Abstract

This chapter presents an overview of specific significant issues in public administration: Values in Public Service, Regulatory Commissions in India, National Human Rights Commission, and Administration Problems in India. Public administration involves not only enforcing laws or implementing policies but also maintaining ethical integrity, impartiality, and commitment to the public good or welfare. In India, public service is guided by values such as integrity, impartiality, and respect for the law. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) works to protect human rights, focusing on issues such as arbitrary arrest and discrimination. Regulatory commissions play a crucial role in ensuring fair competition and consumer protection in specific sectors, and by curbing bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption, efficient and equitable public administration is ensured through transparency, accountability, and participation.

Keywords: Significant, Commitment, Impartiality, Arbitrary, Discrimination, Competition, Crucial, Ensuring, Integrity, Curbing. 

Values in the Public Service

Introduction

Public services constitute an essential part of the democratic framework for implementing government policy. They must be honest, efficient, and citizen-friendly. Public service organisations operate in environments subject to regular change and are replete with competing demands and obligations. In an environment of uncertainties, which is subject to frequent structural and functional changes, values provide a compass for guiding activities. If the work of the public service is not based on or driven by an appropriate set of values, it may lose the trust and respect of those who rely on it – ‘the public’. Without strong values, the governance machinery risks becoming corrupt, inefficient, and disconnected from the people to whom it is supposed to serve.

Public Service Values

Values in public service refer to the principles and moral standards that public administrators must uphold to ensure justice, efficiency, and fairness in governance. These values are essential for

• Ensuring trust between citizens and the government.

• Maintaining neutrality and fairness in decision-making.

• Upholding constitutional and democratic principles

• Strengthening efficiency and responsiveness in governance.

As the backbone of governance, public service must ensure that the state functions effectively and fairly to serve all of its citizens. Public servants play a critical role in implementing public policy and should understand the importance of values in all aspects of their work. Lack of clarity or uncertainty about values not only leads to ethical and decision-making dilemmas but also affects organisational coherence by diminishing team spirit, creating organisational confusion and weak external communication. Public administrators are responsible not only for understanding the values implicit in the decisions they make but also for articulating those values clearly for others in the organisation and for external clients. Such external clients may include not only citizens but also politicians and other stakeholder representatives.

Seven basic principles of public life are outlined by the Nolan Committee (1994) or the Committee on Standards in Public Life in the United Kingdom. These are the most comprehensive statements of ethical standards/guidelines for public office holders:

 Selflessness: Acting solely in public interest.

 Integrity: Avoiding obligations to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them.

 Objectivity: Decision-making based on evidence and without bias.

 Accountability: Being accountable for decisions and actions.

 Openness: Being transparent and providing information.

 Honesty: Being truthful and straightforward.

 Leadership: Setting an example and promoting these principles

In 1996, the United Nations adopted an ‘International Code of Conduct for Public Officials” with the following general principles:

 As defined by national law, a public office is a position of trust, implying a duty to act in the public interest. 

 Public officials shall ensure that they perform their duties and functions efficiently, effectively, and with integrity in accordance with laws or administrative policies. 

 Public officials shall be attentive, fair, and impartial in the performance of their functions and, in particular, in their relations with the public.

Core Values of Public Service

The current norms of civil service in India are enforceable rules of conduct, as typified by the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 and the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. These rules are designed to prohibit specific actions and behaviours deemed inappropriate for civil servants. However, these do not stand for any code of ethics for civil servants, although such codes do exist in other countries. The Draft Public Services Bill, 2007, proposed the necessary steps to evolve the code of ethics in India, which includes the following:

 Patriotism

 Allegiance to the Constitution

 Objectivity, impartiality, honesty, diligence, courtesy, and transparency

 Absolute integrity

The bill stipulates that the central authority reviews the adoption, adherence, and implementation of PSVs in the departments or organisations under the central government. The central government promotes the following public service values and ethical standards in various public service operations:

• Discharge official duties with competence and accountability.

