Is corruption the biggest threat to India’s future?

Why in the News?

Thousands of students have been protesting since the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) paper leak earlier this year, reviving memories of the India Against Corruption (IAC) movement. The question arises whether the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 has delivered on its promise of accountability or whether institutions meant to enforce it have been weakened.

Has digitalisation reduced petty corruption?

1. No reduction on the ground: Digitalisation has been pushed as a “magic wand” but has not prevented corruption; bribery remains an “open secret” in government offices.
2. A new barrier for the marginalised: Digitalisation has added a layer excluding the poor, the marginalised, and the unlettered, who cannot fill forms online and must pay private cafes “obnoxious amounts” for government services.
3. No grievance redressal law: Parliament discussed a grievance redressal law in detail in 2014, but it has still not been enacted.

How has the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 weakened the RTI Act?

1. Original balance in the RTI Act: The Act’s original 87-word definition of personal information allowed such information to be denied to citizens, but not to Parliament or state legislatures.
2. Judicial reinterpretation: The Girish Ramchandra Deshpande Supreme Court judgment was misread to mean all personal information could be exempted from disclosure.
3. Privacy without balance: The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment recognised a fundamental right to privacy without a balancing test against the right to information.
4. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: The Prevention of Corruption Act’s Section 19, which required sanction for prosecution, was joined in 2018 by Section 17A, which requires government permission even to investigate corruption charges against a public servant. (Section 17A bars police from conducting any inquiry or investigation into corruption allegations against a public servant without prior government approval. This applies specifically to decisions or recommendations made in their official capacity)

Why does corruption remain low-risk despite these laws?

1. Historical conviction data: A 2008 study of the CBI’s anti-corruption branch performance from 1980 to 1984 found 280 people accused in courts, of whom 144 were convicted, with investigations averaging 13.4 months but the first trial averaging 88 months.
2. Near-zero incarceration: The same 2008 study found only four people had been in prison for more than 20 days.
3. Heavy Right To Information (RTI) use, weak enforcement: About six million RTI requests are filed annually in India, the highest of any country, and the Act has played a role in exposing the Vyapam scam, the Adarsh Housing Society scam and the electoral bond scheme.
4. Captured agencies: Certain analysts distate that the CBI, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Lokpal have been “compromised” and are not tackling big-ticket corruption cases.
5. Lokpal’s cost without output: Public evaluations point out that while the anti-corruption body has historically consumed ₹50-60 crore annually (with a revised budget allocation of ₹30 crore for the fiscal year 2026-27), it has struggled to deliver major, high-profile convictions.

Is institutional weakness a cause or consequence of corruption?

1. Vacant appointments: The government delayed filling key posts, leaving the transparency watchdog short-staffed or non-functional for long periods.
2. Non-transparent appointments even after court orders: Courts repeatedly directed the administration to make timely appointments to prevent the Right to Information (RTI) framework from becoming ineffective. Post-intervention selections often proceeded without fully disclosing applicant vetting details or selection criteria to the public.
3. India’s rule of law ranking: India’s 79th rank in the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index highlights foundational weaknesses in fundamental rights, civil justice, and institutional checks on executive power. ( According to the World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index 2025 report,India has slipped to 86th position out of 143 countries globally. India has slipped six places compared to last year (79th rank).)

Conclusion

Corruption remains India’s biggest governance risk not for lack of transparency law. But this is because the institutions meant to enforce it, Information Commissions, the Lokpal, the CBI and the ED, have been weakened through non-transparent appointments, the DPDP Act’s rollback of RTI disclosures, and Section 17A’s added layer of protection for public servants. The remedy lies in enforcement: judicial delays cut to under a year, transparent Information Commissioner appointments, and withdrawal of the DPDP Act’s amendments to the RTI Act, 2005.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2020] Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss.

Linkage: Examines the impact of legal and institutional changes on the effectiveness of the RTI framework and transparency in governance. The article directly analyses how the DPDP Act, 2023 has diluted the RTI Act, weakened Information Commissions, and reduced transparency, thereby increasing the accountability deficit in combating corruption.