In India, the increasing power & perceived self-importance of IAS officers have sparked debates about accountability & corruption within the country’s administrative framework
Bhaskar Parichha
VK Pandian, former Indian Administrative Service officer, along with his spouse Sujata Rout Karthikeyan, who is also a former IAS, continues to garner considerable attention, a fact that is readily apparent. Pandian has been a polarizing figure in Odisha’s political landscape, and his legacy is closely linked to both the developmental achievements of the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) and its subsequent decline in 2024. Meanwhile, the uncertainty surrounding his future actions has left political analysts in a state of confusion.
Since 2012, Pandian has wielded significant influence and authority, bolstered by his longstanding association with Naveen Patnaik, who has held the position of Chief Minister for more than two decades. This situation prompts a critical inquiry: Are IAS officers increasingly gaining power and succumbing to corruption?
Steel Frame
The issue of IAS officers acquiring power and participating in corrupt activities is a complex and often contentious topic within India. Referred to as the ‘Steel Frame of India,’ IAS officers hold significant authority due to their roles in essential administrative functions, the implementation of government policies, and the oversight of public resources.
While a considerable number of individuals enter the IAS with a genuine dedication to serving the public, the combination of extensive power, a lack of adequate accountability mechanisms, and various systemic challenges can sometimes lead to corruption and the misuse of authority.
This situation raises important questions about the integrity of the administrative system and the need for reforms to ensure that those in positions of power act in the best interests of the public they serve. The ongoing discourse surrounding this phenomenon highlights the necessity for a more robust framework that promotes transparency and accountability within the IAS, ultimately aiming to restore public trust in the administrative processes of the country.
Job Security
The authority of IAS officers originates from their positions within the bureaucracy, where they frequently exert significant influence over the implementation of policies, allocation of resources, and decision-making processes at the district, state, and central levels. However, this power can also present challenges. The absence of effective checks and balances, combined with job security and limited avenues for disciplinary action, may allow certain officers to operate without accountability.
Over time, the temptation of financial incentives, political coercion, or the need to curry favor with powerful individuals can compromise ethical integrity. Corruption among IAS officers typically appears in various forms, including bribery, misappropriation of public funds, favoritism in awarding contracts or land allocations, and the accumulation of excessive assets. Notable cases have brought this issue to light, revealing officers who possess wealth significantly beyond their legitimate earnings, often acquired through unlawful activities.
Hand in Glove
For instance, certain government officials have been implicated in fraudulent schemes associated with sectors such as real estate, mining, or infrastructure projects. In these cases, they allegedly colluded with politicians or private entities to further their interests. The prevailing perception that only a small fraction of these individuals face repercussions—often attributed to protracted legal processes or protection from powerful networks—intensifies the problem.
Several factors contribute to this troubling situation. The bureaucratic system established during the colonial era prioritizes control over accountability, which provides officials with significant latitude in their actions. Furthermore, political interference can compel officials to engage in corrupt practices, as they may be subjected to pressure to breach regulations or risk the constant threat of reassignment.
Besides, societal pressures and the allure of the IAS can foster a sense of entitlement, prompting some individuals to misuse their authority. Although most may not begin their careers with corrupt intentions, the prevailing environment—characterized by insufficient oversight, minimal consequences for misconduct, and substantial incentives for unethical actions—can gradually shape their behavior.
Not Everyone
Conversely, not every IAS officer falls prey to corruption. A significant number remain dedicated to serving the public, striving to perform their duties effectively despite difficult circumstances. The problem is not widespread but rather indicative of systemic weaknesses that exacerbate personal shortcomings.
Addressing this issue necessitates comprehensive reforms: curtailing discretionary powers, improving transparency, implementing stricter asset declaration requirements, and ensuring prompt action against wrongdoers. Until these measures are successfully enacted, the perception of IAS officers as both influential and corrupt will continue to be a pressing concern within India’s governance framework.
(The author is a senior journalist and columnist. Views expressed are personal.)