• Effective management, professional growth, and leadership development

• Misuse of power and public position for personal financial gain.

• Bear in mind that public servants are instruments of good governance and foster socio-economic development.

The 2007 Indian Public Services Bill, 2007 in India aimed at providing a statutory framework for regulating public services, including the appointment and conditions of public servants, and establishing a Public Service Code of Ethics. It proposed a framework for enhancing efficiency and efficacy in public services. Although the bill was never enacted into law, it remains a significant document in the discourse on public service reforms in India. Public servants in India develop and implement public policy within a public service value framework:

1.Integrity and Honesty

Integrity means strictly binding oneself to moral and ethical principles, even when faced with pressure or personal gain. It involves resisting corruption, avoiding conflicts of interest, and maintaining governance transparency. For instance, Vinod Rai, the former CAG of India, reinforced the importance of integrity in financial governance by exposing financial irregularities in the 2G spectrum and coal allocation. Maintaining honesty not only prevents misuse of public funds but also strengthens citizen trust in public institutions.

2. Impartiality and Political Neutrality

Public administrators must act without bias to ensure that public policies benefit all deserving citizens regardless of political, religious, or socioeconomic affiliations. Political neutrality means that bureaucrats serve the Constitution and the rule of law but not political parties or individual leaders. The ECI serves as a strong example of impartiality, ensuring free and fair elections without political interference. If public officials become politically aligned and behave in a partisan and unfair manner, policy manipulations that serve vested interests rather than public welfare may occur.

3. Commitment to Public Welfare

Public servants are not only policy enforcers but also guardians of the public interest. They must prioritise social justice, equality, and the upliftment of marginalised communities. Policies such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which employs rural workers or Aadhaar-based direct benefit transfers, reflect an effort to improve and enhance public welfare and economic inclusion. However, commitment to public welfare also means ensuring that schemes are implemented effectively without corruption or inefficiency. If public servants misuse welfare programmes for personal or political gain, the trust of the public in government institutions is eroded.

4. Transparency and Accountability

An accountable administration allows citizens to question, verify, and challenge government decisions, ensuring that public resources are judiciously used. The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a landmark legislation that promotes transparency by allowing citizens to access information from public offices. The RTI Act has been instrumental in exposing bureaucratic corruption, inefficiencies, and delays in the provision of public services. When officials are held accountable, governance improves, and citizens develop greater trust in public institutions.

Responsiveness and Citizen-Centric Governance

A good administration is sensitive and responsive to the people’s needs. This means:

• Timely grievance redressal

• Proactive implementation of policy

• Listen to public concerns and adapt policies accordingly.

In India, initiatives like "MyGov" and the Digital India Mission have brought governance closer to citizens through online grievance redressal mechanisms, digital service delivery, and citizen engagement platforms. When public servants actively engage with people, governance becomes more effective, inclusive, and participatory.

Challenges in Upholding the Values of Public Service

While values are essential for good governance, real-world challenges often make it difficult for public officials to adhere to them:

• Corruption and Nepotism: Despite anticorruption laws, bribery and favouritism still exist in public administration.

• Political Pressure: Civil servants often face political influence in transfers, promotions, and policy decisions, which makes public servants’ political neutrality difficult.

• Lack of Public Awareness: Many citizens are unaware of their rights and administrative processes, leading to poor accountability mechanisms.

• Bureaucratic Inertia: Traditional bureaucratic systems can be rigid and resistant to change, slowing down governance reforms.

Given the increasing range of public service demands and the frequent ambiguity in terms of goals, relationships, and responsibilities, value conflicts are usual. Traditional Weberian notions of government—hierarchy of authority, meritocracy, and impersonality have been swept aside by growing relationships between public, private, public-private and non-profit sector interactions. Public servants are expected to be loyal to various agents, including politicians, colleagues, and the public. However, these loyalties may occasionally conflict, and the politicisation of civil services raises important questions concerning the application of values.

