UNIT – VI

Issues and Debates in Indian Administration

a. Ethics in Administration: Integrity vs. Corruption
b. Accountability: RTI, Lokpal, Citizens’ Charter
c. Relationship between Political Executive and Permanent Executive
d. Generalists and Specialists
e. Gender sensitivity and Gender participation

Ethics in Administration: Integrity vs. Corruption

Efficiency in administration is possible when the officials follow moral norms and ethical code
of conduct. The behavioural and attitudinal traits are important such as political neutrality,
impartiality, commitment, sincerity, honesty and dedication. Mutual collaboration, self-control
and support, creativity, self-confidence, academic excellence, pursuit of excellence of service
and loyalty towards organisational goals have a chain effect. Civil servants are required to be
completely impartial to avoid political influence, corruption, nepotism and favouritism,
sectarianism, prejudice, biases, intolerance, and indiscipline. They should follow laws,
regulations and rules, and the code of conduct such as All India Services (Conduct) Rules,
1954, Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1955 and Railway Services (Conduct) Rules,
1956.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, defines the scope of corruption in regard to public
servants and criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duty includes habitual acceptance or
obtaining or agreeing to accept for himself/herself or attempts to obtain from any person for
himself/herself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) as a
motive or reward as mentioned in Section 161 of the Indian Panel Code, or accepts or obtains
or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain any valuable thing without consideration or dishonestly
or fraudulently misappropriates, or, otherwise, abuses his/her position as a public servant. The
Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption, 1962 under K. Santhanam as chairman
reviewed the existing instruments for combating corruption and advised to have Central and
State Vigilance Commissions with autonomous powers to combat corruption at central and
state levels respectively to make anti-corruption measures more effective. The Central
Vigilance Commission has jurisdiction and powers in respect of matters to which the executive
powers of the Central Government extend. Its jurisdiction thus, extends to all employees of the
Central Government and the employees in public undertakings, corporate bodies and other
organisations dealing with any matter falling within the executive powers of the Central
Government. Also, the Delhi Metropolitan Council and the New Delhi Municipal Committee
fall within the purview of the commission. It undertakes an inquiry into transaction in which a

1
public servant is suspected or alleged to have acted for an improper purpose or in a corrupt
manner. It causes an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint that a public servant
had exercised or refrained from exercising his/ her powers for improper or corrupted purposes,
and any complaints of corruption, misconduct, lack of integrity of other kinds of malpractices
or misdemeanour on the part of a public servant. It calls for reports from agencies so as to
enable it to exercise general check and supervision over the vigilance and anti-corruption work
in them. It can take over under its direct control complaints for further action which may be
either to ask the Central Bureau of Investigation to register a regular case and investigate it, or
to entrust it for inquiry. It may initiate review of procedures and practices of administration
insofar as they relate to maintenance of integrity in administration.
The Commission submits an annual report to the Ministry of Home Affairs about its activities
drawing particular attention to any recommendation made by it which had not been accepted
or acted upon. The Ministry of Home Affairs places this report before each House of
Parliament. The Commission receives complaints from individual persons. It also gathers
information about corruption and malpractices or misconduct from various sources, such as,
press reports, information given by the members of parliament in their speech, in the reports
of parliamentary committees, Audit Reports and information coming to its knowledge through
Central Bureau of Investigation. The Commission often receives complaints pertaining to
matters falling within the scope of the State Governments. Where considered suitable, such
complaints are brought to the notice of state vigilance commissioners concerned for necessary
action. Similarly, complaints received by the State Vigilance Commission in regard to matters
falling within the jurisdiction of the Central Government are forwarded by them to the Central
Vigilance Commission for appropriate action. The Santhanam Committee on pretention of
corruption made detailed recommendations in 1964 for strengthening of the Vigilance
Organisation in each Ministry/ Department to make it more effective. In addition, RTI 2005,
Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013, and Citizen’s Charter are important grievance redressal
mechanism to ensure transparency and accountability of the civil servants.

2
Accountability: RTI, Lokpal and Citizens’ Charter
Right To Information (RTI)
One of the way to promote accountability and check corruption is by empowering citizens
through the Right to Information. Public Hearings/Jan Sunwais and Gram Sabhas have an
educative function as they reinforce the democratic obligation of public officials to remain
accountable to its citizens. Social movements have played an important role in ensuring
democratic accountability. The MKSS (Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan) is one such active
movement which campaigned to secure the right of ordinary people to gain access to
information. MKSS has remained in the forefront of protests atrocities against the lower castes,
religious minorities, and women. An essential part of the struggle of this movement was the
right to access the official documents to demand accountability from the local authorities.
The denial of minimum wages in particular in the employment guaranteed programmes as part
of the relief measures exposed corruption by the local authorities. The inflated estimates for
public works projects, use of poor-quality materials, and over billing by suppliers, compelled
the activists of MKSS to counter check the employment registers and bills submitted for
purchase of materials. Minimum wages was denied to the women workers on the ground that
they did not work as per the required measurement of work of PWD. The supply of food grains
through the PDS to the people below the poverty line (BPL) was diverted to the open market
and sold at a higher price. There were leakages in the PDS supply of ration quotas to the poor
and lack of availability of medicines at the PHCs.
The villagers protested against the coercive abuse by the police and illegal occupation of land
by powerful class. Jan Sunwais invited people to give testimonies which exposed the
discrepancies between the official records and other supporting documents and their own
experiences as labours of PWD projects and beneficiaries of poverty alleviation programmes.
The MKSS developed a parallel strategy of large-scale public protests which demanded
legislative and regulatory reforms to provide a legal basis for the local efforts to obtain official
documents.
The struggle of MKSS illustrated that RTI was also a part of their fundamental right to life and
liberty as they needed to obtain minimum wages for basic living. As the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, remained on paper, it was important to require access to the public records such as muster
rolls to verify work measurement and wage payments. Huge payments were made to the local
contractors. The nexus between the local politicians, local officials and local contractors

