The concept of accountability in administration has widened with the rise of democratic governance. Discuss.

Introduction
Accountability in administration refers to the obligation imposed on public employees to justify and explain their decisions, actions, and output. In the classic Weberian bureaucracy, subordinates could only answer to their superiors, limiting accountability to hierarchical reporting. But as democratic governance has grown, responsibility has broadened and taken on many forms, involving voters, lawmakers, the courts, and civil society.

Theoretical Underpinnings
The early proponents of a politics-administration distinction were thinkers such as Woodrow Wilson, who saw bureaucracy as purely technical and objective. Later scholars like Paul Appleby challenged this neutrality, emphasizing that government is inherently political and subject to democratic norms. Furthermore, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) reiterated that accountability in governance goes beyond conventions and procedures and encompasses responsiveness, responsibility, and transparency.

Dimensions of Accountability in Governance
In a democracy, accountability transcends the bureaucratic framework. These days, it includes political accountability through legislatures and parliamentary committees, administrative accountability through agencies like the CAG and CVC, and judicial accountability through judicial review and public interest litigation. Another illustration of how citizen-centric accountability has greatly increased in India is the Right to Information Act (2005), which grants citizens the power to ask for information and look into how the government functions.

Indian Context
Accountability in India is demonstrated by initiatives like social audits under MGNREGA, anti-corruption Lokpal statutes, and landmark court decisions like Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997), which expanded the CBI’s independence. CAG findings, which often expose fiscal malfeasance, help reinforce financial accountability. These systems show how accountability currently operates both vertically within bureaucracy and horizontally across a number of democratic institutions.

Criticism and Challenges
Even with advancements, issues persist. Corruption, bureaucratic confusion, and political interference frequently undermine accountability systems. There are times when judicial activity makes people worry that governance might become paralyzed. Furthermore, needless paperwork and procedural restrictions may cause one to lose efficiency in an attempt to preserve accountability.

Conclusion
In democratic governance, the idea of accountability in administration has unquestionably expanded. It has changed from being a limited, hierarchical activity to a multifaceted system that involves both citizens and various institutions. India needs strong oversight mechanisms, increased public involvement, and technology-driven openness to fortify this. When accountability is ingrained in democracy, it guarantees that governance is not only effective but also moral and people-centered.

UPSC General Studies Paper Preparation

Public Administration Optional Exam Preparation