Corruption
RAS Mains, Paper II, Unit I, point 7: "Ethical concerns, dilemmas and challenges in administration"
- Updated for the Jan 2026 syllabus
- Read time: about 16 minutes
Exam weight (our count from the real 2018-2024 papers)
0 questions by name (out of 52). Nearest: 2024 Part B Q6 (integrity and objectivity). Corruption also appears by name in Paper I Unit III Part A (Sociology: "Challenges and issues before Indian society: dowry, divorce, corruption..."), and Lokpal and Lokayukta sit in Paper III Unit II. In 2021 Paper I asked "Define political corruption." (2 marks) and in 2024 Paper III asked the procedure for removing the Central Vigilance Commissioner (2 marks) (per our question bank). So the institutions part of this page has double use. This is our count, not RPSC information.
30-second summary
Remember
- Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain (Transparency International). Bribery is one form; nepotism and misuse of office are others.
- In the Corruption Perceptions Index 2025 India scored 39 out of 100 and ranked 91st of 182 countries (Transparency International). This measures perception, not a counted fact.
- Causes: monopoly and discretion with too little accountability (Klitgaard's formula), slow enforcement, social tolerance, election money.
- The ethical wrong: integrity and impartiality break, the poor carry the burden, public trust falls. The legal wrong is only part of it.
- Fixes work at four levels: law (the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, amended 2018), institutions (CVC, Lokpal, Lokayukta, ACB), transparency (RTI) and ethical culture (codes, training, example).
Part A box (each line 15 words or fewer)
Remember
- Question: Define corruption.
- Answer: Abuse of entrusted power for private gain (Transparency International). (9 words)
- Ready line 2: The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 punishes taking bribes and, since 2018, giving them. (14 words)
- Ready line 3: Fixes: law, institutions like CVC and Lokpal, RTI, audit and ethical training. (12 words)
1. Meaning and forms
Definition: "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain" (Transparency International). Its examples: public servants demanding money or favours for services, politicians giving contracts and jobs to allies and family, and companies bribing officials for favourable deals.
In the law's words: the Prevention of Corruption Act uses the phrase "undue advantage"; it need not be cash, any advantage counts.
Forms (our categories): petty ("speed money"); grand (in contracts and policy); systemic (when dishonesty becomes part of the system). Also the "demand side" (the official asks) and the "supply side" (the citizen or company gives). Since the 2018 amendment the supply side is also an offence.
2. Causes (our grouping)
| Group | Causes |
|---|---|
| Opportunity | Monopoly, wide discretion, weak accountability (Klitgaard, 1988: corruption = monopoly + discretion - accountability; a simplified formula that has drawn criticism) |
| Enforcement | Slow investigations and trials, weak monitoring, complicated prosecution approvals |
| Economic | Scarcity of goods and services, complex licensing, cash dealings; low pay is also cited, but the evidence is mixed |
| Political | Election spending and the need for funds |
| Social | "Everyone pays", a gifting culture, respect for wealth, fear of complaining |
| Organisational | Weak audit, transfers and postings used as reward or punishment, poor example from the top |
| Personal | Greed and the habit of excusing oneself ("just this once") |
3. The ethical dimension
Duty and trust: office is a public trust, not private property. A bribe-taker treats the office as a means (Kant's duty lens).
Fairness and equality: the one who pays is served first; the one who cannot pay waits. The spirit of equality under Article 14 breaks. CCS Conduct Rule 3(1)(i): "absolute integrity"; Rule 3(1)(xv): no misuse of position.
Consequences (utilitarian lens): leakage of welfare money, poor construction, delayed services; the poor are hurt most.
Virtue (Aristotle): greed grows through many small compromises; integrity is a habit built the same way.
The Gita: attachment to the fruit is the root of the bribe; nishkama karma is the ethical answer (page 4.2).