3
thrived under the veil of secrecy. The administrators quoted the Officials Secrets Act of 1923
and told the workers who protested that they could not see the official records.
The campaign for the right to be informed emerged in 1980s and 1990s to generate greater
awareness of malpractices by having access to the details not only of the balance sheets but
also other registers that documented details on implementation of NREGA, PDS, ‘ePDS, PHC,
and Poverty Alleviation Programmes. An access to the official document could indicate how
much of each subsidized commodity had been delivered to the poor and how much has been
sold in the open market for profit.
Since corruption remains the greatest obstacle to efficient delivery of development resources
to the poor, MKSS played a major role in changing the tenor of public debate. Widespread
media coverage, academic discussion, rhetoric’s of political parties and activists were
mobilized on both nature of corruption and the potential role of access to information in
combating it. In 1995, the movement demanded the right to photocopy documents relating to
local development works by state and central government. However, several resistances by the
officials against the local activists resulted in a state-wide strike by officers in 1996 arguing
that they were subject only to the government audit. It was because of the large-scale protests
by the people against corruption that the Press Institute of India and senior faculty members of
the National Academy of Administration established a national campaign for people’s right to
seek reforms of legal provision relating to accessibility of government documents which
continued to be governed by the Official Secrets Act, 1923.
In 1997 two drafts on freedom of information bills were produced by a committee appointed
by the United Front Government and Press Council of India. However, the collapse of the
United Front Government postponed the introduction of the legislation. MKSS continued its
protest against the arbitrary decisions taken by the state government and secrecy with which
the liberal policies were introduced. It became important to generate information flow from the
bottom-up as people got mobilized and organized to fight against corruption, oppression, and
injustice. Thus, the movement for social auditing and right to information forced the
government of Rajasthan to pass an order whereby people were given the right to inspect
records. Later, photocopies were allowed and MKSS found that severe irregularities and
malpractices were evident.
The MKSS obtained records related to PWD by the panchayats and later these records were
verified at the work sites. Jan Sunwais were organised by the activists and NGOs to probe into
corruption related to ration cards, registration registers, muster rolls, wage payments, and the
evidential documents were shared with the illiterate rural workers. Several lawyers, writers,

4
journalists, academics and government officials were invited to debate and suggest. The
malpractices of over-billing in purchase of materials, fake muster rolls, under payment of
wages, ghost works etc. were exposed and actions were initiated against officials without
whose complicity the embezzlement could not have been occurred or remained unnoticed.
Several Jan Sunwais exposed the guilty officials and demanded that people had the right to
monitor public expenditure and development works. Mohalla Samitis and local committees
had the right to monitor the execution of civil works. People had the right to demand useful
works for the community. They had the right to know how their tax money is used for providing
social welfare policies/safety nets/public services. They demanded that the government’s
decision making on livelihood issues such as minimum wage regulation, drought relief works,
availability of subsidized food, PDS etc should be transparent.
Thus, public action such as social auditing, public hearing became important as they exposed
the multi-faceted nature of corruption in the implementation of several schemes and
programmes. The discrepancies between the official records and real experiences of people
demanded accountability from the public servants. Vigilance Committees initiated by citizens
such as Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) and Mohalla Samitis play an important role in
generating awareness and participation of the local people/communities in implementing
policies.
Therefore, the right to information became a necessary condition to transform a representative
democracy into participatory democracy by strengthening participation of citizens in
administration and accountability, responsibility and transparency in the functioning of the
public officials/ bureaucrats/ administrators. The RTI Act was passed in 2005 as a historical
step taken by the government to implement its Common Minimum Programme which was
people centric. It makes the administration efficient by streamlining records and arresting the
corrupt practices thereby building trust between the civil society and state.
The RTI Act, 2005, states that the public authorities are required to make disclosures on (a)
their organisation, functions and structure (b) powers and duties of its officers and employees
and (c) financial information. If such information is not provided by the public authorities on
their own, the citizens have the right to demand the same from them under the RTI Act.
The RTI is seen as a key to the strengthening participatory democracy and ushering in people’s
centred governance. An access to information can empower the citizens to demand their needs
and rights and participate in the policy process efficiently. Since transparency enables the
government to function more objectively, predictably, and enables participation in governance,
it became an essential characteristic feature of good governance and democratic administration.