The increased use of information and communications technology has allowed easier information sharing and the swift transfer of large volumes of information. This poses difficulties for the ability of the public service to maintain confidentiality, particularly in the context of more actors in the policy-making sphere. Reforming administrative training, strengthening whistleblower protection laws, and promoting ethical leadership in governance can help address these challenges.

Conclusion

Values in public service are not just abstract principles but also essential requisites of effective governance. They uphold integrity, impartiality, transparency, and responsiveness, ensuring that administration remains trustworthy, efficient, and people-centric. Although challenges exist, continuous reforms and a commitment to ethical governance can ensure that India’s public administration evolves to meet the needs of a dynamic society. A well-structured ethical framework will inspire a public servant to realise a vision, a purpose, and an ideal to strive for while performing his/her public duties. 

Regulatory Commissions in India

Globalisation, privatisation, and liberalisation brought forth by the New Economic Policy opened the economy to the private sector, opening the gates to multinational corporations. Private stakeholders were allowed to invest in telecom, power distribution, pensions, food, building highways and toll roads, and other areas. This introduced the concept of regulation. Regularity authorities are modern democratic governments’ agencies, which are parts of the executive wing with a certain degree of statutory or constitutional autonomy, reporting directly to the legislature. With the increasing expansion of the scope and activities of governmental operations, regulatory authorities are needed in the context of structural differentiation and functional specialisation.

Regulatory Commissions play a vital role in governance by ensuring fair competition, consumer protection, and sectoral accountability. These bodies act as watchdogs, overseeing key industries and services to prevent monopolistic practices, ensure quality standards, and uphold public interest. In a diverse and rapidly evolving democracy such as India, regulatory commissions help balance state control, private enterprise, and citizen welfare, ensuring that economic and social policies align with the principles of transparency, efficiency, and justice. Regulatory Commissions can be constitutional or statutory bodies with the authority to issue guidelines, monitor compliance, and sometimes even impose penalties. Their quasi-judicial nature allows them to function independently of political influence, making them essential for good governance and economic stability.

The Need for Regulatory Commissions

In modern governance, state control over all sectors is neither feasible nor desirable. Therefore, regulatory commissions serve as intermediaries that ensure the following:

• Fair competition and the prevention of monopolies (e.g., the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in stock markets).

• Consumer rights and service quality enforcement (e.g., the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) in telecom regulation).

• Financial oversight and economic stability (e.g., the monetary policy role of the Reserve Bank of India).

• Environmental sustainability and legal compliance (e.g., NGT’s role in environmental protection).

Paul Samuelson, an American economist, highlighted their importance, arguing that market economies require regulation to prevent exploitation and ensure equitable distribution of resources. Similarly, Sen’s work on social choice theory emphasises that regulatory oversight is essential for ensuring economic justice and protecting society’s weaker sections. Regulatory bodies play a significant role in maintaining the balance between public interest and sectoral growth. These institutions ensure compliance, encourage innovation, and foster a fair and competitive environment.

Objectives of the Regulatory Commission: 

The regulatory commissions ensure the following:

• Safeguarding consumer interest by securing quality and reliable facilities at affordable prices. 

• Arrive at a negotiation, as a conflict resolution mechanism, among various stakeholders. 

• Fostering competition, plurality, and investment. 

• Strike a balance in meeting the social welfare objectives based on the viability of funds.

Types of Regulatory Bodies in India:

Statutory Independent Regulatory Agencies: These are autonomous entities established by law to function independently of government departments. Ex: SEBI, TRAI, and RBI.

Self-Regulatory Authorities: Institutions governed by their own set of rules within the framework of established laws. Ex: The Press Council of India.