Old warnings: Kautilya (Shamasastry's translation): "Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey or the poison that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up, at least, a bit of the king's revenue." So watchfulness must be permanent (page 6.15). Lord Acton (5 April 1887): "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
4. Legal and institutional framework
(where "secondary source" is written, the text comes from a reliable summary rather than the Act itself)
(a) The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Amendment Act of 2018, No. 16; in force 26 July 2018)
| Section | Main point |
|---|---|
| Section 7 | A public servant obtaining an "undue advantage"; imprisonment of 3 to 7 years and a fine. It is an offence even if the public duty is not performed improperly |
| Section 8 | Giving or promising an undue advantage; up to 7 years or a fine. Exception: a person compelled to give it who reports the matter to a law-enforcement agency within seven days |
| Section 9 | A commercial organisation is liable to a fine if a person associated with it gives an undue advantage to obtain or retain business; defence: "adequate procedures" to prevent bribery |
| Section 10 | Liability of persons in charge (directors, managers) who consent to or connive in the offence |
| Section 13 | Criminal misconduct, narrower after 2018: dishonest or fraudulent misappropriation of entrusted property and illicit enrichment (secondary source) |
| Section 17A | Prior approval of the competent authority before any enquiry or investigation into a recommendation or decision made in discharge of official functions; no approval needed for arrest on the spot; decision in three months (extendable by one month) |
| Trials | Target of two years, up to four with recorded reasons (secondary source) |
An open question (Section 17A): on 14 January 2026 a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court (Justice Nagarathna and Justice Viswanathan) delivered a split verdict. Justice Viswanathan upheld the section, on condition that approval is recommended by the Lokpal or Lokayukta; Justice Nagarathna struck it down as violating Article 14. The matter was sent to the Chief Justice for a larger bench. (Law status changes: check the latest official text.) Background: in Vineet Narain (18 December 1997) the "Single Directive" was struck down and statutory status for the CVC was directed; in Subramanian Swamy (6 May 2014) Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was struck down. The 17A debate is about the same balance between "prior approval" and "independent investigation".
(b) Institutions
| Body | Main points |
|---|---|
| Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) | Set up in 1964 on the recommendation of the Santhanam Committee; statutory under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003. Essentially advisory. The Vineet Narain (1997) direction lies behind it |
| Lokpal | Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (assent 1 January 2014; in force 16 January 2014); one chairperson and up to eight members; first chairperson Justice P. C. Ghose, appointed 19 March 2019 and sworn in on 23 March 2019 |
| Lokayukta | States are to set up their own within one year (per the 2013 Act). Rajasthan: the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1973 (Act No. 9 of 1973; the President's assent 26 March 1973; the copy on PRS includes the 2019 amendment) |
| Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Rajasthan | The state bureau that investigates corruption by employees and runs trap operations |
(c) Transparency
Right to Information Act, 2005: President's assent 15 June 2005; fully in force from 12 October 2005; reply normally within 30 days, 48 hours where life or liberty is involved; penalty Rs 250 a day up to Rs 25,000 for delay. Section 4: proactive disclosure.
A new turn: Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 changed RTI Section 8(1)(j) (in force from November 2025, secondary source). On 16 February 2026 the Supreme Court declined to stay it and referred the challenges to a larger bench; no stay had been granted as of the reported 7 August 2026 hearing (the matter is pending). The matter is live. Law status changes: check the latest official text.
Rajasthan: the Rajasthan Guaranteed Delivery of Public Services Act, 2011 (in force from November 2011; sources give 14 or 15 November, so write only "November 2011"; secondary source) and the Jan Soochna Portal (13 September 2019, secondary source); page 3.5.
(d) Conduct base: CCS Conduct Rules 3(1)(i) absolute integrity, (vi) high ethical standards and honesty, (xv) no misuse of position. Duty of the supervising officer: Rule 3(2)(i), to take all possible steps to ensure the integrity of those under his control.
5. Fixes: a balanced list
Prevent: cut monopoly (alternatives and digital services), cut discretion (clear rules, time limits, standard procedures), raise transparency (RTI, proactive disclosure, social audit).
Detect: audit, vigilance, protection of whistleblowers (page 7.4), data-based risk flags.
Punish: speedy trials, attachment of assets, and certainty of punishment: certainty works more than severity (our opinion).
Ethical culture: a code of ethics, training, declaration of interests (page 7.2), leaders' example, protection of honest officers.
Citizens: refuse to pay, complain, and watch locally. Note that since 2018 giving a bribe is also an offence.
Santhanam Committee (1964)
the committee on the prevention of corruption; the CVC was set up on its recommendation. Its remark is on page 3.2: the lack of moral earnestness is perhaps the greatest single factor hampering strong traditions of integrity.
