8. Ethics Notes Extra 05

Elaborate Notes

PRINCIPLES THAT SHOULD GUIDE THE FORMULATION OF CODE OF ETHICS FOR MINISTERS

A Code of Ethics for Ministers serves as a foundational document to ensure accountability, transparency, and integrity in high office. The principles outlined are rooted in constitutional morality, democratic principles, and the recommendations of various administrative reforms committees, such as the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in its fourth report, “Ethics in Governance” (2007).

• Adherence to Collective Responsibility: This principle is constitutionally mandated by Article 75(3) of the Indian Constitution, which states that the “Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People.” This implies that a decision of the Cabinet is a decision of the entire government.

  • Historical Context: This principle, borrowed from the British Westminster model, ensures the stability and accountability of the executive. Any minister who disagrees with a cabinet decision is expected to resign or defend it in public. For instance, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar resigned from Nehru’s cabinet in 1951 over differences on the Hindu Code Bill. Similarly, C.D. Deshmukh resigned in 1956 protesting the proposal to make Bombay a Union Territory.
  • Implication: Ministers must maintain a united front in public and Parliament, even if they have private reservations about a policy. This prevents policy paralysis and presents a cohesive government to the public and the legislature.

• Prevention of Conflict of Interest: This principle mandates that ministers must separate their public duties from their private interests (financial, personal, or political).

  • Explanation: A conflict of interest arises when a minister’s personal interests could potentially influence, or appear to influence, their official decisions. This includes interests of their family or close associates. The 2nd ARC recommended the establishment of an “Office of Ethics Commissioner” to advise on and oversee these matters.
  • Example: A minister in charge of the aviation ministry should not hold shares or have business interests in an airline company. They must declare their assets and liabilities upon assuming office, a practice followed in many democracies to ensure transparency.

• Upholding Political Impartiality of Civil Servants: Ministers must respect the non-partisan nature of the civil service, which is the bedrock of the administrative machinery.

  • Historical Context: Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel envisioned the civil services as the “steel frame” of India, an institution that would serve the nation impartially, irrespective of the political party in power.
  • Implication: Ministers should not pressure civil servants to act in a partisan manner, subvert rules, or engage in activities that clash with their official duties as defined by the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 or Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Asking an officer to favour a particular contractor or promote a party’s political agenda using official machinery is a violation of this principle.

• Compliance with Parliamentary Requirements: Ministers are accountable to the Parliament. They must provide truthful and accurate information to the legislature and its committees.

  • Mechanism: This is ensured through parliamentary devices like Question Hour, Adjournment Motions, and No-Confidence Motions. Misleading the Parliament is a serious breach of parliamentary privilege.
  • Example: If a minister provides incorrect data on infrastructure development to Parliament, they can be held accountable by the opposition and the Speaker, potentially facing a privilege motion.

• Prudent Use of Public Money: This principle emphasizes fiscal responsibility and the idea that public funds are a sacred trust.

  • Oversight: Institutions like the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) under Article 148 and parliamentary committees like the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) are designed to scrutinize government expenditure and ensure that public money is used for its intended purpose with due regard to economy and efficiency.
  • Example: Using public funds for lavish renovations of official residences beyond what is necessary or using government convoys for personal family trips would be a violation of this principle.

• No Use of Government Resources for Political Purposes: This is crucial for maintaining a level playing field in a democracy.

  • Explanation: Government machinery, vehicles, personnel, and official media platforms (like All India Radio or Doordarshan) should not be used for party propaganda or electioneering. The Model Code of Conduct, enforced by the Election Commission of India during elections, explicitly prohibits such practices.
  • Example: A minister announcing a new government scheme at a party rally just before an election, using the occasion for political mileage, would be a misuse of their official position.

• Functioning as Instruments of Good Governance: The ultimate duty of a minister is to serve the public interest and enhance the quality of governance.

  • Concept: This encompasses principles like responsiveness, efficiency, effectiveness, and citizen-centricity as outlined by institutions like the World Bank. Ministers should focus on policy formulation and implementation that improves the lives of citizens.

• Objectivity, Impartiality, and Fairness: Decisions must be based on merit and evidence, free from bias, prejudice, or nepotism.

  • Explanation: This principle is an extension of the rule of law. When awarding contracts, making appointments, or distributing benefits, a minister must follow due process and act in a manner that is fair to all parties involved, without favouring friends, relatives, or political supporters. This is central to maintaining public trust in the government.

