8. Ethics Notes Extra 04

Elaborate Notes

CHALLENGES TO ETHICAL GOVERNANCE IN INDIA

Ethical governance, which entails the application of moral principles to public administration and decision-making, faces a multitude of systemic challenges in the Indian context. These can be categorized into political, institutional, societal, and operational dimensions.

Political Challenges

Populism over Ethical Considerations: A significant challenge arises from excessive political interference in policy formulation, where short-term populist gains are prioritized over long-term, ethically sound, and sustainable governance. For instance, indiscriminate farm loan waivers, as analyzed by scholars like T.N. Ninan, can provide immediate political dividends but undermine the credit culture and fiscal health of the state, which is an ethically questionable trade-off. The emphasis shifts from public welfare to vote-bank politics.
Politicization of Bureaucracy: Civil servants often find themselves under pressure to align with the interests of their political superiors rather than upholding the principles of administrative neutrality and fairness. This phenomenon, often termed the ‘political-bureaucratic nexus’, was extensively documented in the Vohra Committee Report (1993), which highlighted the dangerous connections between politicians, bureaucrats, and criminal elements. This results in civil servants focusing on activities that impress political bosses, such as facilitating partisan schemes or bending rules for favored individuals, instead of adhering to ethical norms.
Coercion for Unethical Acts: The political executive may expect civil servants to perform tasks that are contrary to law and ethical principles. This can range from manipulating tender processes to favour specific contractors to using administrative machinery for political campaigns.
Control over Postings and Transfers: The power to control appointments, postings, and transfers is a potent tool used by the political executive to enforce compliance. Officers who resist unethical directives often face punitive transfers, a practice famously highlighted in the case of civil servant Ashok Khemka. The Supreme Court in the T.S.R. Subramanian vs. Union of India (2013) judgment acknowledged this issue and recommended fixed tenures for civil servants to insulate them from such arbitrary political pressure.

Institutional Challenges

Dysfunctions of a Career Civil Service: The concept of a permanent or career civil service, while intended to provide security and neutrality as per Max Weber’s bureaucratic model, can paradoxically foster complacency and a lack of accountability. The security of tenure, without robust performance management systems, can reduce the incentive for dedication and public service, leading to what is often termed ‘bureaucratic inertia’.
Unchecked Discretionary Power: Civil servants in India wield significant discretionary powers. When these powers are not accompanied by strong checks, balances, and oversight mechanisms, they create fertile ground for corruption and arbitrary decision-making. The 2G spectrum allocation case, where discretionary licensing led to massive financial losses for the exchequer as per the CAG report of 2010, is a stark example of the misuse of such power.
Legacy of the Post-Independence Economic Model: The socialist-inspired economic model adopted after 1947, often referred to as the ‘License-Permit-Quota Raj’, vested enormous power in a centralized state apparatus. This system, as critiqued by economists like Jagdish Bhagwati and Arvind Panagariya in works like “India’s Tryst with Destiny” (2012), created systemic opportunities for rent-seeking and corruption, embedding unethical practices deep within the administrative structure.
Bureaucratic Self-Preservation: As a structural entity, the civil service often exhibits a tendency to preserve and expand its own power and influence, a phenomenon described by C. Northcote Parkinson’s “Parkinson’s Law.” This focus on bureaucratic self-interest can overshadow the primary objective of serving the public interest, leading to resistance to reforms that might reduce bureaucratic control, such as deregulation or greater devolution of power.

Societal Challenges

Erosion of Moral Values: Contemporary Indian society has witnessed a perceptible decline in traditional moral and ethical values, replaced by an increasing focus on materialism and wealth accumulation. This societal shift influences the bureaucracy, as civil servants are products of the same society. The goal of public service can be supplanted by the pursuit of personal enrichment.
Tolerance of Unethical Conduct: There is a growing societal tolerance, and at times, acceptance of corruption and unethical behavior. Corruption is often viewed pragmatically as a necessary evil to navigate a complex system, a part of the “jugaad” or makeshift innovation culture. This lack of social sanction against unethical conduct disincentivizes civil servants from adhering to high moral standards.
Cynicism towards Ethics: A cynical view, prevalent among some, holds that ethical values are utopian and impractical in the “real world.” This thinking normalizes unethical shortcuts and leads to an overall decline in the value system of the administration and society at large.
Glorification of Corruption: The social acceptance of corruption has reached a point where wealth acquired through illicit means is sometimes glorified, and individuals with criminal backgrounds are elected to public office. Data from organizations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) consistently shows a high percentage of lawmakers with declared criminal cases against them, reflecting a societal deficit in demanding ethical leadership.