5
Therefore, dissemination and sharing of information held by public authorities established,
owned, or substantially financed by the central government, the state government, the union
territories, and local bodies such as the PRIs became a basic necessity to good governance.
The Act places a right on the citizens and duty on the government to provide information
proactively and on request to enable the citizens to participate. It empowers the citizens. The
Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in its first report in 2006 recommended
that the Official Secrets Act 1923 be replaced and the government servants be required to take
oath of transparency along with the oath of office. It stated that ‘RTI is the master key to good
governance’. It further stated that unlocking human capital and capacity building was important
for conflict resolution, countering terrorism and protecting righteousness.
The Information Commission (IC) is established at the Centre and in all the states. It comprises
of the Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and 10 Information Commissioners. The Central
CIC is appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the
Prime Minister, leader of Opposition, and Union Minister who is nominated by the Prime
Minister.
Information concerning corruption and human rights must be given but only with the approval
of the central and state IC. The CIC can make any order required to bring about compliance
with the law including release of documents. The Public Information Officer (PIO) receives
the requests for information and is responsible for providing information to empower people
and promote transparency.
The RTI can be filed by an application fee of Rs 10/-. No such fee is charged from the people
below the poverty line. The request should be submitted to the PIO in writing. The information
provided must be in writing including emails. The Act lays down 30 days as the time limit for
normal application and 40 days where a third party submission is called for. Wherever
information sought concerns the life and liberty of a person, it should be provided within a
maximum period of 48 hours.
Every PIO can be penalized Rs 250 per day up to a maximum of Rs 25,000/- for non-
compliance with the provisions of the act, not accepting application, delaying information
without reasonable causes, providing incomplete, incorrect and misleading information. In case
of no response received, this will be deemed as refusal, therefore applications must be rejected
in writing with appropriate reasons. While there was lack of clarity in the Act as to the
information to be provided on the ‘file notings’ and it was assumed that the CIC would decide
on a case by case basis whether to release ‘file notings’, the 2006 order passed by CIC stated
that ‘file notings’ were covered by the Act. The Exemption Clause in Section 8 (1), (g) and (h)

6
of RTI exempts information disclosure could endanger the life and physical safety of any
person, or identify the sources of information/assistance, given in confidence for law
enforcement and security purposes - (g) and exempts information which can impede an
ongoing enquiry - (h). Many organisations such as Armed Forces, Delhi Police, Banks and
Educational Institutions have sought to be excluded under the Act.
There are 10 categories of information that are exempted from disclosures because of their
sensitivity nature, such as the information related to national security, information given by
foreign government in confidence, cabinet papers, trade and commercial papers, central
intelligence agencies and security agencies like Intelligence Bureau, Research and Analysis
Wing (RAW), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau,
Special Frontier Forces like BSF, CRPF, ITBP, and CISF.
RTI is a cross cutting legislation which exposes mismanagement of government spending and
can ensure accountability of the public officials. Thus, the right to information is holistically
integrated into the planning, implementation and management of the government policies to
ensure principles of transparency and accountability. Common citizens have a right to know
how they are governed and to participate actively in the process of auditing their
representatives. Feedback through information helps the civil servants to ascertain the
satisfaction of the people.
Though RTI has ushered in a new era of open transparent and accountable governance, the lack
of political will and reluctant attitude of the bureaucrats to recognize the people’s right to
information is a major obstacle in the implementation of the Act. The initial difficulties in
implementing the Act were lack of basic infra-structural and financial support. There was a
need for greater investment in ICT and E-governance at the central and state levels which could
go a long way in streamlining information, in order to make it easier to access and disseminate
information. Alongside, a need for more training and generating awareness about the use of the
Act became important.
The post information investigations are still weak areas and need to be addressed. The ARC
recommended the IC to monitor and implement the RTI Act. Since information increases
awareness and capacity building, it empowers citizens and therefore needs constant monitoring
of the feedback from citizens and the hurdles need to be removed. The RTI legislation is
certainly a more progressive, participatory and meaningful Act and the post legislation
challenges in operationalizing this law need to be addressed.
The Parliament has passed the Right to Information Amendment Bill on 25 July 2019. The
recent changes proposed in the RTI have raised concerns across the nation. The changes

7
proposed to the RTI Act include a new set of rules for processing RTI applications to reduce
the number of applications, and an increase in the fees to file RTI and that the complainant
should bear the postal charges. While the information of an applicant who has come under the
complainant clause of RTI (clause 18) was not to be disclosed by an order of the CIC, unlike
under the second appeal (clause19) of the Act, the amended Act empowers the CIC to use its
discretion to allow a prayer for any amendment of a complaint during the course of its hearing,
including conversion of a ‘complainant’ into ‘second appeal’, if available remedies have been
exhausted on a prayer made by the complainant. This would mean that it can order the
disclosure of the applicant even when the latter comes under clause 18. The RTI activists fear
that the proposed amendment will coerce the rights of the information seekers by the people
with vested interests. The CIC will also use the discretion for allowing withdrawal of appeal
or a complaint, if the applicant requires, but such requirements cannot be entertained once the
matter has been decided by it.
While the changes proposed have been placed in the website of the Department of Personnel
and Training (DoPT), it has raised doubts whether the people will learn about it at all in the
first place to give suggestions. Secondly the time limit given was too less.
The Amendment introduces changes in the terms and conditions of appointment of the CIC at
the Centre and the States. As per the RTI Act 2005, the CIC and the Information
Commissioners were to be appointed by the President (read central government) for a fixed
tenure of five years and salaries of the CIC was equivalent to the rank of the Chief Election
Commissioner, and that of the State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) were equivalent
to the salaries of the State Election Commissioners and that of the State Information
Commissioner (SIC) equivalent to the salary of Chief Secretary to the State Government, in
order to give the central information commission autonomy and protection from government
interference. The 2019 RTI amendment bill has done away with the fixed tenure of five years
for the CIC and the Information Commissioners and their salaries too have been altered. They
will now be separately notified by the Government of the day. The bill removes the provision
that when appointed, if CIC and ICs are receiving the pension or any other retirement benefits
from the previous government service, their salaries will be reduced by an amount equal to that
pension.
While the CIC has been given equal status as that of the Judge of the Supreme Court, the
judgments of the CIC can now be challenged in the High Courts.
The amendment diminishes the status of the CIC, SCIC and IC from that of the Supreme Court
Judge which would lower their authority to issue the directives to the senior government

