In order to understand how collective responsibility transit into individual liability we have to keep few things in mind.

Article 75 deals with collective responsibility as well as individual liability.

Collective Responsibility:
Collective responsibility is the convention whereby individual members of the government are held accountable for the actions and decisions of government as a whole. It is a constitutional convention that has existed since the 18th century and is considered a cornerstone of cabinet government.[1]

Article 75 obviously expresses that the chamber of clergymen is by and large capable to the Lok Sabha. This implies all the priests own joint duty to the Lok Sabha for every one of their demonstrations of omission and commission.

At the point when the Lok Sabha passes a no-certainty movement against the chamber of priests, all the pastors need to leave including those clergymen who are from the Rajya Sabha. Each pastor need not leave independently; the abdication of the PM adds up to the renunciation of the whole gathering of the entire council of ministers.

Individual Responsibility:
It states that the ministers hold office during the pleasure of the president, which means that the President can remove a minister even at a time when the council of ministers enjoys the confidence of the Lok Sabha. However, the President removes a minister only on the advice of the Prime Minister.

If there should arise an occurrence of a distinction of sentiment or disappointment with the exhibition of a pastor, the Prime Minister can request that he leave or exhortation the President to excuse him. By practicing this force, the Prime Minister can guarantee the acknowledgment of the standard of aggregate duty.

In this unique circumstance, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar watched - "Aggregate duty can be accomplished uniquely through the instrumentality of the Prime Minister. Subsequently, except if and until we make that office and bless that office with legal position to designate and excuse clergymen, there can be no aggregate obligation."[2]

Jumping up and sinking together is this Council of Ministers. They keep a portion of assistance within the authoritative branch right now. Therefore, in the Council of Ministers, a demonstration of general disapproval towards all pastors is an aim. Consequently, Prime Ministerial renunciation disintegrates the Council of Ministers; free consent is unnecessary. A vote of doubt against a single clergyman may, on the other hand, be a vote against the entire Council of Ministers.

Yet, that is focused on this movement's states. Frequently, the authoritative branch will actually pursue a priest, openly from the chamber of clergymen from which the individual is an individual. In such situations, the minister can only resign. Through their particular shortcomings, clergymen may even be brought to the fore for their illegal demonstrations on the off chance that they are persuaded by provocation.

Because its most prominent power lies in the strength of the Cabinet, the law of collective obligation can be seen as central to the functioning of the National Structure. The principle of open duty means that the Council of Ministers is accountable for the overall administration of government issues. In Parliament, all clergymen work or fall together, and the organisation is run as one.

Collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers give way to a minister�s individual liability only if there is a mistake of single or individual minister in the council of ministers. But the main thing is it is in judge�s hand and he have to decide this wheather the liability is collective or individual.
In the 2G spectrum case A Raja 2g case (Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh 2012[3]) as coated by former supreme court judge Ashok kumar ganguli said that telecom minister A Raja acted unilaterally in the 2G spectrum mess and his cabinet collegues are not to be blamed and it is not correct to apply the principle of collective cabinet in the case related to the distribution of 2G license on a first come first serve bases.

It is right on the part to dismiss the opposition contention of collective responsibility of the government in 2G spectrum case because what A Raja did was outside his course of operation . Hadn�t been the act was done in that course of operation in which he had accountability for then the cabinet would have been liable but in this case this act was unilateral so the liability would give way to individual �s liability and discard the collective responsibility of council of ministers.

End-Notes:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_responsibility#:~:text=Collective%20responsibility%20is%20widely%20applied,or%20overachieved%20within%20their%20area.
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_ministerial_responsibility#:~:text=Individual%20ministerial%20responsibility%20is%20a,of%20their%20ministry%20or%20department.&text=If%20misdeeds%20are%20found%20to,minister%20is%20expected%20to%20resign
3. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116362443/

Written By: Adarsh