Operational Challenges

Culture of Secrecy: The administrative culture in India, a legacy of the colonial era, is traditionally marked by secrecy, exemplified by the continued existence of the Official Secrets Act, 1923. While the Right to Information Act, 2005 was a landmark step towards transparency, the default administrative mindset often remains one of opacity, which breeds corruption and prevents accountability.
Complex and Obfuscating Procedures: Administrative procedures are often excessively complicated, rigid, and designed with a focus on avoiding errors rather than facilitating efficient service delivery. This “red tape” leads to inordinate delays, making governance inaccessible to the common person and creating opportunities for corruption where bribes (“speed money”) are paid to expedite processes.
Lack of Empathy and Compassion: The hierarchical and impersonal nature of bureaucracy, as conceptualized by Weber, can create a significant distance between civil servants and citizens. This often leads to a lack of empathy, compassion, and responsiveness, where officials view citizens as “cases” or “files” rather than individuals with rights and needs. This disconnect fundamentally undermines the service-oriented goals of governance.

CODE OF ETHICS AND CODE OF CONDUCT

Code of Conduct

A Code of Conduct refers to a specific, explicit, and legally enforceable set of rules and guidelines that prescribe the standards of behavior for members of an organization, particularly in specific situations. It essentially outlines the “dos and don’ts” for a professional.

Nature: It is a set of negative instructions, focusing on actions that are prohibited or required.
Legal Standing: In India, the conduct of civil servants is governed by statutory rules, primarily the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Violation of these rules can lead to disciplinary action.
Specific Provisions (as per All India Services Conduct Rules):
- Political Neutrality: Members shall not take part in political activities or associate with any political organization.
- Personal Conduct: They must remain sober, not appear in public intoxicated, and not use drinks or drugs to excess. They must also observe laws concerning crimes against women.
- Financial Prudence: They must manage their private affairs to avoid habitual indebtedness or insolvency. Giving or taking dowry is prohibited.
- Restrictions on Employment/Trade: Members cannot engage in any trade, business, or other employment without the previous sanction of the Government.
- Regulation of Gifts:
  - Gifts from near relatives on occasions like weddings or funerals may be accepted, but any gift exceeding ₹25,000 in value must be reported to the government.
  - Civil servants cannot accept gifts from persons other than near relatives without government sanction if the value exceeds ₹10,000.

Code of Ethics

A Code of Ethics is a broader, more aspirational set of principles and values intended to guide the judgment and behavior of professionals. It is not about specific rules for every situation but about fostering an ethical mindset.

Nature: It is a set of general principles that provide a moral compass for decision-making.
Legal Standing: A Code of Ethics typically does not have direct legal backing. Its force is moral and aspirational. For example, while a Code of Ethics may prescribe that civil servants should uphold ‘transparency’, there is no direct legal penalty for not being transparent, unlike the specific obligations under the RTI Act.
Example: The Nolan Committee (1995) in the UK outlined Seven Principles of Public Life (Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, and Leadership), which serve as a foundational Code of Ethics for public servants there.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CODE OF ETHICS AND CODE OF CONDUCT

Basis of Difference	Code of Ethics	Code of Conduct
Nature	General and aspirational. Provides a guiding framework of values.	Specific and directive. Provides a list of explicit rules.
Focus Area	Focuses on compliance with core values and principles (e.g., integrity, impartiality).	Focuses on compliance with rules and regulations (e.g., gift acceptance limits).
Enforceability	Backed by moral sanction. Non-compliance does not lead to legal punishment.	Legally enforceable through departmental disciplinary procedures.
Scope	Implicit and broad. Aims to guide judgment in unforeseen or complex situations.	Explicit and narrow. Provides clear guidelines for specific, known situations.
Time Horizon	Aims to foster long-term, sustainable changes in behavior and organizational culture.	Guides behavior in the short term by setting clear boundaries.