CORRUPTION

Definition and Legal Framework

• The World Bank provides a widely accepted definition of corruption as the “abuse of public office for private gain.” This definition is broad, encompassing not just monetary gains but also the acquisition of power, status, or other advantages.
• The primary domestic legislation in India is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA).
  • The Act does not provide a single, concise definition of “corruption.” Instead, it defines the offence of “criminal misconduct” by a public servant.
  • Key activities deemed corrupt under the PCA (prior to the 2018 amendment) include:
    1. Acceptance of illegal gratification: Demanding or accepting any gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for performing (or refraining from performing) an official act. This is the classic case of bribery.
    2. Obtaining a valuable thing without consideration: Accepting a valuable item from a person with whom one has official dealings, without paying for it or paying inadequately.
    3. Obtaining pecuniary advantage: Misusing one’s official position to gain a monetary benefit for oneself or another person.
    4. Possession of disproportionate assets: Holding property or resources that are disproportionate to one’s known sources of income, which cannot be satisfactorily accounted for.
  • The 2018 amendment to the PCA has refined these provisions, notably making the giving of a bribe a direct offence and introducing time limits for trial.

Expanding the Definition of Corruption

The PCA’s focus on gratification and pecuniary advantage is often seen as narrow. The 2nd ARC Report (“Ethics in Governance”) argued for a broader understanding of corruption to include actions that are detrimental to the public interest, even if a direct monetary exchange is not proven.

• Use and abuse of confidential information: An official using sensitive policy or commercial information for personal financial gain, such as in stock market trading (insider trading).
• Nepotism and Favouritism: Favouring relatives (nepotism) or friends (cronyism) in public appointments, promotions, or the awarding of contracts, thereby subverting merit-based selection.
• Conflict of Interest: A civil servant engaging in private employment or consultancy that conflicts with their public duties, or failing to recuse themselves from a decision where they have a personal stake.
• Wasting public money: Extravagant and unnecessary expenditure on projects or personal luxuries that serves no public purpose. This is a form of “legal corruption” where rules may be followed, but the spirit of public service is violated.
• Gross perversion of constitutional provisions: Using official power to undermine democratic institutions, for example, by engineering defections or misusing the office of the Governor.
• Manipulation and Interference: Illegitimately influencing recruitment processes, departmental inquiries, or procurement decisions to benefit specific individuals or entities.

Factors Leading to the Rise of Corruption in India

• Historical Factors:

  • Colonial Legacy: The British administrative system was designed primarily for revenue extraction and maintaining law and order, not for public welfare. This created a distance between the ruler and the ruled. Scholar-administrator N.N. Vohra, in his seminal Vohra Committee Report (1993), alluded to the persistence of colonial-era structures that facilitate a nexus between criminals, politicians, and bureaucrats.
  • The nationalist movement sometimes justified subverting British laws and authority, which may have inadvertently cultivated a culture of bypassing rules. This attitude, as some sociologists argue, persisted post-independence, with the state replacing the British as the ‘other’.

• Institutional and Political Factors:

  • License-Permit-Quota Raj (Pre-1991): The extensive state control over the economy created a system of licenses and permits, vesting vast discretionary powers in the hands of officials. This led to what economist Jagdish Bhagwati termed “rent-seeking,” where officials extracted bribes (rents) for granting permissions.
  • Ineffective Justice System: The low rate of conviction in corruption cases makes it a “low-risk, high-reward” activity. Protracted trials, difficulty in gathering evidence, and the ability of the powerful to manipulate the system reduce the deterrent effect of the law.
  • Politicization of Bureaucracy: Lack of robust civil service protections against arbitrary transfers and postings makes honest officers vulnerable. The case of Ashok Khemka, an IAS officer with numerous transfers, is often cited as an example of an honest officer being penalized for upholding the law.
  • Complex Procedures: Opaque and cumbersome governmental procedures (red tape) create opportunities for officials to demand ‘speed money’ to navigate the system, forcing citizens into corruption.
  • Criminalization of Politics: The Vohra Committee Report (1993) officially documented the deep-rooted nexus between organized crime, politicians, and bureaucrats. The increasing cost of elections forces political parties and candidates to rely on illicit funding, which is then recouped through corrupt means once in power. The now-scrapped Electoral Bonds scheme was also criticized by some for increasing opacity in political funding.