8
officers. It grants greater powers to the centre as everything will be decided by the government.
It takes away the transparency as it empowers the central government to unilaterally decide
which will fundamentally weaken the whole basic idea and structure of the RTI.
Thus, the independence and neutrality of ICs is crippled making them more loyal to the
government. They will behave like the employees of the government and if they so wish, they
can decide to withhold information to support the government. Therefore, the main aim of the
RTI Act, 2005 which was to promote transparency, accountability in the working of every
public authority and the citizens' right to secure the access to information is being crippled by
this amendment Act, 2019.

The government defends the Amendment to the RTI 2005, as the Election Commission of India
is a constitutional body established under Article 324 of the Constitution of India while the
Central and State Information Commissioners are the statutory bodies established under the
provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, their status needs to be rationalized accordingly.
While the ruling party argues that these amendments are brought to strengthen the overall RTI
structure, the opposition parties call it ‘dangerous’ and termed the passing of the RTI
amendment bill as a ‘dark day for democracy’. It suggests that the government can threaten or
lure the CIC and Information Commissioners (IC) with arbitrary removal or extension and
curtailment or increase in salary depending upon their suitability for the ruling dispensation.

This is an attempt to take away the free flow of unbiased information and place before the
general public, the filtered information by the public authorities in order to please the
government. In addition, the bill was introduced and passed without the public consultation
which hampers the citizens' right to information as a public consultation is necessary for laws
to become successful and drafting of the legislation cannot be left to the elected representatives
alone. The founders of the RTI Act 2005, Aruna Roy and Nikhil Day, contest the manner in
which the amendments were being pushed through without any citizen consultation, bypassing
examination by the Standing Committee and without even proper parliamentary scrutiny. They
argue that the mandatory pre-legislative consultative policy of the government had been
ignored as the proposed amendments to the RTI rules were not put on the website for public
deliberation.

The Government on 25 February 2021 has notified new rules on Information Technology
(Guidelines for Intermediaries and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, to regulate
intermediaries and digital media. The Rules create a subset of intermediary, called 'Significant

9
Social Media Intermediary' (SSMI), defined as a social media intermediary with 50 lakh (5
million) registered users and primarily or solely enables online interaction between two or more
users and allows them to create, upload, share, disseminate, modify or access information using
its services. The rules include regulation of online content published by over-the-top (OTT)
platforms and blocking of access to content under the IT Act, 2000. They impose additional
obligations on certain social media intermediaries and aim to regulate online content by
prescribing a code of ethics, and a three-tiered grievance redressal mechanism for publishers.
It requires an intermediary to constitute a grievance redressal mechanism and to acknowledge
receipt of user complaints within 24 hours and resolve disputes within 15 days (as compared
to the earlier requirement of 30 days).

The grievance officer is also required to receive and acknowledge any order, notice or direction
issued by the appropriate government, competent authority or a court. While a requirement to
provide any information or assistance to authorised government agencies for verification of
identity, prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of unlawful offences or for cyber
security incidents existed under the new rules this information has to be provided within 72
hours from the receipt of the order.

Since the rules impose additional obligations on OTT platforms, social media intermediaries
and digital media entities as they aim to regulate online content by prescribing a code of ethics
and a three-tiered grievance redressal mechanism for publishers, many policy analysts argue
that it is a mechanism to restrict free speech and expression, and substantially increase
surveillance and violate right to privacy. However, the government argues that the rules are an
essential need as the code of conduct for digital media will not only ensure transparency but
also ensure non-transmission and non-dissemination of prohibited content. The Information
Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules,
2023 notified by the MeitY on 6 April 2023 grants the union government the authority to
remove any online content if it results in violation of ‘in respect of any business’. This grants
authority to a fact-checking unit of the central government to label any content on internet as
fake, false or misleading which the government can get removed. There is no clarity as to what
is false or misleading news/information nor is the phrase ‘any business’ defined. Therefore, it
gives the government unchecked power to decide what people can see, hear, and read on the
internet. It revokes the legal protection granted to social media platforms and intermediaries

10
under Section 79 of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 in case they failed to comply
with the order of the government and thus curtails the freedom of speech and expression.

The complexities and diversities of conflicts between individual rights and collective interest
or public good has always remained a matter of concern and debate in a democracy. Public
good or common wellbeing cannot be what the government decides to/can deliver and cannot
be divorced from the fundamental rights and needs of the people. It is significant to address
these conflicts by breaking silos and building a transparent and participatory policy making
process which creates space for debates, deliberations, dialogue and dissent.