Satyendra Dubey (November 2003) and the PIDPI Resolution (April 2004)
detail on page 7.4.
How to use in an answer
definition → one causal formula (Klitgaard) → the ethical side (duty, fairness, consequences) → law and institutions (PC Act 2018, Lokpal, CVC, RTI) → one real example (Vineet Narain or MKSS) → "law plus ethical culture".
Thinkers and quotes box
| Name | Idea | Usable line |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency International | Definition of corruption | "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain" |
| Kautilya, Arthashastra (Shamasastry's translation, Book II) | The honey and poison image | "Just as it is impossible not to taste the honey or the poison that finds itself at the tip of the tongue, so it is impossible for a government servant not to eat up, at least, a bit of the king's revenue." |
| Lord Acton (letter to Bishop Creighton, 5 April 1887) | Power and corruption | "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." |
| Santhanam Committee (1964) | Moral earnestness | "The lack of moral earnestness... is perhaps the greatest single factor which hampers the growth of strong traditions of integrity and efficiency." (quoted in the 2nd ARC Fourth Report) |
| Mahatma Gandhi (published, Young India, 22 October 1925) | The seven social sins | "Wealth without work", "Commerce without morality" (from the list as quoted by the 2nd ARC) |
Diagram: the opportunity formula and the fixes
Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion - Accountability (Klitgaard, 1988)
Top strip (orange)
Three arrows down, three columns
Cut monopoly
Column 1 (blue) : alternatives, digital services, competition
Cut discretion
Column 2 (blue) : clear rules, time limits, standard procedures
Raise accountability
Column 3 (green) : audit, RTI, Lokpal and Lokayukta, CVC, social audit, PC Act
Ethical culture: code, training, declaration of interests, leaders' example, protection of whistleblowers
Bottom strip (navy)
No question by name (2018, 2021, 2023, 2024, Paper II Unit I).
In other units (per our question bank; the syllabus also lists corruption in Paper I Unit III Part A):
2024, Paper III, Q2 (2 marks): the procedure for removing the Central Vigilance Commissioner.
How the concept was asked before: not found in Paper II Unit I; see the other-unit list above (a 2-mark definition in 2021 and a 10-mark question on integrity measures in 2018). Our prediction (not RPSC information): a definition or the law in Part A, and "ethical side and fixes" in Part B.
Common mistakes
Remember
- Listing laws only; leaving out the ethical side (trust, fairness, the burden on the poor) and culture.
- Writing the old position: since 2018 giving a bribe is also an offence and Section 17A adds prior approval; the Lokpal became active in 2019, not merely by enactment.
- Quoting numbers with no source, or not calling the index a measure of perception.
Self-check (5 questions)
Remember
- Define corruption.
- State two big changes made by the 2018 amendment.
- What is Klitgaard's formula?
- Give one difference each between CVC, Lokpal and ACB.
- Write a one-line statement of MKSS's role behind RTI.
Worked examples (documented, with year)
Case studyVineet Narain v Union of India, 18 December 1997
on the stalled Jain hawala investigation, the Supreme Court struck down the "Single Directive" (prior permission to investigate senior officers), directed statutory status for the CVC, and kept supervising the case.
Lesson
independence of investigation is part of the rule of law.
Case studyMazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS), Rajasthan: formed 1 May 1990; a 40-day dharna at Beawar in 1996
at public hearings (jan sunwai) official expenditure records were read out to villagers, exposing irregularities in wages and works; the movement gave force to the demand for the right to information.
Lesson
transparency is the cheapest medicine against corruption (source: Wikipedia, MKSS).
Mini case study
Illustrative exampleHypothetical case (काल्पनिक केस)
Tehsildar Leela learns that a widow's land-mutation (namantaran) application has been stuck for four months. When asked, the widow says that Ramesh, the tehsil reader, demanded Rs 2,000 as "expenses" and, when she refused, said "the file is lost". Ramesh tells Leela, "Madam, everyone does this; you are new." A senior clerk advises, "Let it go; just get him transferred."
- Stakeholders
- the widow applicant, reader Ramesh, Tehsildar Leela, other applicants who quietly pay, the tehsil staff, the Sub-Divisional Officer and Collector, the ACB, and the public.