It is important to discuss certain statutory regulatory agencies:

1. Reserve Bank of India

The RBI, India’s central banking authority, plays a critical role in monetary policy, financial stability, and economic regulation. Established in 1935, its core functions are as follows:

• Controlling inflation and interest rates through monetary policy adjustments.

• Regulate banks and financial institutions to prevent financial crises.

• Ensuring currency stability and managing foreign exchange reserves.

The RBI’s handling of the banking sector crisis, particularly in the Yes Bank case of 2020 and the NPA crisis, underscores the importance of strong financial regulation.

2. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India

Established in 1997, TRAI oversees India’s telecommunications sector, ensuring fair pricing, competition, and consumer rights protection. It has significantly reduced mobile call rates, ensured net neutrality, and expanded digital connectivity. However, TRAI remains challenged by concerns over spectrum allocation controversies and the dominance of large telecom companies.

3. Securities and Exchange Board of India

SEBI, formed in 1992, regulates India’s stock markets, ensuring investor protection and transparency. Its role includes the following:

• Preventing insider trading and financial fraud.

• Overseeing IPOs and stock market transactions.

• Investigating violations of corporate governance.

Cases like the Harshad Mehta scam (1992) and the Yes Bank fraud (2020) highlight the need for stronger mechanisms to prevent financial malpractice.

4. National Green Tribunal

Established in 2010, the NGT is responsible for adjudicating environmental protection cases and sustainable development issues. It has delivered landmark judgments on the following:

• Banning industries that pollute near ecologically sensitive zones.

• Enforce stricter environmental clearances for industrial projects.

• Penalising industries violating air and water pollution norms.

However, the NGT lacks direct enforcement power, and state governments and corporate entities often oppose its recommendations.

Elements of a High-Performance Regulator

A regulatory body must adhere to specific principles that ensure clarity, efficiency, and accountability. The following elements define a high-performance regulator:

Clarity of Purpose: Regulatory bodies must have well-defined and conflict-free objectives. Ambiguous or overlapping mandates can result in inefficiency and poor performance.

Role and Composition of the Regulatory Board: The board should predominantly consist of non-executive members, ensuring independent oversight. It must oversee organisational design, internal processes, and budget allocation.

Legislative Process: Regulations should be drafted through a structured process, starting with the board. Public consultations and cost–benefit analysis must precede finalisation. Regulations should be transparent and effectively address public feedback.

Executive Process: Licensing and investigation procedures should be fair and equitable, minimise harm to applicants, and ensure due process.

Judicial Process: A dedicated administrative law department should ensure the separation of powers within the regulatory framework. Transparent hearings and reasoned orders should safeguard against arbitrary decisions, with appeal provisions at higher tribunals or courts.

Reporting and Accountability: Regulators should publish comprehensive reports detailing their activities and outcomes. These reports should focus on regulatory performance rather than external economic factors.

Role of the Parent Department: The parent government department must clearly define its role, supporting the regulator without compromising its autonomy.

Challenges Faced By Regulatory Commissions

Regulatory Commissions face several obstacles despite their importance in governance:

Political Influence: While many commissions are meant to be independent, political appointments often affect their neutrality. Many regulatory bodies function as extensions of ministries, limiting their autonomy and leading to potential government interference.

Financial and Administrative Constraints: Many commissions suffer from budgetary limitations and lack sufficient manpower for effective enforcement. Most regulatory bodies rely heavily on budgetary allocations, making them vulnerable to political pressures.

Jurisdictional Overlaps: Sometimes, multiple commissions regulate the same sector, resulting in confusion and inefficiency. The existence of multiple regulatory bodies leads to overlapping powers, confusion, and inefficiency. For instance, in the environmental sector, both the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) and the NGT have jurisdiction over similar issues.

Slow Decision-Making: Regulatory bodies often act reactively rather than proactively, hampering timely decision-making. Bureaucratic delays often weaken the impact of regulatory interventions.

Inadequate Expertise: Regulatory bodies often lack specialised expertise, leading to inefficiencies in decision-making and enforcement.