• Societal Factors:

  • Decline in Social and Moral Values: Increasing materialism and consumerism have led to an erosion of ethical values. Success is often measured by wealth, regardless of the means used to acquire it. Sociologist M.N. Srinivas spoke of the process of “Sanskritization” where lower castes emulated the rituals of upper castes; in a modern context, a similar emulation of the corrupt practices of the elite can be observed.
  • Tolerance of Corruption: A sense of resignation and cynicism among the public leads to the normalization of corruption as a ‘way of life’. Small-scale bribery is often accepted as an unavoidable transaction cost.
  • Erosion of Educational Ethics: Widespread practices like cheating in exams, plagiarism, and fake degrees devalue merit and integrity from a young age, creating a generation with a weak ethical foundation.

Collusive and Coercive Corruption

This is a crucial distinction for understanding the dynamics of corruption.

• Coercive Corruption:

  • Nature: This is a form of extortion where a public official forces a citizen to pay a bribe to receive a service to which they are legally entitled (e.g., getting a ration card, a birth certificate, or having an FIR filed). The bribe-giver is a victim.
  • Characteristics: It is often a ‘bottom-up’ or ‘retail’ corruption, involving small amounts (‘speed money’ or ‘grease payments’). It disproportionately affects the poor and marginalized who rely heavily on public services.
  • Causes: It thrives on a supply-demand mismatch for public services, citizen unawareness of their rights, lack of effective grievance redressal mechanisms, and a culture of impunity among lower-level officials.

• Collusive Corruption:

  • Nature: This is a conspiracy between the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker to defraud the state or the public. Both parties benefit at the expense of the public exchequer. The bribe-giver is an active participant and often the initiator.
  • Characteristics: It is ‘top-down’ or ‘wholesale’ corruption, often involving large sums of money (‘big-ticket corruption’). It occurs at higher levels of government.
  • Examples: Rigging public procurement tenders (e.g., the Commonwealth Games scam), illegal allocation of natural resources (e.g., the 2G spectrum and Coal block allocation scams), and policy-making that favours specific corporations (crony capitalism).

Debate: Which Form of Corruption is More Harmful?

Both forms are deeply damaging, but their impact differs in nature and scale.

Aspect	Collusive Corruption	Coercive Corruption
Economic Impact	Causes massive loss to the public exchequer, distorts national economic policies, and creates market monopolies.	Involves smaller amounts per transaction but has a regressive economic effect, acting as a tax on the poor.
Social Impact	Erodes public trust in key institutions like the government, legislature, and judiciary. Fosters crony capitalism.	Directly harasses and exploits citizens, especially the vulnerable. Normalizes corruption and creates a culture of cynicism and helplessness.
Legal Challenge	Extremely difficult to detect and prove, as both parties are complicit and there is no direct victim to complain.	Easier to prove through trap cases laid by anti-corruption agencies, as there is a victim who can act as a complainant.
Scale & Visibility	’Big-ticket’ but often hidden within complex policy and financial transactions.	‘Retail’ but pervasive and highly visible in the daily lives of ordinary people.

Conclusion of the Debate: While collusive corruption causes a greater financial drain on the nation and fundamentally corrodes the integrity of the state, coercive corruption poisons the everyday interface between the citizen and the government, making it a constant source of oppression for the common person. A holistic anti-corruption strategy must address both.

Effects of Corruption

• Economic Effects:

  • Reduced Investment: Corruption acts as a hidden tax, increasing the cost of doing business and deterring foreign and domestic investment. This is reflected in India’s ranking in indices like Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index.
  • Distortion of Public Expenditure: Funds are often diverted from essential sectors like health and education towards large capital-intensive projects where kickbacks are easier to obtain.
  • Stifling of Competition: Crony capitalism ensures that contracts and licenses are awarded based on bribes rather than merit, which hurts small businesses, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
  • Poor Quality of Public Services: Corruption in procurement leads to the use of substandard materials in infrastructure projects (e.g., roads, bridges) and the supply of low-quality goods and services (e.g., fake medicines, poor-quality grains in PDS).
  • Loss of Tax Revenue: A significant portion of the economy goes underground (black money) to conceal corrupt wealth, leading to lower tax collection and further straining public finances.

• Societal Effects:

  • Erosion of Social Capital: As theorized by political scientist Robert Putnam, corruption destroys trust—trust in public institutions and trust among citizens. This weakens the social fabric.
  • Increased Inequality: It undermines the effectiveness of poverty alleviation and welfare programs, as benefits are siphoned off by corrupt intermediaries. This means the poor and marginalized, who are most dependent on state support, suffer the most.
  • Moral and Ethical Decay: When corruption becomes widespread, it demoralizes honest citizens and officials. The will to fight against injustice weakens, leading to a cynical and apathetic society. It creates a system where honesty is punished and dishonesty is rewarded.

