"Student-led protest movement secures Education Minister's resignation, testing accountability norms"
Collective Ministerial Responsibility
Article 75(3) principle: the entire Council of Ministers is answerable to the Lok Sabha as a unit.
Individual Ministerial Responsibility
Westminster convention requiring a minister to resign when their conduct becomes politically untenable, not codified in the Constitution.
India's parliamentary democracy is built on the Westminster model, in which the executive is continuously accountable to the legislature and, through it, to the people. Article 75(3) of the Constitution is the cornerstone of this accountability architecture: it mandates that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. This collective responsibility is complemented by the convention of individual ministerial responsibility, under which a minister who loses the confidence of the Prime Minister or whose conduct becomes politically untenable is expected to resign. These are not merely procedural niceties — they are the practical mechanisms through which democratic accountability is operationalised in a system where the executive derives its legitimacy from the legislature.
Historically, ministerial resignations under public pressure have been rare in India compared to mature Westminster democracies such as the United Kingdom, where the convention is more robustly enforced. The relative infrequency reflects the dominance of coalition arithmetic and party discipline over individual accountability. Yet, when extra-parliamentary pressure — street protests, student mobilisation, sustained media attention — combines with parliamentary disruption by the Opposition, the political cost of retaining a minister can exceed the cost of accepting a resignation. This episode illustrates precisely that dynamic.
The constitutional framework governing ministerial accountability operates on two levels. At the collective level, Article 75(3) makes the entire Cabinet answerable to the Lok Sabha; a vote of no-confidence can bring down the government. At the individual level, convention — not a specific constitutional provision — governs when a minister must resign. This reliance on convention rather than codified law means that individual accountability is politically negotiated rather than legally enforced, making it sensitive to the balance of power between the executive, the legislature, and civil society.
Parliamentary disruption is a recognised, if contested, tool of accountability. When the Opposition refuses to allow the House to function until a demand is met — in this case, the Education Minister's resignation — it is exercising a form of negative legislative power: not passing laws, but preventing the government from conducting business. The Rules of Procedure of Lok Sabha permit the Speaker to adjourn the House when disorder prevails, but sustained disruption imposes reputational and legislative costs on the government. …
With reference to the Parliament of India, consider the following statements:
1.Prorogation of a House by the President of India does not require the advice of the Council of Ministers.
2.Prorogation of a House is generally done after the House is adjourned sine die but there is no bar to the President of India proroguing the House which is in session.
3.Dissolution of the Lok Sabha is done by the President of India who, save in exceptional circumstances, does so on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
With reference to ministerial accountability in India, consider the following statements:
1.Article 75(3) of the Constitution establishes that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha.
2.Individual ministerial responsibility is explicitly codified in a specific provision of the Constitution.
3.A minister may be compelled to resign by the Prime Minister even without a formal vote of no-confidence in Parliament.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Which of the following fundamental rights provides the primary constitutional basis for organised public protest marches in India?
Assertion (A): A sustained extra-parliamentary protest movement can compel a minister's resignation even when the ruling coalition holds a comfortable majority in the Lok Sabha.
Reason (R): Article 75(3) of the Constitution makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha, but individual ministerial accountability is enforced through political convention rather than a formal constitutional mechanism.
Choose the correct option:
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account