Impartiality
RAS Mains, Paper II, Unit I, point 3: "philosophical basis of integrity, impartiality and non-partisanship" (this page covers impartiality)
- Updated for the Jan 2026 syllabus
- Read time: about 10 minutes
Exam weight (our count from the real 2018-2024 papers)
No question has used the word "impartiality". The nearest are 2024 Part B Q8 ("Do you think that administrative decisions are free of political bias?", 5 marks) and 2018 Part B Q10 (political neutrality; see page 3.4). The new syllabus asks for the "philosophical basis", so we expect the theme to rise (our guess, not RPSC information).
30-second summary
Remember
- Impartiality means like cases treated alike, and decisions made only on relevant grounds: merit, law, evidence, need.
- It does not mean identical treatment. Where a relevant difference exists, proportionate different treatment can be just.
- Philosophical roots: Rawls's veil of ignorance, Kant's universal rule and the Gita's equal vision.
- Safeguards: the rule against being a judge in your own cause, declaring interests, public criteria and written reasons.
- The big pressures are political interference, the threat of transfer, and unconscious bias.
Part A box (each line 15 words or fewer)
Remember
- Question: Define impartiality.
- Answer: Impartiality is deciding on merit and law, treating like cases alike, without favour or prejudice. (15 words)
- Ready line 2: Impartiality is fairness in decisions; neutrality is not taking sides while loyal to the Constitution. (15 words)
- Ready line 3: Nemo judex in causa sua means no one should judge their own cause. (13 words)
1. Meaning
Impartiality has two parts: (a) like cases get like treatment; (b) only relevant reasons enter the decision, namely merit, law, evidence and need. Caste, religion, contacts, party, wealth, region or gender are irrelevant grounds and stay out.
2. Impartial does not mean "the same for all"
Treating everyone with one yardstick is not equality. Where there is a relevant difference (a disabled citizen's access needs, or constitutional reservation), treatment in proportion to the difference is just. Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 16(1) (equality of opportunity in public employment) are the roots (check the wording in the text of the Constitution). The 2x2 diagram below shows the four cases.
3. Forms of partiality
nepotism; prejudice (caste, religion, gender); political pressure; bias created by gifts or favours; confirmation bias (looking for facts that fit an opinion already held) and unconscious bias.
4. Related terms
| Term | Core idea |
|---|---|
| Impartiality (निष्पक्षता) | Fairness in the decision itself |
| Non-partisanship (गैर-पक्षपात) | No attachment to a political party (page 3.4) |
| Neutrality (तटस्थता) | Not taking sides, while serving the Constitution |
| Objectivity (वस्तुनिष्ठता) | Deciding on evidence |
5. Philosophical basis (the syllabus asks for it)
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971): the "veil of ignorance". Decide as if you did not know which place in society you would hold, and you will choose rules fair to all. (Source: Wikipedia, "Veil of ignorance".)
Kant: act only on a rule that could apply equally to everyone.
Gita 2.48 (samatva): equanimity toward success and failure is called yoga. Gita 5.18: the learned see with equal vision a Brahmin, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater.
Nolan "Objectivity": office-holders must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias (current gov.uk wording).
6. Service rules
Rule 3(1)(viii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 asks officers to "promote the principles of merit, fairness and impartiality in the discharge of duties". Rule 3(1A)(iii) of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 says the same in substance.
7. Two pillars of natural justice (standard legal knowledge)
(a) nemo judex in causa sua, the rule against bias; (b) audi alteram partem, hear the other side too. Record reasons in writing.
8. Reasoning for the real question: are administrative decisions free of political bias?
(Our argument.)
The ideal: the Constitution and service rules aim to keep decisions free of party interest.
The reality: the 2nd ARC (January 2007), Chapter 9, quoted the Fifth Pay Commission's view that the instrument of transfer is widely misused, "particularly by politicians in power", and also as punishment (para 9.7), and itself recommended against such misuse (para 9.11). So "entirely free" would be too strong.
The remedies: minimum tenure, written reasons for transfers, Civil Services Boards, written instructions, and public criteria.
Worked examples (documented, with year)
A.K. Kraipak v Union of India (decided 29 April 1969; AIR 1970 SC 150; (1969) 2 SCC 262)
the Acting Chief Conservator of Forests of Jammu and Kashmir (Naqishbund) sat on the selection board for the Indian Forest Service and was also a candidate. He stayed out when his own name came up but took part in considering the others and in the final list. The Supreme Court quashed the selections. The test: actual bias need not be proved; the question is whether there is reasonable ground for believing he was likely to have been biased. A second landmark point: natural justice applies to administrative action, not only to judicial or quasi-judicial acts.
Source: the judgment text (Indian Kanoon).
T.S.R. Subramanian v Union of India (31 October 2013)
the Supreme Court directed Civil Services Boards (headed by the Cabinet Secretary at the Centre and chief secretaries in the states) for transfers and postings of All India Services officers, fixed tenure, and written rather than oral instructions.
Source: Wikipedia, "T. S. R. Subramanian v. Union of India".
2nd ARC Fourth Report, January 2007, Chapter 9.
a normal minimum posting tenure of three to five years (two to three years for sensitive posts), and no use of transfer as punishment (paras 9.9 and 9.11; read in the report text).