Lokpal
Lokpal is the Indian version of Ombudsman 1 which dates back to 1963 when L. M. Singhvi
participating in the discussion on demand for grants of the Ministry of Law and Justice stressed
the need for setting up of some Parliamentary Commission for redressal of public grievances.
The ARC in 1966 listed the lack of redressal of citizen’s grievances as one of the major reasons
for inefficiency in administration. The Lokpal Bill was drafted in 1966 and the First ARC had
recommended a two-tier mechanism designated as Lokpal at the centre and Lokayukta in each
of the states for redressal of citizen’s grievances. The Lokpal Bill was introduced a number of
times (1968, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005, and 2008). The bill was revived
several times in subsequent years, including in 2011. After the bill was introduced, each time
it was referred to a committee for improvements, to a joint committee of parliament, or to a
departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry and before the government could take
a final stand on the issue, the house was dissolved again.
Since several conspicuous flaws were found in the draft of the Lokpal Bill, 2008, a campaign
‘India Against Corruption’ (IAC) led by Anna Hazare, social activist, in 2011 led to the passage
of the bill on 27 December 2011, with some modifications. However, Hazare and his team, as
well as other political parties, claimed that the Lokpal Bill passed was weak, and would not
serve its intended purpose. They proposed the Jan Lokpal Bill which is also referred to as
the Citizen's Ombudsman Bill, is an anti-corruption bill drafted and drawn up by civil society
activists in India seeking the appointment of a Jan Lokpal, an independent body to investigate
corruption cases.

1
Ombudsman is a Swedish term meaning one who represents someone else as an official who
is appointed to investigate complaints of citizens of unfair treatment meted out to them by the
government departments.

11
This bill also proposes improvements to the Lokpal and Lokayukta. Unlike the government
Lokpal the Jan Lokpal can initiate suo-moto action /receive complaints of corruption from the
general public. Jan Lokpal will have the power to initiate prosecution of anyone found guilty
unlike the government Lokpal which is only an advisory body with a limited role to forwarding
reports to a competent authority. Jan Lokpal will have police powers as well as ability to
register FIRs unlike the government Lokpal. The Jan Lokpal aims to effectively deter
corruption, compensate citizen grievances, and protect the whistle-blowers.
The historic Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was passed by Indian Parliament paving the
way for establishment of a Lokpal (Ombudsman) to fight corruption in public offices and
ensure accountability on the part of public officials, including the Prime Minister, but with
some safeguards. It was finally enacted in 2013, a law that came after 10 failed attempts in the
Parliament over the last five decades.
Lokpal was supposed to be the watchdog for punishing the corrupt law- makers and
bureaucrats, safeguarding the integrity of Administrators, Ministers and Members of
Parliament, and Group A, B, C and D Officials of the Central Government. Lokpal's
jurisdiction will cover all categories of public servants.
The screening committee for appointment consists of the Vice President of India, Prime
Minister as its chairman, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Minister of Home Affairs, Leader of the
Opposition in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, CJI /Judges of SC nominated by CJI, one eminent
jurist nominated by the President. The Prime Minister appoints the chairperson of the Lokpal
and its members.
Lokpal is a statutory body without any constitutional backing and shall enquire into cases of
complaints against public functionaries. It is a multimember body consisting of 9 members
(one Chairperson and 8 members). The chairperson is either the former Chief Justice of India
or former Judge of Supreme Court or an eminent person with integrity and outstanding ability.
Fifty per cent of its members shall be judicial members. Fifty per cent should be persons who
belong to SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities, and Women. The minimum age for appointment as
members is 45 years of age. They should not hold any office of profit or belong to any political
party. The salary of the Chairperson is same as that of the CJI and salary of its members is
same as that of the Judges of Supreme Court. Their salary is charged on the Consolidated Fund
of India.
The retirement age is 70 years. They have a fixed tenure of office for 5 years or till they attain
age of 70, whichever comes earlier. The Lokpal can be removed by an order made by the

12
President on grounds of proved misbehavior or incapacity. The petition has to be signed by
100 MPs.
The Lokpal prepares its budget and forwards it to the central government and its accounts are
audited by Comptroller and Auditor General. The Annual Report is prepared and presented to
the President who will get it laid in each house of the parliament.
The Lokpal should be enabled to function effectively in a quasi-judicial manner and should
have powers of a civil court and any proceeding to be judicial within section 193 of the Indian
Penal Code such as summoning and enforcing the attendance of the concerned official,
requiring the discovery and production of any document and receiving evidence, if the public
functionary has committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
The Prime Minister and other members of parliament have been brought within the preview of
the bill though Judges of Supreme Court and the Chief Election Commissioner are kept outside
the bill.
The complaint shall set forth particulars of the offence and if the Lokpal proposes to conduct
any inquiry a copy of the complaint shall be forwarded to the competent authority. It should
forward a copy of the complaint to the public functionary concerned to provide him/her an
opportunity to represent their case. The Lokpal shall hold every such enquiry as expeditiously
as possible and complete the inquiry within a period of six months from the date of receipt of
the complaint. The preliminary inquiry has to be done within ninety days after receiving
complaints which can be increased by another ninety days by stating reasons recorded in
writing. The preliminary inquiry has to be done within a maximum period of six months.
The alleged officer will be given opportunity to be heard officially by the Lokpal bench
comprising of 3 members - Secretary to the Lokpal, Director of its Inquiry Wing, and Director
of its Prosecution Wing. Once the Lokpal receives a complaint it would order a preliminary
inquiry by either its own inquiry wing or special police established by Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI). The Lokpal is accountable to the Parliament.
The Lokpal cannot have the power to initiate the proceedings against an officer on its own, and
a complaint has to be lodged with it before it orders an inquiry. The bill discourages false
complaints. The Lokpal will have no jurisdiction as far as Prime Minister is concerned with
issues related to international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic
energy and space.
Lokpal has the power to recommend central government transfers and suspension of public
servants with allegations of corruption. If the officer is found guilty the Lokpal will grant
sanction to its Prosecution Wing and the CBI to file charge sheet against him. It can direct

