Rajeev Mankotia vs. Secretary to the President of India (1997) Summary for UPSC Polity Notes

1. What is the Rajeev Mankotia vs. Secretary to the President of India Case all about?

The Rajeev Mankotia vs. Secretary to the President of India case in 1997 is a landmark judgement that addressed issues related to public interest litigation (PIL) and the judicial review of administrative actions. The case examined the scope and limitations of the judiciary’s power to review actions taken by the executive branch of the government, specifically in the context of appointments and postings within the President’s Secretariat.

2. Facts of the Rajeev Mankotia vs. Secretary to the President of India Case Relevant for UPSC

1. Parties Involved:

• Rajeev Mankotia (petitioner)
• Secretary to the President of India and others (respondents)

1. Legal Questions:

• Whether the appointments and postings within the President’s Secretariat were conducted in accordance with the principles of transparency, merit, and fairness.
• Whether the judiciary has the power to review administrative actions related to appointments and postings within the President’s Secretariat.

1. Noteworthy Events:

• Rajeev Mankotia filed a public interest litigation (PIL) alleging irregularities and lack of transparency in the appointments and postings within the President’s Secretariat.
• The petition sought judicial intervention to ensure that the appointments were made based on merit and fairness, and to uphold the principles of transparency and accountability in public administration.

3. What are the Major Judgements/Changes Brought by Rajeev Mankotia vs. Secretary to the President of India Case?

The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgement that emphasized the principles of transparency, merit, and fairness in public administration:

1. The Court held that appointments and postings within the President’s Secretariat must be conducted with transparency and based on merit and fairness. It emphasized the need for adherence to these principles to ensure good governance and public trust.
2. It ruled that the judiciary has the power to review administrative actions related to appointments and postings to ensure compliance with constitutional principles and prevent arbitrary decisions.
3. The judgement highlighted the importance of public interest litigation (PIL) as a tool for ensuring accountability and transparency in public administration. It acknowledged the role of PIL in upholding the rule of law and protecting public interest.

4. What was the Impact of Rajeev Mankotia vs. Secretary to the President of India Case on Indian Constitution?

1. Promotion of Transparency and Fairness: The judgement promoted transparency and fairness in public administration, ensuring that appointments and postings within the President’s Secretariat are conducted based on merit and not influenced by arbitrary decisions.
2. Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: It reinforced the judiciary’s power to review administrative actions to ensure they comply with constitutional principles, thus providing a check on executive actions.
3. Encouragement of Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The ruling encouraged the use of PIL to address issues of public concern, emphasizing its importance in ensuring accountability and transparency in governance.

5. Was this Rajeev Mankotia vs. Secretary to the President of India Case Challenged/Reversed in Future?

The principles established in the Rajeev Mankotia case have not been reversed and continue to guide the interpretation of judicial review of administrative actions and the importance of transparency and fairness in public administration. The judgement remains a significant reference for ensuring accountability in executive actions and promoting good governance.

6. Doctrines/Theories/New Concepts

1. Doctrine of Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: The case reinforced the judiciary’s power to review administrative actions to ensure they comply with constitutional principles and prevent arbitrary decisions.
2. Promotion of Transparency and Merit in Public Administration: The judgement emphasized the need for transparency, merit, and fairness in appointments and postings within public administration to ensure good governance.
3. Encouragement of Public Interest Litigation (PIL): The ruling highlighted the importance of PIL as a tool for ensuring accountability and transparency in governance, protecting public interest, and upholding the rule of law.