SIGNIFICANCE OF CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT

Improving Work Culture: A diligent adherence to these codes can help transform a work culture often criticized for lethargy and lack of professionalism into one that is dynamic, service-oriented, and ethical.
Fostering Internal Accountability: When ethical principles are internalized, accountability shifts from being a purely external enforcement mechanism to an internal, conscientious commitment. This is more effective and sustainable than a system based solely on surveillance and punishment.
Ensuring Prudent Use of Resources: Civil servants are trustees of public resources. Codes that emphasize honesty, integrity, and probity ensure that these resources are utilized effectively for public welfare, minimizing leakage and corruption.
Upholding Human Rights and Dignity: These codes mandate that civil servants treat all individuals with respect, ensuring that their actions are free from discrimination and abuse of power, thereby upholding the constitutional rights of citizens.
Guidance in Ethical Dilemmas: Public service is fraught with ethical dilemmas where rules may be silent or conflicting. A Code of Ethics provides a moral framework (e.g., public interest, justice, compassion) to navigate these complex situations, ensuring consistency and uniformity in administrative actions.
Bridging the Trust Deficit: By ensuring that civil servants perform their duties with integrity, compassion, and accountability, these codes can play a crucial role in rebuilding the trust between citizens and the government, which is a vital component of social capital as articulated by scholars like Robert Putnam.

LIMITATIONS

Weak Enforcement: The primary limitation is the lack of robust enforcement. The Code of Conduct’s enforcement is subject to departmental discretion, which can be inconsistent, while the Code of Ethics lacks any legal enforceability, rendering it a “toothless tiger.”
Vagueness and Subjectivity: Ethical principles can be abstract (e.g., “act in the public interest”) and open to subjective interpretation, making it difficult to enforce them uniformly.
Socio-Cultural Relativism: In a diverse country like India, what constitutes ethical behavior can be influenced by varied social and cultural norms, posing a challenge to the universal application of a single code.
Lack of Awareness and Training: Many civil servants are not adequately aware of the nuances of these codes, and there is a deficit in regular, high-quality training programs to internalize these values.
Absence of Incentives: The system often lacks mechanisms to reward ethical behavior. Career progression is rarely linked to an officer’s demonstrated integrity, which diminishes the incentive to adhere strictly to ethical codes.
Limited Applicability and Conflict: The Code of Conduct is rule-based and cannot cover every possible situation. The Code of Ethics, while broader, does not provide a clear hierarchy of principles to resolve conflicts between values (e.g., compassion vs. justice).
Deep-Rooted Systemic Issues: Critics argue that the erosion of moral values in the administrative system is so profound that mere codes will have a negligible impact without fundamental structural reforms.
Overriding Political Interference: The greatest practical challenge is political interference, which often compels civil servants to violate these codes, creating a situation where ethical conduct is punished rather than rewarded.

SUGGESTIONS/WAY AHEAD

Integration with Legal Frameworks: Codes should be designed in conjunction with existing legal measures like the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Whistle Blowers Protection Act to create a cohesive anti-corruption and ethical framework.
Inclusion of a Prohibitory Clause: Codes should explicitly state that any unethical activity not specifically mentioned is not automatically permissible. This prevents officials from exploiting loopholes by claiming their actions were not explicitly forbidden.
Participatory Formulation: Codes must be developed through extensive discussion and consensus within departments. An externally imposed code is less likely to be owned and respected by the civil servants who must adhere to it.
The Debate on Legal Enforceability: While some suggest making the Code of Ethics legally enforceable in courts, this could lead to excessive litigation, administrative paralysis, and a loss of flexibility. A more effective approach might be a quasi-judicial enforcement mechanism, as human beings often respond better to a principle-based code than a rigid legal document.
Establishment of an Oversight Body: A Public Service Authority, comprising eminent citizens and reputed former civil servants, could be tasked with overseeing the implementation of these codes and acting as an independent arbiter.
Involvement of Civil Society: Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) should be involved in the design and monitoring of these codes to ensure they reflect citizen expectations and concerns.
Continuous Training and Sensitization: Public service values must be inculcated through regular and innovative training programs. The initiative by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) to offer a two-week course on ethics for senior administrators is a step in the right direction.
Incentivizing Ethical Conduct: A robust mechanism to recognize, reward, and provide career incentives for officers who demonstrate exceptional integrity and ethical conduct should be established.

2nd ARC Recommendations

The 4th Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), titled “Ethics in Governance” (2007), made comprehensive recommendations, including the enactment of a Public Service Code Bill. This was inspired by similar laws in countries like Australia and Poland. The ARC proposed a three-tiered structure for the code:

Level 1: Statement of Values: This would act as a preamble, articulating a clear statement of core public service values that every civil servant must uphold. These include:
- Patriotism and upholding national pride.
- Allegiance to the Constitution and the laws of the nation.
- Commitment to the principles of good governance.
Level 2: Broad Principles: This level would outline the broad principles governing the behavior of all civil servants, which would guide departments in framing their specific codes. Key principles include:
- Discharging official duties with competence, care, accountability, and impartiality.
- Avoiding misuse of official position and using public money with utmost care.
- Serving as an instrument of good governance and socio-economic development, without discrimination on grounds of religion, caste, sex, etc.
- Providing opportunities for professional growth and leadership development.
Level 3: Specific Code of Conduct (Public Service Management Code): This would be a detailed and specific code of conduct, outlining acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. It would be based on principles aimed at:
- Establishing the public service as a professional, merit-based institution.
- Creating mechanisms and incentives to promote high levels of productivity, efficiency, and excellence.
- Promoting the financial sustainability of the public service.

