Collective Responsibility of Council of Ministers, Article 75(3) lays down that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. It means that the Government must maintain a majority in the Lok Sabha as a condition of its survival.

Introduction

Collective Ministerial Responsibility in the sole crux of Parliamentary democracy.  The principle of collective responsibility represents ministerial accountability to the legislature. In India, the doctrine of collective responsibility of the Union Executive to the House of the People and of the State Executive to the Legislative Assembly is specifically enshrined in the Constitution. 

Article 75(3) lays down that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha. It means that the Government must maintain a majority in the Lok Sabha as a condition of its survival. 

Object 

The object of Collective responsibility is to make the whole body of persons holding ministerial office collectively, or, if one may so put it, “vicariously responsible for such acts of the others as are preferable to their collective violation so that, even if an individual may not be personally responsible for it, yet, he will be deemed to share the responsibility with those who may have actually committed some wrong.”

The collective responsibility under Article 75 of the Constitution of India has two meanings: (I) All members of a Government are unanimous in support of its policies, (II) The ministers, who had an opportunity to speak for or against the policies in the cabinet are thereby personally and morally responsible for its success and failure.

Cabinet collective responsibility is related to the fact that, if a vote of no confidence is passed in parliament, the government is responsible collectively, and thus the entire government resigns. The consequence will be that a new government will be formed, or parliament will dissolve and a general election will be called. Cabinet collective responsibility is not the same as individual ministerial responsibility, which states that ministers are responsible and therefore culpable for the running of their department.

In S.P. Anand, Indore v. H. D. Deve Gowda(AIR-1996)

It was held that even though a Prime Minister is not a member of either House of Parliament, once he is appointed he has also his Ministers become answerable to the House and the principle of collective responsibility governs the democratic process. On no other condition can a Council of Ministers work as a team and carry on the government of the country. It is the Prime Minister who enforces collective responsibility amongst the Ministers through his ultimate power to dismiss a Minister. The Supreme Court has ruled that the principle of collective responsibility is in full operation so long as the Lok Sabha is not dissolved. “But when it is dissolved the Council of Ministers cannot naturally enjoy the confidence of the House of People.”

The Convention of Collective Responsibility

Geoffrey Marshall has identified three strands within the convention of collective responsibility, which are as follows:

The Confidence Principle: A government can only remain in office for so long as it retains the confidence of the House of Commons, a confidence which can be assumed unless and until proven otherwise by a confidence vote.

The Unanimity Principle: Perhaps the most important practical aspect is that all members of the government speak and vote together in Parliament, same in situations where the Prime Minister and Cabinet themselves make an exception such as a free vote or an ‘agreement to differ’.

The Confidentiality Principle: This recognizes that unanimity, as a universally applicable situation, is a constitutional fiction, but one which must be maintained, and is said to allow frank ministerial discussion within Cabinet and Government.

According to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Collective Responsibility is enforced by the enforcement of two principles. One principle is that, No person shall be nominated to the cabinet except on the advice of the Prime Minister. Secondly, no person shall be retained as a Member of the Cabinet if the Prime Minister says that he should be dismissed. It is only when the Members of the Cabinet, both in the matter of their dismissal are placed under the Prime Minister, that it would be possible to realize our ideal of collective responsibility.

Advantages

A parliamentary system that uses cabinet collective responsibility is more likely to avoid contradictions and disagreements between cabinet members of the executive branch. Cabinet ministers are likely to feel there is a practical and collective benefit from being part of a team. Cabinet collective responsibility also benefits party and personal loyalty to the prime minister. Solidarity within the cabinet can strengthen the prime minister's party and accelerate policy decisions and interests of that party. Cabinet collective responsibility allows decisions to be made quickly by the prime minister and inevitably speeds up the process of passing legislation. Presidential democracies often lack the ability to pass legislation quickly in times of emergency or instances of national security.

Disadvantages

Critics of parliamentary democracies say that the prime minister as head of the parliament has too much power in the passing of legislation. Because cabinet collective responsibility forces the cabinet ministers to publicly agree with the prime minister's decisions, political debate and internal discourse is hindered. Recent reports from the United Kingdom suggest that cabinet government has "progressively weakened" since the Second World War, and virtually disappeared under Prime Minister Tony Blair.When disagreements occur within the cabinet, collective agreements can be nearly impossible, resulting in the stoppage of policy change and new legislation. Cabinet collective responsibility is therefore dependent on the mutual agreement and collective unity of the cabinet and its members.