Administrative Deviance in Civil Services in India Corruption and Nepotism
Administrative Deviance in Civil Services in India: Corruption and Nepotism
What is Administrative Deviance?
Administrative deviance refers to any conduct by civil servants that deviates from the norms, rules, and ethical standards expected in public administration. Such behavior undermines efficiency, transparency, and integrity in governance.
Two major forms of administrative deviance in India’s civil services are:
Corruption
Nepotism
1. Corruption in Civil Services
Meaning:
Corruption involves misuse of official power for personal gain. It includes bribery, embezzlement, favoritism in awarding contracts, kickbacks, misuse of confidential information, and other dishonest conduct.
Causes:
Lack of transparency
Inadequate accountability mechanisms
Low salaries and poor working conditions
Complex and discretionary powers of officials
Political interference
Effects:
Loss of public trust
Inefficient public services
Wastage of resources
Hindered development and governance
2. Nepotism in Civil Services
Meaning:
Nepotism is favoritism shown by officials towards relatives or close associates in appointments, promotions, and other benefits.
Effects:
Erosion of meritocracy
Demoralization of honest officers
Promotion of incompetence
Corruption and misuse of power
Legal and Judicial Control over Administrative Deviance
Indian judiciary has played a proactive role in curbing corruption and nepotism by interpreting laws strictly and imposing penalties through judicial pronouncements.
Important Case Laws on Corruption and Nepotism in Civil Services
1. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) — The Judges’ Transfer Case
Facts: Allegations of nepotism and political interference in the appointment and transfer of judges and civil servants.
Held: The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to ensure transparency and impartiality in appointments and transfers.
Significance: Established judicial review over administrative decisions in appointments to prevent nepotism and favoritism.
Principle: Appointments and transfers must be fair, impartial, and based on merit to prevent administrative deviance.
2. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991)
Facts: K. Veeraswami, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, was accused of corruption and abuse of office.
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized strict action against corrupt public officials and upheld the powers of Central Vigilance Commission.
Principle: The judiciary reaffirmed that corruption in civil services will not be tolerated and violators must be prosecuted.
3. V.C. Shukla v. Union of India (1980)
Facts: V.C. Shukla, a Union Minister, was accused of misuse of official position.
Held: The Supreme Court reiterated that public officials must maintain integrity and misuse of office for personal gain is punishable.
Significance: Reinforced that corruption is a serious violation of public trust.
4. State of Haryana v. Chander Sen (1969)
Facts: A government servant was alleged to have granted undue favors to relatives (nepotism).
Held: The Supreme Court ruled that nepotism amounts to a violation of service rules and disciplinary action is justified.
Principle: Favoritism towards relatives or friends is administrative deviance and punishable.
5. In Re: Special Courts Bill (1993)
Facts: Public concern over delay in corruption trials led to the enactment of special courts for speedy trial.
Held: Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of special courts for corruption cases, emphasizing the need for effective legal machinery to combat corruption.
Significance: Demonstrated judiciary’s support for measures against administrative corruption.
Detailed Explanation of Some Key Cases
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Background: Alleged political interference in judicial appointments and transfers highlighted corruption and nepotism in administration.
Outcome: Court prescribed guidelines to restrict arbitrary executive actions.
Impact: This case brought transparency and accountability in appointments, reducing nepotistic practices.
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991)
Background: Veeraswami was accused of accepting bribes and abusing official power.
Judgment: Court allowed investigation by CBI and emphasized no immunity for corrupt politicians or officials.
Impact: Strengthened anti-corruption mechanisms and judicial oversight over civil servants.
State of Haryana v. Chander Sen (1969)
Background: An official favored his relatives in service matters.
Ruling: Court held that nepotism breaches public service principles and is grounds for disciplinary action.
Importance: Affirmed that merit and fairness must prevail in civil service conduct.
V.C. Shukla v. Union of India (1980)
Background: Misuse of ministerial office for personal gain.
Judgment: The court held that misuse of power is corruption and breach of trust.
Significance: Set a precedent for punishing corrupt behavior in public office.
In Re: Special Courts Bill (1993)
Background: Corruption cases were delayed, undermining justice.
Judgment: Special courts for corruption cases were upheld.
Result: Enabled speedy trial and deterrence against corrupt practices in civil service.
Conclusion
Administrative deviance in civil services, mainly corruption and nepotism, poses a major threat to governance and public trust.
The Indian judiciary has played a critical role in curbing these evils by interpreting laws strictly, emphasizing transparency, and ensuring accountability.
Several landmark judgments reflect the zero tolerance policy of courts towards corruption and nepotism.
Effective enforcement of service rules, vigilance, and judicial scrutiny remains essential to eradicate administrative deviance.
RELATED Blog
0 comments