- Issue and clashing values
- integrity, fairness, justice and public service against loyalty to staff, "everyone does it" and the fear of conflict. It is "truth versus loyalty".
- Three options
- (a) Get Ramesh transferred and close the matter. Pro: quick, no trouble. Con: the corruption stays and moves elsewhere; no evidence, no accountability. (b) Give an oral warning and let it go. Pro: harmony with staff. Con: wrong message; the habit continues; a lapse in the supervisor's duty (Rule 3(2)(i)). (c) First get the widow's mutation done at once by the rules; take her statement in writing, taking care that she faces no pressure; verify the facts (file movement records, dates); send a written report to her superior (SDM or Collector) and seek advice on the competent vigilance or ACB route; disciplinary action against the reader under the service rules on the superior's direction. Pro: justice, evidence and a message together. Con: tension in the staff, time, risk of retaliation, colleagues' displeasure.
- Best option and supporting value
- option (c). Support: integrity and accountability; CCS Conduct Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(2)(i) (central rules; the Rajasthan conduct rules carry the same spirit); relief to the victim first.
Lesson
Action: Short term: mutation for the widow at once, written statement, fact verification, written report upward, a request for protection for the victim and herself. Long term: a public notice board and online tracking of application status and time limits, adherence to the guaranteed service period, a complaint number for applicants, and an ethics meeting with the staff.
Practice Questions
Practice questionabout 50 words
State two ethical harms of corruption.
Model answer
Corruption breaks impartiality: whoever pays is served first, while the poor, who cannot pay, lose the equality promised by Article 14. It also destroys public trust and diverts welfare money, so the weak suffer most. An ethical administrator treats office as a public trust, not as private property.
Practice questionabout 100 words
Corruption is not only a legal but an ethical failure. Discuss and suggest measures.
Model answer
Corruption is illegal, but its deeper wrong is ethical: it turns public trust into private property, defeats equal treatment and burdens the poor most. Klitgaard's formula, monopoly plus discretion minus accountability, explains the opportunity. Law helps: the Prevention of Corruption Act as amended in 2018 punishes bribe-giving too (Section 8); the Lokpal, Lokayuktas and CVC investigate; RTI exposes, as MKSS showed at Beawar in 1996. Yet laws need integrity beside them: ethics training, digital services, audit, whistleblower protection, safety for honest officers and leaders' example. Remember Kautilya's honey and poison: vigilance must be permanent.
Real PYQs
2024NearestPaper II, Part B, Q65 marks
Does administrative objectivity necessarily presuppose administrative integrity? (page 3.2)
2021Paper I, Unit III Part A (Sociology), Q42 marks
Define political corruption.
2018Paper III, Unit II, Q1310 marks
Explain the measures taken to enhance the integrity in administration in India.
2018Paper III, Unit II, Q105 marks
Which posts and persons have been exempted from the jurisdiction of Lokayukta in Rajasthan?
2018Paper III, Q32 marks
Can the Chief Vigilance Commission investigate a case against anybody?
How to Write This Answer
Introduction
definition, legal against ethical
Body
- causal formula, ethical harms, law and institutions, transparency
Conclusion
law plus culture
Value addition
- Kautilya's honey and poison, Acton, MKSS
One-page Revision
- Corruption = abuse of entrusted power for private gain (TI)
- CPI 2025: 39 points, 91/182 (perception)
- Klitgaard 1988: monopoly + discretion - accountability
- PC Act 1988, Amendment 2018 (16): S.7 (3 to 7 years), S.8 (giving is an offence; 7-day exception), S.9, S.10, S.17A (prior approval; split verdict 14.1.2026, larger bench)
- Vineet Narain 18.12.1997
- Subramanian Swamy 6.5.2014 (S.6A struck down)
- CVC 1964, statutory 2003
- Lokpal Act 2013 (1.1.2014; in force 16.1.2014), first chairperson: appointed 19.3.2019, sworn in 23.3.2019
- Rajasthan Lokayukta Act 1973 (No. 9)
- RTI 2005 (15.6.2005; in force 12.10.2005)
- MKSS 1.5.1990, Beawar 1996
- Kautilya's honey and poison
- Acton 1887
- Case: Tehsildar Leela, reader Ramesh, written report and ACB route.