13
initiation of departmental proceedings. Under the direction of Lokpal the special courts are
required to finish each trial within a period of one year which can be extended by three months
by recording in writing.
It can recommend corruption cases to agencies like the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
which will have to submit its report to the Lokpal after an enquiry. The documents relevant for
evidence can be seized and retained under custody of the Lokpal. He/she can confiscate assets,
proceeds, receipts and benefits obtained from corrupt means. It may also inquire into any
act/conduct of any person other than a public functionary in so far as it considers it necessary
to do so.
The grievance redressal is done with the help of the Department of Administrative Reforms
and Public Grievance (DARPG). The competent authority shall communicate within ninety
days from the date of receipt of the report. It shall communicate in writing its findings to the
complainant, the public functionary and the competent authority which shall be placed before
the house in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha within seven days. The Lokpal shall not
inquire into any matters arising if they have any bias/dispute arising on its behalf. The
complaints cannot be inquired into if a period of seven years or more has lapsed after the
commitment of the offence.
If the officer is found innocent the Lokpal would direct closure of the report and proceed
against the complainant for making false complaints. Majority of the grievances received are
related to inordinate delay in the decisions extending from several months to several years,
refusal /inability to make replies, or disclose basic information to the petitioner to enable them
to examine whether these cases have been correctly decided.
It is important to undertake citizen centric initiatives in the field of administrative reforms and
public grievance in government to enable government machinery to deliver quality public
services to citizens in a hostile free manner and to eliminate causes of grievances. As a nodal
agency it facilitates administrative improvements and re-energizes processes across the
government. The department proposes to introduce and lead changes in order to establish
public service quality, efficiency, integrity, and effectiveness and modernize public services.
Thus, the grievance redressal mechanism is an integral part of the machinery of administration
and it is important to make it accountable responsive and people friendly. And with the help of
the grievance redressal machinery of an organization one can guage the efficiency and
effectiveness of the administrative agency.
The public servants exercise their powers and discretion in accordance with laws and
regulations. Several internal and external control mechanism operate within the administrative

14
machinery. Techniques of internal control include the budgetary system, hierarchical order,
enquiries and investigation, pressure groups, and annual confidential reports. The external
control is maintained through the executive, legislature and judiciary.
The legislative control includes the parliamentary discussions, audit, question hour, no
confidence motion, complaints to Ombudsman/Lokpal, and parliamentary committees. The
executive control is exercised by the power of appointments, removal, delegated legislation,
rule-making power, ordinances, civil service codes, budgetary system, and appeal to public
opinion. The judiciary control is exercised through the Judicial Review to protect the rights
and liberties of citizens by ensuring legality of administrative act. The judiciary sees to it that
there is effective delivery of its services to the customers as accountability has shifted from the
common people to customers. Its positive intervention to order the administration to implement
policies to achieve the objective laid down in the constitution is important.
The common grievances against the administration are due to corruption such as demand and
acceptance of bribery for doing and not doing things, favouritism that includes doing things or
not doing things for obliging people in power or people who matter, nepotism which is helping
ones kith and kins, discourtesy which is use of abusive language or misbehavior, neglect of
duty, discrimination, ignoring the genuine complaints by the poor and uninfluential, delay,
maladministration, inefficiency in achieving targets and so on.
There are several other institutions such as the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC),
State Human Rights Commission (SHRC), National Commission for Women (NCW), State
Commission for Women (SCW), National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC),
National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
and other nodal agencies. The CVC was set up in 1964 to advice the government on all matters
pertaining to the maintenance of integrity/honesty in administration. The Reserve Bank of India
has set up Ombudsman to look into the grievances. The CBI also investigates cases of
corruption and violation of law by public officials.
Lokayukta looks into complaints of corruption and abuse of office by public servants at the
state level. Many states constituted the Lokayuktas to investigate allegations and grievances
arising out of the conduct of public servants including political executive, legislators, officers
of state government, local bodies, public enterprises and other institutions of the government.
The Lokayukta in every state will consist of a chairperson and eight other members. They are
appointed by the Governor and the chairperson of the select committee is the Chief Minister of
the state.

15
In the past, the government had reasoned that the committee to appoint the Lokpal could not
be formed as there is no Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Critics argue that while
the BJP was in opposition, it wanted a strong and independent Lokpal, but as a ruling party, it
was diluting the law and delaying its enforcement. Instead of sorting out the urgent issue of
Leader of the opposition, it has introduced a 10 Pages Amendment in December 2014 and the
matter has moved to the parliamentary panel. The law required the public servants to declare
not only their assets and liabilities but also for their spouse. The government is in favour of
making public only the immovable assets of the public official. The Prime Minister, Narendra
Modi, believed that corruption can be buried even without appointing a Lokpal. The posts of
Chief Information Commissioner and Central Vigilance Commissioner remained vacant for
over 9 months under the present government. In fact, many argue that Lokpal and Lokakyuta
Act 2013, is not the best law that India needs and it applies to the states only if they give their
consent.

