Anzar Fayaz
“True accountability demands more than digitised procedures; it requires structural insulation of investigative agencies from executive control.”
In New Delhi, last year, when Rajesh Kumar, a small contractor in Lucknow, went to get a building permit, he expected the usual run-around: lots of visits, some “fees” paid under the table, and waiting for months. But this time, he applied online, watched the progress on his phone, and got approval in just seventeen days. No one in the middle, and no cash exchanged secretly.
It felt strange, Kumar said. I kept waiting for someone to call and ask for money. But the call never came.
More and more people in India are having experiences like Kumar’s. The government is rapidly digitizing services, which is slowly putting a stop to the small-time corruption that has always been a part of daily life. Even with this progress, a reality check arrived in February when Transparency International released its yearly Corruption Perceptions Index. India ranked 91st out of 182 countries, scoring 39 out of 100. This is below the global average and pretty much the same as previous years. This gap between quick tech fixes and deep-seated problems in the system highlights a big challenge for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government: while going digital can get rid of small bribes, truly changing a political culture where corruption and power are so tightly linked needs much tougher reforms.
The Digital Shield
The government’s main anti-corruption effort, the Digital India Anti-Corruption Initiative, started in 2024, has really changed how ordinary people interact with the government. Now, any transaction over ₹10,000 has to happen digitally, leaving a clear record. In places like West Bengal, using blockchain for land records has almost eliminated fake property deals. Also, government contracts are now awarded through e-procurement systems, which has cut costs by 15 to 20 percent and removed middlemen.
At the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), India’s top anti-corruption body, investigators are now using AI to watch public purchasing in real time. This helps them catch problems before they turn into big scandals. The CVC has also gained more independence, which helps protect it from political pressure.
These changes are real steps forward. For millions of Indians, the daily frustration of dealing with corrupt officials has lessened. However, critics argue that technology only treats the surface problems, while the core issues remain at higher levels.
The Architecture of Impunity
The India Corruption Research Report 2025, published last month by independent researchers, described the country’s governance issues not as simple administrative mistakes, but as a “fundamental democratic crisis.” The report explains a cycle where corruption provides money for political power, which is then used to protect corrupt individuals from facing consequences.
“Corruption has gone from being isolated incidents to a normal way of doing things at every level of government,” the report stated. “A key part of this problem is political leaders who act as the main obstacle to accountability.”
The court system makes the problem worse. Cases drag on for years, witnesses change their stories, and powerful defendants use procedural delays to their advantage. The Supreme Court has often complained about this standstill, but the backlog of cases just keeps growing. Meanwhile, cozy relationships between corporations and the state distort markets, and whistleblowers are still at risk, even though legal protections exist more on paper than in reality.
Legislative Muscle
Recent changes to the Prevention of Corruption Act have tried to close loopholes. The 2024 amendments brought in rules for asset forfeiture, letting authorities seize illegally obtained property, and set up special fast-track courts for corruption cases. For the first time, the law clearly targets people who offer bribes and those who act as go-betweens, not just public servants who take illegal payments.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Sanhita, which replaced India’s old colonial-era criminal procedure code in July 2024, included a “deemed sanction” rule. This means authorities have to decide whether to prosecute public servants within 120 days. If they don’t, permission to prosecute is automatically granted. This mechanism is designed to stop the endless delays that have historically killed high-profile cases.
Corporate accountability has also gotten stricter. Under expanded liability rules, companies can now be prosecuted for bribery, and directors can be held personally responsible if they agreed to or helped with corrupt practices. A landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2025 clarified that directors aren’t automatically liable just because of their position; they must have been directly involved.
The Enforcement Gap
But laws need to be enforced. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India’s main anti-corruption agency, still faces questions about its independence. While the CVC offers oversight, the CBI ultimately answers to the government through the Department of Personnel. High-profile cases against opposition politicians move forward, while investigations into ruling party figures often get stuck. This pattern makes people doubt the agency’s fairness.
The Lokpal, India’s national ombudsman for corruption complaints, and its state-level counterparts, the Lokayuktas, have received more resources and clearer duties. However, their impact is still limited by the same court backlogs that hinder the wider legal system.
The Road Ahead
Anti-corruption advocates argue that small, isolated reforms won’t be enough without big structural changes to how India governs itself. The India Corruption Research Report suggests creating independent, broad-based committees to appoint heads of agencies like the CBI, Enforcement Directorate, and Election Commission, completely removing these bodies from executive control. It also calls for publicly accessible records of political contributions and strict limits on corporate donations to break the link between money and policy.
More radically, the report proposes a single national complaints management system with AI support, mandatory digitalization of all administrative procedures to get rid of discretionary power, and specialized financial-crime courts to bypass the crowded general judiciary.
For now, such extensive reforms remain politically difficult. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has made anti-corruption a key part of its platform, but it hasn’t shown much desire to limit executive power. Opposition parties, when they’ve been in office, have shown similar reluctance.
Rajesh Kumar, the contractor from Lucknow, remains cautiously hopeful. His permit came through smoothly, and his business has grown. But when asked if he believes India’s larger corruption problem can be solved, he pauses.
“Computers can help the small person,” he finally said. But the big person? That needs something technology can’t provide. He didn’t say more. He didn’t need to.
Comments are closed.