Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Corruption remains a pervasive challenge in Indian administration, undermining governance and hindering socio-economic development. The ‘policy of non-action’, in this context, doesn’t necessarily imply a conscious decision *to* allow corruption, but rather a systemic failure to proactively and effectively utilize existing institutional mechanisms and legal provisions to combat it. This manifests as delays in investigations, weak enforcement, inadequate protection for whistleblowers, and a lack of political will. Recent reports, such as Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI) 2023, continue to highlight India’s struggle with corruption, prompting a critical examination of the administrative response.
Understanding the ‘Policy of Non-Action’
The ‘policy of non-action’ isn’t a formally declared policy, but a descriptive term for the observed shortcomings in tackling corruption. It stems from a confluence of factors including bureaucratic inertia, political interference, and structural weaknesses within the system. This inaction isn’t always overt; it often takes the form of slow progress, diluted enforcement, and a lack of systemic reforms.
Institutional and Legal Framework: A Mixed Picture
India possesses a reasonably robust legal and institutional framework to address corruption, yet its effectiveness is questionable. Key elements include:
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This Act defines corruption and provides penalties for public servants. However, its implementation is often hampered by procedural delays and low conviction rates.
- Central Vigilance Commission (CVC): Established in 1964, the CVC is the apex body for overseeing corruption prevention efforts. While it has expanded its mandate, its powers remain largely advisory.
- Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: This Act aimed to establish an independent ombudsman to investigate corruption allegations against public officials. However, its operationalization has been slow, and its effectiveness remains debated.
- Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005: A powerful tool for transparency and accountability, RTI has exposed numerous instances of corruption, but faces challenges like bureaucratic resistance and inadequate implementation.
- Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014: Designed to protect individuals reporting corruption, its implementation has been slow, and concerns remain about the safety of whistleblowers.
Areas of Inaction and Systemic Weaknesses
Political Interference and Lack of Autonomy
A significant factor contributing to the ‘policy of non-action’ is political interference in investigations and prosecutions. Transfers of investigating officers, dilution of chargesheets, and undue influence on judicial proceedings are common occurrences. This undermines the autonomy of institutions like the CVC and CBI.
Weak Enforcement and Low Conviction Rates
Despite numerous investigations, conviction rates in corruption cases remain abysmally low. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data (as of 2022, knowledge cutoff), the conviction rate in Prevention of Corruption Act cases is around 30-40%. This is due to factors like inadequate evidence gathering, lengthy legal proceedings, and witness intimidation.
Inadequate Protection for Whistleblowers
The Whistleblower Protection Act, despite its intent, has not effectively shielded individuals reporting corruption. Fear of retaliation remains a major deterrent, and many whistleblowers face harassment and intimidation.
Bureaucratic Inertia and Red Tape
Complex procedures, bureaucratic delays, and a lack of accountability contribute to a culture of impunity. The slow pace of investigations and prosecutions allows corrupt practices to continue unchecked.
Limited Use of Technology
While some progress has been made in using technology for e-governance, its potential for preventing and detecting corruption remains largely untapped. Digitalization of records, online monitoring of projects, and data analytics can significantly enhance transparency and accountability.
Recent Developments and Efforts
The government has taken some steps to address corruption, including:
- Strengthening the CVC: Expanding its powers and mandate.
- Operationalizing the Lokpal: Appointing the Lokpal and Lokayuktas.
- Promoting Digital Governance: Implementing initiatives like Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) to reduce leakages and improve transparency.
- Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016: Aimed at curbing illicit wealth accumulation.
However, these efforts are often insufficient to overcome the systemic challenges.
| Law/Institution | Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|---|
| Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | Defines corruption, provides penalties | Low conviction rates, procedural delays |
| CVC | Apex body for vigilance, advisory role | Limited powers, susceptible to political influence |
| Lokpal Act, 2013 | Independent ombudsman for investigating corruption | Slow operationalization, limited jurisdiction |
Conclusion
The ‘policy of non-action’ regarding corruption in Indian administration is not a deliberate strategy but a consequence of systemic weaknesses, political interference, and inadequate enforcement. While a robust legal and institutional framework exists, its effectiveness is severely hampered by these factors. Addressing corruption requires a multi-pronged approach, including strengthening the autonomy of investigative agencies, ensuring swift and impartial justice, protecting whistleblowers, promoting transparency through digitalization, and fostering a culture of accountability. A sustained commitment to systemic reforms and political will are crucial to break the cycle of corruption and build a more ethical and efficient administration.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.