Some recent developments such as introduction of RTI Act, media and judicial activism, etc., are proving helpful in bringing about greater transparency and accountability in the functioning of the government. However, it is also being observed that at times the mechanisms are misused. Another negative effect is that the officers are now afraid to take prompt decisions. Analyze this situation in detail and suggest how this dichotomy can be resolved. Suggest how these negative impacts can be minimized.
This question is available to read here. The practice button generates a fresh question from the same paper. Here, practise an answer plan in keywords. Choose your timer on the next screen. Feedback uses our common 15-point practice rubric, rather than the paper’s original mark allocation.
The Madras High Court recently granted the Tamil Nadu government an additional four weeks to reach a final decision regarding the long-pending revision of state bus fares. With fares last fixed in 2018 at ₹0.58 per km when diesel prices stood at ₹67.50 per litre, state transport corporations face acute financial strain amid escalating operational costs. This judicial intervention highlights the delicate institutional balance between ensuring affordable public transport for vulnerable segments and maintaining the fiscal sustainability of state-run transit undertakings.
The Supreme Court of India recently issued a revised order concerning the detention of a Delhi University student under the National Security Act (NSA). While the initial order appeared to grant a comprehensive stay on an Allahabad High Court judgment that had quashed the student's detention, the corrected judicial directive clarifies the scope of this intervention. The stay is now restricted exclusively to specific paragraphs of the High Court’s ruling that imposed strictures and a ₹5 lakh penalty on the concerned official, Medha Roopam. Crucially, the substantive relief granted by the High Court—the quashing of the detention order itself—remains intact. This development underscores the judiciary’s ongoing struggle to maintain a delicate equilibrium between state security prerogatives and the protection of fundamental rights, while simultaneously addressing the mechanisms of administrative accountability for errant state action.
The recent controversy surrounding the exclusion of prominent media organizations, including CNN and MS NOW, from covering a White House state dinner in defiance of a federal judicial order to restore their press passes highlights a critical friction point between executive authority and judicial oversight. This incident underscores broader global concerns regarding the erosion of press freedoms, the politicization of credentialing processes, and the institutional challenges of enforcing judicial mandates against powerful executive branches.