Corruption and Nepotism: The absence of regular audits and lack of transparency in appointments have resulted in corruption and favouritism in some regulatory bodies.

Vacancies and Understaffing: Many bodies remain understaffed, and the appointment of non-specialist officers affects their operational efficiency.

Effective Regulatory Governance

Effective regulatory governance calls for the following:

Periodic Evaluations: Regulatory bodies should periodically conduct self-evaluation and public accountability evaluations and make their findings publicly available to encourage transparency and informed debates.

Functional and Financial Autonomy: Financial independence of regulatory bodies can be ensured by charging their budgets to the CFI, reducing dependence on government allocations.

Transparency in Appointments: The process of appointing regulatory heads should be more transparent to eliminate favouritism and enhance credibility.

Legislative Oversight: Parliament should periodically review regulatory bodies’ performance and implement necessary reforms through amendments and legislation.

Technical Assistance: Specialised technical support should be provided to regulatory bodies to enhance their decision-making and enforcement capabilities.

Quasi-Judicial Powers: Empowering regulatory bodies with quasi-judicial powers can streamline dispute resolution and reduce the burden on the judiciary.

Establishing a Regulator of Regulators: As recommended by the Punchhi Commission, creating a “Regulator of Regulators” can ensure accountability and uniformity across regulatory bodies.

Coordination Mechanisms: Improved interdepartmental coordination can prevent overlapping functions and enhance operational efficiency.

2nd Arc Recommendations (12th Report)

• Conduct a comprehensive review of existing laws and regulations, eliminating unnecessary ones, and updating outdated procedures to ensure compliance.

• Establish robust internal supervision of regulatory agencies, complemented by periodic independent assessments to uphold high enforcement standards.

• Promote self-regulation in sectors such as taxation and public health, encouraging voluntary compliance to reduce the enforcement burden.

• Simplify regulatory procedures to be transparent and citizen-friendly, leveraging technology to minimise discretion and enhance transparency, thereby reducing corruption.

2nd Arc Recommendations (13th Report)

• Each Ministry or Department should develop a ‘Management Statement’ that clearly articulates each regulator’s objectives and roles.

• Establish greater consistency in the terms of appointment, tenure, and removal of regulatory authorities to ensure their independence and stability.

• Strengthen parliamentary oversight of regulatory bodies through Departmental Related Standing Committees to enhance accountability and transparency.

• Involve citizen groups and professional organisations in regulatory activities to distribute the enforcement burden and verify compliance.

Conclusion

Regulatory bodies are indispensable for ensuring good governance and democratic values. These institutions can play a transformative role in India’s development by fostering transparency, autonomy, and accountability. Strengthening these bodies with adequate resources, skilled personnel, and well-defined mandates is imperative to realise their full potential. A reformed regulatory framework will not only enhance sectoral efficiency but also pave the way for a corruption-free, economically strong, and globally competitive India. Empowering them is imperative to lead the nation towards sustainable growth and good governance.

The National Human Rights Commission

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) is a vital institution tasked with safeguarding human rights and ensuring the protection of individuals’ lives, liberty, equality, and dignity. It is the guardian of human rights in India and works to protect civil liberties and fundamental rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and international human rights conventions. It was established under the 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act 1993. It is based on the Paris Principles (1991), a United Nations framework that outlines guidelines for the independent and effective functioning of national human rights institutions.

NHRC Objectives

The National Human Rights Commission, aimed at enhancing the framework for addressing human rights issues in India, was established with several specific objectives:

• Strengthening institutional arrangements that allow for a comprehensive and focused approach to addressing human rights issues.

• Independently investigate allegations of excesses by authorities, demonstrating the government’s commitment to safeguarding human rights.

• Complement and bolster existing efforts to promote and protect human rights.