The Lokpal Amendment Bill 2016, was passed to allow extended time to the public servants,
trustees and board members of NGOs receiving government funds of more than Rs 10 crore or
foreign funding of more than Rs 10 lakhs, to declare their assets and those of their spouses.
Recently the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) permit of several NGOs have been
cancelled as they have been suspected of violating the Act.
Even after several years of passage of the Lokpal Act, India was yet to have its first Lokpal,
till 2019. Pinaki Chandra Ghose, the retired Supreme Court Judge was appointed as the first
Lokpal of India by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister - Narendra Modi, Chief
Justice of India - Ranjan Gogoi, and Lok Sabha Speaker - Sumitra Mahajan on 23 March 2019.
The other members were appointed on 27 March 2019. Almost a year after the appointment
of the country’s first Lokpal, notification issued on 2 March 2020, by the Ministry of Personnel,
Public Grievances and Pensions regarding the Lokpal (Complaint) Rules states that in case a
complaint is filed against a sitting or former Prime Minister, a full bench will decide at the
admission stage, whether as inquiry should be initiated. The full bench is headed by the
Chairperson, where at least two thirds approve the inquiry. The rules also state that if such a
complaint is dismissed by the full bench at the admission stage, records of inquiry shall not be
published or made available to anyone. Section 7 of the rules state that the complaint filed
against a public servant referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Act shall
be decided by a full bench, in the first instance of the admission stage and further enquiry as
per Section 14 (1) (ii) shall be ‘in camera proceeding’. In case the Lokpal concludes that the

16
complaint deserves to be dismissed, then the records of inquiry shall not be published or made
available to anyone. The rules also spell out the grounds on which the Lokpal can dispose a
complaint, such as, where the content of the complaint is illegible, vague or ambiguous, trivial
or frivolous, where the complaint did not contain allegations against a public servant or where
the cause of the complaint is pending before any other Court or Tribunal or Authority, and the
alleged offence in respect of which the complaint is made should be within seven years. If the
complaint is filed electronically, it shall be submitted within 15 days and in case a non-citizen
of India files a complaint, only a copy of the passport will be accepted as proof of identity. The
rules also bar any complaint filed against a public servant under the Army Act, Navy Act, Air
Force or the Coast Guard Act.

Thus, accountability and control over the administration is exercised by the Legislative,
Executive and Judicial, people’s participation through media, interest groups, pressure groups,
jan sunwais (public hearings), public opinion, social movements, gram sabhas, NGOs, VOs,
CSOs, Citizen’s Charter, RTI, social audit, grievance cells, Lokpal, Lokayukta, NHRC, CBI,
and CVC.

Citizen’s Charter

Citizen’s Charter is an instrument that seeks to make an organization transparent, accountable,

and citizen friendly which was launched first in 1991 in ‘UK with the aim to ensure that public
services were made responsive to the citizens they serve. In 1994, John Major, Prime Minister
of UK, declared that the organisations should be committed regarding the standard of services
which it delivers. The entitlement of the citizen to a specific service and the standard of services
are demand driven rather than supply driven. The Charter focused on the need to improve the
quality of services, choice for users wherever possible, standards specifying Common
Minimum Programme, and what could be expected within a time frame to value the tax payer’s
money, accountability of service providers - both individual as well as organization and
transparency in rules, procedures, schemes and grievance redressal.
Since public administration had been alienated from the people, the Citizen’s Charter was
introduced in a number of departments such as Income Tax, Life Insurance Companies,
Railways, Public Works Department and others to bring the citizens at the center of the
administration. During the mid-1990s in India the agenda for an effective and responsive
administration was set up in order to restore trust of the people in the capacity of the
administration to serve the public. Each Ministry/ department was committed to deliver
specified services to the citizens. Within the organisations that provided services to the citizens

17
the employees were supposed to be psychologically and infra-structurally well prepared to
serve the public as per the agreed upon standards of services that provided a wide range of
choices of quality services to the citizens.
The Citizen’s Charter holds the administration accountable and refers to the liability of the
government servants to give a satisfactory account of the use of official power. This is
considered as an effective safeguard against the misuse of power and abuse of public authority.
The notion of accountability carries basic connotations of answerability and obligation of the
public officials to inform about and explain what they are doing and enforcement of the
capacity of accounting agencies to impose sanctions against the power holders who have
violated their public duties.
It aimed at demanding from the citizens an active role in giving timely and necessary feedback
about services rendered by the government agencies to enable the government to provide
quality services. Citizens are not passive recipients of services that paid no heed to the quality,
cost and timeliness. It was important to give wide publicity to the standards of performances
of public agencies and the quality of services provided by them. In 2009, the second ARC
declared the citizens as customers and as customers they were supposed to be empowered by
offering them choices. Consultation with citizens became essential to improve the quality of
services provided. They should have access to the information that will enable them to exercise
their choice. It was crucial to simplify the procedure for receipt of complaints and make
provisions for their quick redressal to improve the performances of government.
Citizens’ participation in the planning, formulation, implementation and evaluation processes
of public policy has contributed in many ways to the efficiency in administration. On the
positive side, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has established Central and State Consumer
Protection Councils and the District Forums for redressal of public grievances. The Central
Consumer Protection Council (CCPC) came into being in 1987 and consists of 150 members
with multi-sectional representation. The chairman of the Central Council is the minister-in-
charge of consumer affairs and the secretary in the department is the member-secretary of the
Central Council.

Consumer Protection Act 1986 was amended in 2002 which includes that the complainant can
be the legal heir or representative of the consumer, in case of his death. Complaint may be filed
in the Consumer Courts against a trader as well as service provider for adopting deceptive
practices in provision of services.

