Can ministers escape prosecution pleading ignorance?

Hyderabad: The recent developments in the state and the centre where certain persons are being prosecuted for the decisions of the Government raise certain doubts regarding the concept of collective responsibility and the role of the council of ministers in decision making process and the omissions and commissions therein.

Having regard to the fact that Kadapa MP YS Jaganmohan Reddy is being directed to be prosecuted, it is pertinent to observe that he was not holding any post as Cabinet Minister in the state government or any other public post when the decisions of allotment of lands, SEZ, and projects were taken during late YSR's tenure as chief minister.

The erstwhile members of the cabinet who were part and parcel of the YSR cabinet simply plead ignorance and declare that they are not responsible for any of the acts and the decisions. Strangely, these members of the then cabinet who were very much part and parcel of the decision making are being spared. Does the constitution permit such strange stand being taken by the decision makers needs to be looked into.

The constitution of India provides for council of ministers with the chief minister as the head, to aid and advise the Governor in exercise of his functions. As per Article 163 of the constitution, the chief minister is the head of the council of ministers. The chief minister and the council of ministers are all collectively responsible for all the decisions. The constitution stipulates that the council of ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the States and individually responsible to the Governor.

The states under the Indian Constitution are organized on the pattern of the Centre. Our's being a Parliamentary form of government the council of ministers and the cabinet are none the less collectively responsible to the Legislature. Although constitution vests the executive power of the state in the Governor, in practice these powers are exercised by the state Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head.

The Council of Ministers in the state is an exact replica of the Council of Ministers at the Centre. They resemble central cabinet in formation, function and role in the administration. The Governor acts under the aid and advice of the council of ministers.

The Council of Ministers are collectively and individually responsible to the Legislative Assembly. They remain in power till they enjoy the confidence of the majority in the Assembly. They are collectively and individually responsible to the Assembly and to the people for their decisions and acts. No individual minister can differ from the decisions taken by the Chief Minister or the Council of Ministers.

If any minister does not agree with any principle decided by the Council he has to resign first to oppose the principle. Therefore all the differences must be sorted out before a policy is spelt out and once it is made public all ministers have no other option except to agree to that. Besides that, if a single minister is at fault and due to the fault of such single minister, the entire Council of Ministers has to own the joint responsibility and may have to resign at times.

When this is the Constitutional position, can the ministers who were part of the late YS Rajasekhar Reddy's cabinet can plead ignorance for the decisions taken by the erstwhile regime, when they were very much part and parcel of the decision making process. In Indian criminal jurisprudence, legal heirs can't be prosecuted for the offences committed by their fathers.

However, strangely in our state, the entrepreneur son of a deceased chief minister is being haunted for the alleged sins committed by his father's government said to have been committed years ago (although allegations which are yet to be proved) and that too only in view of the death of YSR.

The ministers who were beneficiaries at that time and still present in the government today simply cannot decline stating that they were not aware of any such decisions taken by the then government for alleged nepotism.

Ignorance is no excuse in criminal jurisprudence. If they are ignorant of the decision making process what compelled them not to oppose every such faulty decision instead of remaining mute spectators and enjoying the power and privileges.

Having opted to be part of such decisions they too are equally liable for prosecution for the offences that are alleged to have been committed at that time. The law is equal to one and all. No exception to cabinet ministers pleading ignorance or helplessness.