Composition and Structure of the NHRC

The National Human Rights Commission is a multi-member body. It consists of a chairperson and five members, each of whom brings a wealth of experience and expertise to the commission. The composition is as follows:

Full-Time Members: The chairperson should be either a retired Chief Justice of India or a judge of the Supreme Court.

Members: Members include a sitting or retired judge of the Supreme Court, a sitting or retired Chief Justice of a High Court, and three individuals (with at least one being a woman) who possess knowledge or practical experience in human rights.

Seven Ex-officio Members: In addition to these full-time members, the commission includes seven ex-officio members, comprising the chairpersons of various national commissions, including: The National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSCs), the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCSTs), the National Commission for Women, the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBCs), the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, and the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities.

This composition ensures that the NHRC includes judicial expertise, administrative experience, and human rights specialists to effectively carry out its mandate.

The NHRC derives its authority from the 1993 Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, which empowers it to:

• Investigate human rights violations committed by public officials or institutions.

• Recommend policy changes and legal reforms to strengthen human rights protection.

• Promote awareness through research, publications, and training programmes.

• Monitor the functioning of SHRCs.

Key Functions and Functions of the NHRC

1. Investigating Human Rights Violations-The NHRC can take Suo motu cognisance of human rights violations based on complaints, media reports, or independent investigations. It can summon officials, demand reports, and recommend actions against public authorities. It dealt with many notable cases, including extrajudicial killings, torture in police custody, and atrocities against marginalised communities.

2. Monitoring Human Rights Compliance in Governance: The NHRC reviews existing laws, regulations, and policies to assess their compliance with human rights principles. It has recommended police reforms, prison reforms, and better welfare scheme implementation for vulnerable groups. To create awareness of human rights and educate government officials and law enforcement agencies on human rights issues, it conducts training programmes, workshops, and awareness campaigns.

3. Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims: The NHRC can recommend monetary compensation, medical assistance, and legal aid to victims of human rights abuses. For example, the NHRC intervened in the Hashimpura Massacre case (1987), where police killed 42 Muslim men, to ensure that the victims’ families received compensation and justice.

4. Prison Inspections and Custodial Justice-The National Human Rights Commission monitors prison conditions, police lock-ups, and detention centres to prevent torture, inhumane treatment, and deaths in custody. 1t has raised concerns over prison overcrowding, the lack of medical facilities for inmates, and the need for rehabilitation programmes.

Landmark Interventions by the NHRC

1. Custodial Deaths and Police Brutality: The NHRC has played a key role in investigating custodial deaths and recommending judicial oversight in police interrogations. Example: In the Manipur extrajudicial killing case, the National Human Rights Commission recommended stronger enforcement of human rights guidelines for security forces.

2. Dalit and Tribal Rights: The NHRC intervened in cases of caste-based atrocities, ensuring legal protection for Dalit and tribal communities.  In the Khairlanji massacre (2006), where a Dalit family was brutally murdered, the NHRC pressurised law enforcement agencies to ensure justice.

3. Protection of Women and Children: The National Human Trafficking Commission (NHRC) has been active in cases of human trafficking, child labour, and domestic violence. It has been actively involved in framing stronger anti-human trafficking laws and monitoring orphanages and shelter homes.

4. Refugee and Migrant Rights-The NHRC has advocated for the humane treatment of refugees, migrant workers, and displaced communities.  During the COVID-19 lockdown, the NHRC recommended welfare measures for migrant workers stranded due to sudden restrictions.

Challenges 

Human rights form the foundation of democracy, and the NHRC plays a crucial role in preventing abuse of power, safeguarding the dignity of individuals, and holding public authorities accountable. Despite its importance, the NHRC faces challenges in implementation, enforcement, and independence:

1. Lack of enforcement power: The NHRC can only recommend actions but cannot prosecute or enforce its rulings. This makes its interventions largely advisory rather than legally binding. Many of its recommendations are ignored or delayed by the government, reducing its impact.