Prelims Pointers

Vohra Committee Report (1993): Examined the nexus between crime syndicates, politicians, and government functionaries.
T.S.R. Subramanian vs. Union of India (2013): Supreme Court case that recommended fixed tenures for civil servants to protect them from political pressure.
All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968: Governs the conduct of IAS, IPS, and IFoS officers.
Gift Acceptance Rules for All India Services:
- From near relatives on special occasions: Permitted, but must be reported to the government if value exceeds ₹25,000.
- From others: Government sanction is required if the value exceeds ₹10,000.
Official Secrets Act, 1923: A colonial-era law that fosters a culture of secrecy in government.
Right to Information Act, 2005: A landmark law promoting transparency and accountability in governance.
Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC): Its 4th Report is titled “Ethics in Governance.”
Public Service Code Bill, 2007: Proposed by the 2nd ARC to provide legal backing to a Code of Ethics and Conduct for public servants.
Nolan Committee (1995), UK: Established the “Seven Principles of Public Life.”
IIPA (Indian Institute of Public Administration): An institution that provides training to administrators, including on ethics.

Mains Insights

GS Paper I (Indian Society)

Society-Governance Interface: The challenges to ethical governance are deeply rooted in societal values. The rise of materialism, consumerism, and the tolerance for corruption in society directly impact the bureaucracy. The “chalta hai” (it’s okay) attitude and the “jugaad” culture, while praised for fostering innovation, can also normalize bending rules and ethical compromises, creating a challenging environment for upright officials.
Erosion of Social Capital: Unethical governance erodes public trust in institutions. This “trust deficit” weakens social capital, which is the network of relationships and shared values that enable a society to function effectively. This can lead to citizen apathy, non-cooperation with the state, and a breakdown in collective action for development.

GS Paper II (Governance, Constitution, Polity)

The Dilemma of Administrative Neutrality: The constant friction between political interference and the principle of administrative neutrality is a core governance challenge. Analyze how the power of transfers and postings is used to subvert neutrality and create a ‘committed bureaucracy’. Discuss whether reforms like fixed tenures (T.S.R. Subramanian case) and a Civil Services Board are sufficient to address this deep-seated issue.
Reforming the ‘Steel Frame’: The institutional challenges section highlights the dysfunctions of the Indian bureaucracy, a legacy of the colonial ‘steel frame’. A key debate is whether incremental reforms are enough or if a fundamental restructuring of the civil services is required to make them more accountable, dynamic, and ethical for the 21st century.
Effectiveness of Accountability Mechanisms: While India has created accountability mechanisms like the RTI, Lokpal, and CVC, their effectiveness is often hampered by the operational and political challenges discussed. Analyze the cause-effect relationship: does a culture of secrecy make RTI ineffective, or is the weak implementation of RTI failing to dismantle the culture of secrecy?

GS Paper IV (Ethics, Integrity, and Aptitude)

Ethical Governance: Utopian Ideal or Achievable Goal? The question posed in the summary is a classic ethics debate. One can argue that given the scale of political, institutional, and societal challenges, ethical governance appears utopian. However, the counter-argument is that it is a necessary and achievable goal. It requires a multi-pronged approach: strengthening individual conscience through training, robust institutional reforms (as suggested by 2nd ARC), fostering political will, and promoting societal demand for integrity. The existence of numerous honest officers proves it is not impossible.
Synergy between Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct: These are not mutually exclusive but complementary. A Code of Conduct without an underlying ethical framework becomes a tool for mere legalistic compliance (“ticking the boxes”). A Code of Ethics without a specific Code of Conduct remains an abstract, unenforceable ideal. True ethical governance requires both: the ‘spirit’ of ethics guiding the ‘letter’ of the conduct rules.
Navigating Ethical Dilemmas: Civil servants frequently face dilemmas where they must choose between adherence to rules (deontology), loyalty to superiors, and achieving the best outcomes for the public (utilitarianism). Discuss how a well-defined Code of Ethics, emphasizing foundational values like ‘public interest’ and ‘constitutional morality’, can provide a moral compass to navigate these complex situations, especially when facing undue political pressure.

GS Notes