How to use in an answer
concept, then a Rawls or Nolan line, then Kraipak (rule against practice), then the ARC and the 2013 judgment (remedies).
Thinkers and quotes box
| Name | Idea | Usable line |
|---|---|---|
| John Rawls (1971) | Veil of ignorance | Choose rules without knowing your own place in society (the idea; not a verbatim quote) |
| Nolan (current wording) | Objectivity | "Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias." |
| Gita 5.18 | Equal vision | The learned see all beings with equal vision (translation-based) |
Diagram: 2x2
Is there a relevant difference?
Rows: (Yes / No). Columns: (Yes / No).
Was treatment different?
Impartial
No difference, same treatment
Partial (nepotism, prejudice)
No difference, different treatment
Just distinction (reservation, need)
Difference, proportionate different treatment
Unjust (need ignored)
Difference, same treatment
How the concept was asked before: nothing carries the word impartiality. The politics-and-administration angle came in 2018 and 2024, six years apart, in different words.
Common mistakes
Remember
- Writing impartiality as "same treatment for all" and forgetting relevant differences and constitutional distinctions.
- In the "political bias" question, writing only the ideal or only blaming politicians; give both sides and remedies.
- Using impartiality, neutrality and non-partisanship as one word.
Self-check (5 questions)
Remember
- What are the two parts of impartiality?
- What is Rawls's veil of ignorance?
- Why were the selections quashed in Kraipak?
- Name two directions in the 2013 Subramanian judgment.
- Name the four boxes of the 2x2 diagram.
Mini case study
Illustrative exampleHypothetical case (काल्पनिक केस)
Sunita is a Block Development Officer. Reviewing flood-relief lists, she notices that field staff clear applications first from villages where the locally dominant community lives. Sunita belongs to that community herself. Local leaders say, "Look after your own people first."
- Stakeholders
- Sunita, field staff, affected families of every community, local leaders, the district administration, the state government.
- Issue and clashing values
- impartiality, justice and equity against community loyalty and local pressure.
- Three options
- (a) Change nothing and let the help continue for her own community. Pro: peace. Con: open discrimination; deprived families left in distress. (b) Order that all applications be cleared strictly in order of arrival. Pro: simple and looks fair. Con: the worst-hit may wait behind others. (c) Set public criteria of severity of loss, prioritise by them, publish the lists and open a complaint window. Pro: impartial and also just. Con: time, and local resistance.
- Best option and supporting value
- option (c). Values: impartiality (relevant ground: loss and need), transparency and social justice.
Lesson
Action: Short term: tell her superior in writing that she belongs to the dominant community and have the lists checked by another officer; fix the criteria and issue a priority list at once, publish village-wise lists, open a complaint register. Long term: check the data on which groups' applications were delayed, rotate field staff periodically, and train staff in sensitivity.
Practice Questions
Practice questionabout 50 words
Do you think that administrative decisions are free of political bias?
Model answer
Not entirely. The Constitution and Conduct Rules aim to keep decisions free of party interest, yet the 2nd ARC recorded complaints of political misuse of transfers. The 2013 Subramanian judgment ordered fixed tenure and written instructions. Public criteria, recorded reasons and independent boards can narrow the gap between ideal and practice.
Practice questionabout 100 words
"Impartiality does not mean treating everyone alike." Discuss.
Model answer
Impartiality means like cases alike and relevant differences treated in proportion. A disabled citizen needs access and a disaster victim needs priority; that respects a relevant difference and is not partiality. Rawls's veil of ignorance supplies the test: choose a rule you would accept without knowing your own position. Articles 14 and 16(1) lay the foundation, and Conduct Rule 3(1)(viii) demands impartiality. Kraipak (1969) shows that even a reasonable likelihood of bias can sink a decision. Criteria must therefore be relevant, public and backed by recorded reasons, so that differential treatment can never become a cover for favour.
Real PYQs
2024Paper II, Part B5 marks
Do you think that administrative decisions are free of political bias? Answer line: ideal (Constitution, rules) → reality (transfer pressure) → remedies (the 2013 judgment, transparency) → balanced close. (See page 3.4 for the neutrality angle too.)
2018Closely relatedPaper II, Part B5 marks
Political neutrality brings better administration. Discuss. (full answer on page 3.4).
How to Write This Answer
Introduction
definition + the "alike" myth
Body
- relevant difference, Rawls, rules, Kraipak
Conclusion
public criteria
Value addition
- Gita's samatva, Nolan
One-page Revision
- Impartiality = like cases alike + relevant grounds
- not "same for all", but in proportion
- Rawls 1971 veil of ignorance
- Kant universal rule
- Gita 2.48 samatva, 5.18 equal vision
- Nolan Objectivity
- CCS Rule 3(1)(viii), AIS 3(1A)(iii)
- Articles 14, 16(1)
- natural justice: nemo judex, audi alteram partem
- Kraipak 29.4.1969 (AIR 1970 SC 150)
- Subramanian 31.10.2013
- 2nd ARC Jan 2007 Ch. 9 (tenure 3 to 5 years)
- 2024 Q8: ideal vs reality
- Case: BDO Sunita, relevant criteria plus public lists.