Answer

Introduction

More than 75 years since independence, India’s administration retains a colonial legacy of personalised authority and opaque discretion. Despite efforts like the National e-Governance Plan (NeGP), Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS), and Mission Karmayogi, reforms struggle against entrenched bureaucratic inertia and officer-centric decision-making.

Body

Impact of Person-Driven Administration

• Unequal Citizen Service Delivery: Services vary based on officer efficiency, not uniform rules, creating inequality and favouritism.
• Delay in Project Implementation: Projects stall during officer transfers, showing lack of institutional continuity.
• Corruption and Rent-Seeking Behaviour: Vague rules enable discretion, encouraging bribes to “speed up” processes.
• No Institutional Learning: Absence of project documentation or lack of institutional memory  results in reinvention of wheel by new officers.
• Demoralisation of Honest Officers: When lazy and hardworking officers are rated equally, merit loses relevance.

Challenges Hindering Process-Oriented Governance in India

• Colonial Bureaucratic Legacy: System designed for control, not service, still governs mindset and processes.
  Eg: The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968 still reflect colonial-era loyalty to state over citizens.
• Red tapism: Routine approvals often move through 8–10 hierarchical desks, fostering red tapism, and opportunities for rent-seeking and corruption.
• Vague and Ambiguous Rules: Unclear rules allow officers wide discretion in interpreting policies.
• Lack of Technology Adoption: Slow adoption of digital systems prevents transparent, trackable service delivery.
• Flawed Annual Performance Review (APR): The system suffers from inflated ratings, with most officers routinely marked as ‘outstanding’, making the evaluation process ineffective in rewarding genuine merit.

Addressing these challenges demands targeted reforms that embed transparency and accountability into the core of administrative functioning.

Administrative Reforms to Institutionalise Process-Oriented Governance

• Rule Simplification and Codification: Simplified rules with limited discretion reduce delays and arbitrary decisions.
  Eg: Karnataka’s Sakala Services Act (2011) mandates time‑bound delivery for NOCs, to provide guarantee of services to citizens.
• Wider Digitisation and e-Governance: End-to-end digital workflow ensures transparency, faster delivery, and reduced human interface.
• Specialisation Over Generalisation: Encourage domain expertise instead of rotating officers across unrelated departments.
  Eg: Mission Karmayogi aims to match officers’ skills with departmental needs through competency frameworks.
• Institutional Memory and Record Digitisation: Archiving all files and decisions builds institutional continuity.
• Independent Performance Review: Reviews and appraisals must always be conducted by independent third parties to ensure objectivity and avoid conflicts of interest.

Conclusion

Achieving Good Governance in India requires a fundamental shift from individual dependence to strong institutional frameworks. Clear rules, digital processes, and a performance-driven culture are vital to build an efficient, transparent, and future-ready administration.

DOWNLOAD PDF