2. Limited Jurisdiction over the Armed Forces: Under the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), the NHRC cannot directly investigate armed forces’ human rights violations, which weakens accountability in conflict-prone regions like Kashmir and the Northeast.

3. Political Influence and Bureaucratic Delays: Members of the NHRC are appointed by a committee dominated by the ruling government, raising concerns about its independence, and many of its investigations face delays due to non-cooperation from law enforcement agencies.

4. Resource and Manpower Constraints: The NHRC lacks adequate funding, staff, and infrastructure, which limits its ability to handle the large volume of human rights complaints.

5. Overlapping Jurisdiction with Other Bodies: Multiple commissions (such as State Human Rights Commissions and judicial bodies) handle similar cases, leading to overlapping responsibilities and delays in justice delivery.

How to Strengthen the NHRC

 Grant enforcement powers so that its recommendations are binding.

 Expanding jurisdiction to allow direct investigations into security forces.

 Ensuring financial autonomy that does not depend on government funding.

 Strengthening coordination with SHRCs for better local governance.

 Encouraging citizen participation and awareness to make human rights a grassroots movement.

Conclusion

The NHRC is one of India’s most important institutions for protecting civil liberties and human dignity. Although it has made significant contributions in addressing human rights violations, its effectiveness is limited by the lack of enforcement power, political influence, and administrative delays. Strengthening the autonomy, resources, and jurisdiction of the NHRC would enable it to function more effectively, ensuring that justice is not just promised but delivered. A stronger NHRC would ensure that human rights remain a cornerstone of democracy, reinforcing India’s commitment to justice, equality, and constitutional morality.

Problems of Administration in India

Introduction

As the backbone of governance, public administration is responsible for implementing policies, managing public services, and ensuring law and order. However, the Indian administrative system faces several structural and operational challenges that hinder its efficiency, transparency, and responsiveness. Issues such as bureaucratic inefficiency, political interference, corruption, lack of accountability, and poor service delivery continue to undermine the effectiveness of governance.

The vast and diverse socio-political landscape of India makes administration even more complex. While significant reforms have been introduced, many problems still persist. Addressing these challenges is essential for achieving good governance, economic growth, and social justice.

1. Bureaucratic Inefficiency and Red Tapism

One of the most pressing issues in the Indian administration is bureaucratic inefficiency, often characterised by red tape, excessive regulations, and procedural delays. This leads to undue formalism with excessive emphasis on ‘procedure through proper channel’ and precedents. The colonial legacy of hierarchical decision-making and rigid administrative structures persists, making governance slow, complex, and inaccessible to the common citizen. Government processes often involve multiple approval levels that delay projects and increase costs. Citizens and businesses struggle with lengthy clearance procedures that discourage entrepreneurship and investment. Lack of innovation and adaptability in administration also slows down policy implementation.

For instance, before economic liberalisation in 1991, the Licence-Permit Raj required businesses to obtain multiple approvals for operation, leading to inefficiency and corruption. Even today, setting up a business in India often requires navigating complicated bureaucratic hurdles.

E-Governance initiatives, such as Digital India and online service portals, can streamline bureaucratic processes. Simplifying regulatory frameworks and reducing procedural complexities can improve administrative efficiency.

2. Political Interference in the Administration

While democratic governance requires coordination between politicians and administrators, excessive political interference weakens public administration’s neutrality and effectiveness. Bureaucrats often face political pressure during transfers, promotions, and decision-making. Officers resisting corruption or political manipulation are frequently transferred or sidelined, and policy decisions are sometimes influenced by political agendas, rather than public interest. For instance, Ashok Khemka, an honest IAS officer, was transferred multiple times for exposing corruption in land deals. His case highlights how political influence disrupts administrative integrity.

Implementing fixed tenure for bureaucrats can reduce political interference. Strengthening civil service autonomy through effective performance evaluation mechanisms is also necessary.

