GS Paper II 2016 · Q12
12½ marks · 200 words Governance, transparency & e-governance X-Ray · Core #66In the integrity index of Transparency International, India stands very low. Discuss briefly the legal, political, economic, social and cultural factors that have caused the decline of public morality in India.
Approach · directive: “discuss briefly”
What it asks · Explain, under each of the five headings asked (legal, political, economic, social, cultural), why corruption and low public morality persist in India.
It asks 2 things — answer each
- Set the context: India's low standing on Transparency International's index
- Discuss briefly the legal, political, economic, social and cultural factors behind the decline of public morality in India, under each head, with a way forward
Open with · Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index 2015 placed India 76th of 168 countries with a score of 38 (CPI 2025: 91st of 182, score 39); the Santhanam Committee had long blamed a lack of moral earnestness.
Cover
- Legal: slow trials, low convictions and delayed sanction blunt the Prevention of Corruption Act; the Lokpal Act 2013 and Whistle Blowers Act 2014 (yet to be brought into force) awaited implementation.
- Political: the Vohra Committee (1993) exposed a criminal-political-official nexus; opaque private funding of elections, and the Indrajit Gupta Committee's case for partial state funding in kind.
- Economic: discretion over licences, land, mining and procurement creates rents; black money and low pay at the cutting edge make bribes routine.
- Visual: a flowchart of the cycle from costly elections to public cynicism.
- Social: tolerance of 'speed money' and caste and kinship loyalties in appointments and contracts.
- Cultural: private loyalty over public duty, deference to power and status-seeking consumerism.
- Way forward: the 2nd ARC's Ethics in Governance (2007) on a code of ethics for civil servants and cleaner political funding; less discretion through e-procurement and online approvals.
Close with · SDG target 16.5 commits India to substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms, which needs laws that convict and a civic culture that refuses to pay.
Add value (verified)
- Since then: Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index 2025 scores India 39 out of 100 and ranks it 91st of 182 countries.Transparency International, India country page (Corruption Perceptions Index 2025) ↗“India has a score of 39 this year, with a change of 1 since last year, meaning it ranks 91 out of 182 countries.”
- Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index 2015 placed India 76th of 168 countries, up from 85th, with a score of 38 out of 100 (newspaper report).India 76th in global corruption index - The Assam Tribune (newspaper report on TI's CPI 2015; transparency.org carries only the current index) ↗“India is placed at 76th position, along with Thailand, Brazil, Tunisia, Zambia and Burkina Faso out of 168 countries. India has improved its past year's position of 85 and has a grade index score of 38 out of a possible 100”
- The 2nd ARC's Ethics in Governance report, in its section on a Code of Ethics for Civil Servants, cites the Santhanam Committee (1964): the lack of moral earnestness is the greatest single factor hampering traditions of integrity and efficiency.Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 4th Report: Ethics in Governance (web.archive.org copy of the DARPG PDF; darpg.gov.in did not load) ↗“Code of Ethics for Civil Servants 2.7.1 The Committee on Prevention of Corruption ('Santhanam Committee'-1964) had remarked: ... The lack of moral earnestness, which has been a conspicuous feature of recent years, is perhaps the greatest single factor which hampers the growth of strong traditions of integrity and efficiency”
- The N.N. Vohra Committee (1993) revealed a nexus between economic offenders, politicians and government functionaries.Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 4th Report: Ethics in Governance (web.archive.org copy of the DARPG PDF; darpg.gov.in did not load) ↗“In 1993, the N.N. Vohra Committee had revealed the powerful nexus between those who violated the economic laws, politicians and government functionaries, which resulted in protection of large-scale economic crimes”
- The Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections recommended partial state funding, mainly in kind.Second Administrative Reforms Commission, 4th Report: Ethics in Governance (web.archive.org copy of the DARPG PDF; darpg.gov.in did not load) ↗“Another Committee, the Indrajit Gupta Committee on State Funding of Elections has recommended partial state-funding mainly in kind”
- SDG target 16.5 aims to substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.Goal 16 targets - United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs (sdgs.un.org) ↗“Target 16.5 Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms Indicators 16.5.1 Proportion of persons who”
- The Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 was notified on 12 May 2014 but required amendments before it could be brought into force; the 2015 amendment Bill was pending in the Rajya Sabha (PIB, 2018 reply).PIB (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions), 'Delay in operationalising Whistle Blowers Protection Act', 2 August 2018 ↗“As the Act required amendments aimed at safeguarding against disclosures affecting sovereignty and integrity of India, Security of the State, etc., before it is brought into force”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2016, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 299words · Minimalist IAS
Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index 2015 placed India 76th of 168 countries (as first published), with a score of just 38 out of 100. Since then, CPI 2025 ranks it 91st of 182 (score 39). As early as 1964, the Santhanam Committee blamed 'the lack of moral earnestness' for hampering 'strong traditions of integrity and efficiency'. Its causes run through five domains.
Legal factors
- Weak deterrence: slow trials, low convictions and delayed sanction to prosecute blunt the Prevention of Corruption Act.
- Laws on paper: the Lokpal Act 2013 and the Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014 (yet to be brought into force) still awaited effective implementation.
Political factors
- Criminal–political nexus: the Vohra Committee (1993) exposed links between economic offenders, politicians and officials.
- Opaque election funding: parties run on private donations; the Indrajit Gupta Committee proposed partial state funding, mainly in kind.
Economic factors
- Rents from discretion: control over licences, land, mining and procurement lets officials price permissions.
- Black money and low pay: cash dealings and poorly paid cutting-edge staff make bribes routine.
- Costly elections
- Illicit funding
- Policy favours and rents
- Bribery normalised
- Public cynicism
Social factors
- Tolerance of 'speed money': citizens pay petty bribes to save time and rarely complain.
- Kinship networks: caste and family loyalties shape appointments and contracts.
Cultural factors
- Private loyalty over public duty: deference to power and status-seeking consumerism turn office into privilege, not public trust.
Way forward
- Ethics with enforcement: the 2nd ARC's Ethics in Governance (2007) urged a code of ethics for civil servants and cleaner political funding.
- Less discretion: e-procurement and online approvals cut the contact points for bribes.
India is committed to SDG target 16.5: 'Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms'. That needs laws that convict and a civic culture, from family to civil service, that refuses to pay.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