18
The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a major affirmative step to ensure timely and effective
settlement of consumer disputes. Unlike the earlier Consumer Protection Act (1986 amended
in 2002) which did not mention e-commerce transactions, the expressions of buying or hiring
any goods and services in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 includes offline or online
transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level
marketing.

The objectives of the Council state that the citizens should be protected against marketing of
goods which are hazardous to life and property and the organisations/persons concerned should
inform the consumers/customers about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price
of goods so as to protect the consumer against unfair trade practices. The citizens have the right
to be assured wherever possible to access to a variety of goods at competitive prices and the
consumer’s interests should receive due consideration at appropriate forums. It is implicit in
the objective that the citizens as consumers have the right to seek redressal against unfair trade
practices or unscrupulous exploitation. Redressal against such practices is the consumers’
fundamental right for which he/she has right to consumer education. The State Consumer
Protection Councils are playing a vital role in creating consumer awareness and in the
development of consumer movement in their states.

The E-Commerce Rules, 2020, also safeguards the interests and rights of the consumers. A
catalytic government should give priority to the participation of communities, should be market
oriented, result oriented, and partner with the private and non-state agencies. It was vital to
decentralize the structures and functions of the administration to improve participation of the
citizens. This called for cutting the size of the government or de-bureaucratization, and its
performance needed to be evaluated on the basis of competition amongst the diverse providers
of goods and services.

Note: For sub-sections c. Relationship between Political Executive and Permanent

Executive and d. Generalists and Specialists and please refer to ‘Introduction to Public
Administration’ by Siran Mukherji and Purnendu Tripathi, 2007

19
Gender Sensitivity and Gender Participation

Public administration cannot be gender neutral or gender blind as in the long run it will have
different outcomes on men and women that will reinforce gender injustice. It is important to
formulate gender sensitive policies and eliminate gender-based discriminations in
administration. It is significant to promote inclusive administrative environment and do away
with challenges of participation of women and their leadership. Inclusive gender issues in
public administration in the 1980s focused on women’s empowerment. Social welfare policies
aimed at achieving equality, justice and redistribution of power. Institutions should be
concerned with the specific needs and experiences of women. Gender sensitive programmes,
planning, equitable opportunities and equal outcomes can only be possible when policy makers
are conscious of gender justice and are gender sensitive. It is critical to have a feminist
perspective on administration which encourages gender strategies that focus on women as
target groups and beneficiaries of schemes and programmes. Participation of women in
planning, implementation and evaluation of public policies need to be prioritised. Equal
opportunity for women alongside intervention to monitor and evaluate policies that aim at
achieving gender justice requires gender sensitivity.
Political participation in particular in the decision-making process is critical for women’s
empowerment (Report of Towards Equality, 1974) and it is important to bring changes in the
structures of patriarchy to ensure active participation of women in the political process.
Reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in proportion to their
population for membership of Panchayats and office of Chairpersons in Panchayats at each
level, reservation of not less than one-third of the seats for women (33 per cent) and Women’s
Reservation Bill, 2023 which ensures 33 per cent reservation of seats for women at the state
legislative assemblies as well as in the Parliament are vital to enable women to participate in
the decision-making process. Since the concept of mirror representation aims to achieve gender
equality in public office, it is important to involve women in governments to incorporate all of
the societal viewpoints in policy -making processes and governance. The perspectives of
women with a difference, with distinct identities, concerns and experiences is important.
It is precisely because of the gender sensitivity that there are several government programmes
to empower women are important such as micro-credit programmes to provide loans to women
for small scale productive units to economically empower them through Self Help Groups
(SHGs), expenditures on reservation of women in transport facilities, travelling, jobs, wages,
widow pensions, facilities for single women health of women in National Rural Health Mission

20
(NRHM) (reproductive health, child care centres, maternity benefits, pre-natal and post-natal
care, Janani Sishu Suraksha Yojna (JSSY), programmes for nutrition of girl child, programmes
for mother and child care – Integrated Child Development Schemes (ICDS), Mid-Day Meals
(MDMs)), education of girl child in Sarv Shiksha Abiyan (SSA) (scholarships for girl child,
scholarship for single girl child, ladli programme, beti bachao beti padhao campaign, Sukanya
Samridhi Yojna, Girl Child Prosperity Schemes) have contributed to secure rights of women.
The Pradhan Mantri MUDRA (Micro Units Development and Refinance Agency) Yojana/
Yojana (PMMY) to support micro and small enterprises and direct benefit transfers under the
Jan Dhan Yojana seeks to empower women and several women entrepreneurs have availed
benefits under the scheme.

Despite major positive steps, the gender gap in India has widened largely due to women’s
inadequate representation in politics, administrative positions, technical and leadership roles,
decrease in women’s labour force participation rate, poor healthcare, lagging female to male
literacy ratio, and income inequality (Include the data on women bureaucrats in senior
positions). Nevertheless, with growing consciousness against gender discrimination and
oppression, it became important to underscore several concerns which were either missing or
received inadequate attention from the administration as well as from scholars on gender
studies. State interventions are significant for building an inclusive and democratic society. It
is important to emphasise needs and perspectives of women as an essential step towards
creating gender sensitive policies. Thus, gender sensitivity and gender participation in public
administration is critical. Arguably the most important methodology to analyse women’s
visions, struggles and concerns is to dismantle polarising conversations. The challenge is to
move towards a viable and coherent understanding of the now-altered nature of gender
relations and explore the myth of women’s liberation to make the voice of the subaltern woman
heard.

21