---

Prelims Pointers

• Article 75(3): The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the Lok Sabha (House of the People).
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA): The primary law in India to combat corruption by public servants.
• PCA Amendment 2018: Made bribe-giving a specific offence and set time limits for trials.
• World Bank’s Definition of Corruption: Abuse of public office for private gain.
• 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC): Its 4th Report, “Ethics in Governance,” provides detailed recommendations on combating corruption.
• Vohra Committee Report (1993): Highlighted the nexus between criminals, politicians, and bureaucrats.
• Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG): A constitutional body under Article 148 that audits government expenditure.
• Public Accounts Committee (PAC): A parliamentary committee that examines the CAG reports.
• Coercive Corruption: Extortion by a public official; the bribe-giver is a victim. Also known as retail corruption.
• Collusive Corruption: A conspiracy between bribe-giver and taker; both are beneficiaries. Also known as wholesale or ‘big-ticket’ corruption.
• Speed Money / Grease Payments: Small bribes paid to officials to get a job done faster. A form of coercive corruption.
• Crony Capitalism: An economic system where business success depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.
• Transparency International: An international non-governmental organization that publishes the Corruption Perception Index annually.

---

Mains Insights

Analytical Perspectives on Corruption

1. Corruption as a Symptom, Not the Disease:

   • Cause-Effect: Corruption is often a symptom of deeper institutional maladies such as a weak rule of law, lack of transparency, excessive and arbitrary state power (legacy of License Raj), and a non-responsive justice system.
   • GS-II Link (Governance): Tackling corruption requires more than just punitive laws (like the PCA). It necessitates fundamental governance reforms: simplifying procedures (Ease of Doing Business), strengthening transparency mechanisms (RTI, social audit), ensuring institutional autonomy (CBI, CVC), and implementing police and judicial reforms.

2. The Historiographical Debate on Colonial Legacy:

   • Nationalist Viewpoint: Argues that the colonial administrative structure was inherently exploitative and created a master-subject relationship, which has persisted in the post-colonial bureaucracy’s attitude towards citizens (the ‘Mai-Baap’ culture).
   • Counter-Argument: Some historians argue that while the colonial system had its flaws, corruption was also endemic in pre-colonial India (as evidenced in texts like Kautilya’s Arthashastra). The modern form of systemic corruption is a product of post-independence political and economic choices, particularly the centralized, socialist-oriented economy of the initial decades.

3. The Social Sanction vs. Legal Deterrence Debate:

   • Legal Deterrence: This perspective emphasizes the need for strong laws, effective enforcement, and swift punishment to create a fear of consequence. It focuses on strengthening anti-corruption bodies like the Lokpal and Lokayuktas.
   • Social Sanction: This viewpoint, relevant for GS-IV (Ethics), argues that laws alone are insufficient. Corruption will persist as long as society tolerates it or even accords respect to the corruptly wealthy. The solution lies in a long-term cultural shift through value-based education, social boycotts of the corrupt, and citizen-led integrity movements (e.g., the India Against Corruption movement of 2011). A successful strategy needs both strong laws and strong social disapproval.

4. Coercive vs. Collusive Corruption: A Policy Dilemma:

   • Policy Focus on Coercive Corruption: Tackling this requires citizen-facing reforms—e-governance to reduce human interface, citizen’s charters to inform people of their rights and service timelines, and robust grievance redressal mechanisms (e.g., CPGRAMS).
   • Policy Focus on Collusive Corruption: This requires high-level systemic reforms—electoral funding reform to break the politician-business nexus, transparency in public procurement (e.g., Government e-Marketplace - GeM), and independent investigation of high-level corruption without political interference.
   • Insight: An effective government must walk on two legs, simultaneously addressing the ‘retail’ corruption that affects the common citizen and the ‘wholesale’ corruption that hollows out the state.

5. Code of Ethics for Ministers: Implementation Gap:

   • The Challenge: While principles for a code of ethics are well-established (in India, a Code of Conduct for Ministers exists since 1964), the primary challenge is enforcement. There is no independent statutory body to enforce this code.
   • Analysis: The enforcement is left to the Prime Minister (at the Union level) and Chief Ministers (at the State level), making it a political and subjective process. This contrasts with systems in other countries like the UK, which has an Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests. The debate in India often revolves around whether this code should be given statutory backing to ensure impartial enforcement.