minister answers for their own department.

• If something goes wrong in a ministry, its minister must explain it to Parliament and to the PM.
• If the failure is serious, the minister may have to resign.

Two ways a minister is held to account

• Removal by the PM. This is the legal route under Article 75(2). The PM advises the President to remove the minister.
• Resignation on moral grounds. This is a convention: an unwritten practice that is followed but not set out in law.
• Moral responsibility means a minister accepts the blame for failures in their department, even if they did not cause them personally.
• Example: Lal Bahadur Shastri, Railway Minister, 1956.

Why the PM's role is central

• Dr B.R. Ambedkar told the Constituent Assembly that the office of PM was "indispensable" [3].
• Without a PM, the President could put too much pressure on individual ministers [3].

• With a PM, ministers depend on the PM's choice, not the President's personal wishes.

• In the Constituent Assembly, the PM's power to choose and remove ministers was also seen as the only real way to enforce collective responsibility [3].

• So the PM's power to remove a minister supports both kinds of responsibility.

Limits

• It is political, not legal.
• India has no rule that a minister must countersign (sign alongside) the President's acts, as ministers do for the Crown's acts in Britain.
• Article 74(2) also stops courts from asking whether any advice was given to the President, or what it was [3].

• So a minister answers to the PM and to the Lok Sabha, not to a court, for the President's acts.

• It depends on the PM's will.

• No court can force the PM to drop a minister who failed.
• Moral resignations are a matter of conscience and political pressure, not law.

In the Constitution and practice

• Article 75(2): ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President [2].
• Article 75(1): the President appoints the PM, and appoints other ministers on the PM's advice [2].
• Article 75(3): the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha [2]. Individual responsibility works inside this wider rule.
• Article 74(2): courts cannot look into the advice given to the President [3]. So ministers have no legal responsibility for the President's acts.
• Constituent Assembly (30-31 December 1948; 14 and 17 October 1949):
• Some members wanted "pleasure of the President" replaced with "confidence of the House of the People" [2].

• The change was not made [2]. So a minister's tenure is still tied to the President's pleasure, which in practice means the PM's.

• Key instance: Lal Bahadur Shastri (1956).

• Shastri was Railway Minister when a major train accident happened.
• He offered to resign, taking moral responsibility.
• Nehru first refused. When Shastri offered again, Nehru accepted the resignation.
• It remains the standard example of individual (moral) responsibility.

Don't confuse with

• Collective responsibility (Article 75(3)): the whole Council answers to the Lok Sabha and resigns together if it loses a no-confidence motion. Individual responsibility makes one minister answerable for their own ministry, and that minister can be removed while the government stays in office.
• Cabinet solidarity: a minister who cannot publicly defend a Cabinet decision must resign. Example: C.D. Deshmukh resigned in 1956 over the Bombay plan. That was about disagreeing with policy. Shastri's 1956 resignation was about failure in his own department.
• Legal responsibility: in Britain, ministers countersign the Crown's acts, so they answer for them in law. India has no countersignature rule, and Article 74(2) bars courts from inquiring into advice [3]. Indian ministers' responsibility is political only.
• President's personal discretion: "Pleasure of the President" does not let the President remove ministers alone. The President acts on the PM's advice.

Prelims Hooks

• Article 75(2) says ministers hold office "during the pleasure of the President" [2]. This is the base of individual responsibility.
• Article 75(3) makes ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha only, not to the Rajya Sabha [2].
• Trap: "pleasure of the President" works in practice on the PM's advice. The President does not remove a minister on their own.
• Lal Bahadur Shastri (1956) = individual or moral responsibility. C.D. Deshmukh (1956) = cabinet solidarity. Both are from the same year, so they are easy to mix up.
• Article 74(2): courts cannot ask what advice was given to the President [3]. So Indian ministers have no legal responsibility, unlike in Britain, where ministers countersign the Crown's acts.
• The Constituent Assembly rejected replacing "pleasure of the President" with "confidence of the House of the People" [2].

Mains Points

• Moral resignations are fading.
• Shastri-style resignations after failures in a minister's own department have become rare.
• Ministers now tend to stay on and blame officials. This weakens accountability.

• One option is a firm convention that ministers resign after serious failures in their own ministry.

• It strengthens prime-ministerial government.

• The PM's power to drop any minister keeps the Council disciplined. The Constituent Assembly saw it as the main tool for enforcing collective responsibility [3].

• But it also makes ministers answer more to the PM than to Parliament. This supports critics who say India has moved towards prime-ministerial government.

• Political, not legal, accountability.

• Because of Article 74(2), a minister answers to the PM and the Lok Sabha, not to the courts, for advice given to the President [3].
• Courts can still review the material behind a decision. This keeps judicial review (the courts' power to check whether government action is lawful) alive without breaking the confidentiality of advice.

Related concepts

• Council of Ministers
• Cabinet
• Minister of State (Independent Charge)
• Limit on size of Council of Ministers
• Collective responsibility

Read more

• The Council of Ministers and the Cabinet