3. Corruption and the Lack of Accountability

Corruption remains one of the biggest challenges in the Indian administration. Despite anti-corruption measures such as the Lokpal and Prevention of Corruption Act, bribery, nepotism, and power misuse are common in public offices. High-level corruption has led to major scams, such as the 2G Spectrum Scam (2010) and Coal Allocation Scam (2012), resulting in huge financial losses to the government. Petty corruption affects ordinary citizens in areas such as obtaining a driver's licence, land registration, or a ration card, and weak enforcement of anticorruption laws allows corrupt officials to evade punishment.

The solution lies in strengthening institutions such as the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) and Lokpal to investigate corruption cases and promote citizen engagement through the Right to Information (RTI) to hold officials accountable.

4. Poor Policy Implementation and Service Delivery

Although India has progressive policies and welfare schemes, the gap between formulation and execution is a major problem. Many government schemes fail due to a lack of coordination between departments, leakages in fund allocation and mismanagement, and inadequate monitoring and accountability mechanisms.

For example, the Public Distribution System (PDS), meant to provide subsidised food to the poor, suffers from leakages, fake beneficiaries, and inefficiency. Similarly, while the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) employs rural workers, delays in wage payments and corruption reduce its effectiveness.

Proper implementation of direct benefit transfer (DBT) reduces welfare scheme leakages. Strengthening social audits and public monitoring can ensure better implementation of policies and programmes.

5. Lack of transparency and citizen participation

Governance should be open, accountable, and participatory; however, many administrative decisions in India are made without public consultation. Bureaucratic procedures are opaque, making it difficult for citizens to obtain information about government decisions. Delaying RTI responses weakens transparency and limits citizen oversight. For instance, large infrastructure projects such as the POSCO steel project in Odisha have faced opposition due to a lack of public consent and improper land acquisition processes. 

This necessitates strengthening RTI enforcement to ensure timely responses and greater public access to government information. Encouraging citizen engagement through participatory governance platforms such as MyGov.in will have positive administration outcomes.

6. Judicial Delays and Administrative Injustice

A strong legal framework is essential for good governance, but India’s judicial and administrative dispute resolution systems suffer from a backlog of cases, with over four crore cases pending in Indian courts. Delays in service tribunals and grievance redressal bodies, and weak enforcement of judicial orders, reduce the effectiveness of legal rulings. For instance, land acquisition disputes often take years or even decades to resolve, delaying industrial and infrastructure projects.

Implementing fast-track courts for administrative disputes and strengthening tribunals and ADR mechanisms is urgently needed.

7. Ineffective Decentralisation and Local Governance Issues

Despite constitutional provisions for Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) and ULBs, many local governments lack financial autonomy and depend on state governments for funds. They do not have enough trained personnel to effectively implement policies, and political interference often limits their decision-making power. For instance, despite the 73rd  and 74th  Constitutional Amendments, municipal corporations struggle with poor infrastructure, inadequate revenue generation, and corruption.

It is important to ensure the devolution of powers to local bodies with proper financial and administrative independence and to provide training and capacity building for local government officials.

8. Resistance to the Administrative Reforms

Many reform proposals face bureaucratic and political resistance, leading to slow progress in modernising administration. The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recommended major governance reforms, but implementation has been slow. Bureaucrats often resist changes that reduce their discretionary powers, and politicians oppose reforms that increase transparency and reduce opportunities for rent-seeking.

9. There is a need to:

Implementing merit-based promotions and performance-linked incentives for bureaucrats.

Strengthening civil society and media oversight to push for administrative accountability.

Conclusion

The administration problems in India are deeply rooted in historical, structural, and political factors. Bureaucratic inefficiency, corruption, political interference, and weak service delivery hinder the effectiveness of governance. However, recent reforms, such as e-Governance, Digital India, and Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT), have shown that systemic improvements are possible. In the future, strengthening accountability, transparency, and citizen engagement will be essential for creating an efficient, responsive, and people-centric administration.