Official deviance and the Santhanam Committee

1. Meaning of official deviance

Official deviance is conduct by a person holding public office that departs from the legal and ethical norms of that office, done through the power of the office or under its cover. The deviant may be a minister, a legislator, a civil servant, a police officer or a judge. Three elements mark it off from ordinary crime:

• the deviant holds State power, and the deviance is an abuse of that power;
• the victim is usually the public or the public exchequer;
• the deviant is in a position to protect himself from detection and prosecution, because he controls files, investigators or sanction.

Baxi treats official deviance as the most serious form of privileged class deviance, because the same persons are charged with enforcing the law. Official deviance is wider than crime: much of it (nepotism, arbitrary use of discretion, deliberate delay) is not an offence and is controlled only by service rules, administrative law and political accountability.

2. Forms

• Bribery and extortion: taking money to do or not do an official act; the “speed money” paid only to get a routine file moved.
• Embezzlement and misappropriation of public funds and property.
• Disproportionate assets acquired during office.
• Nepotism and favouritism in appointments, transfers, contracts, licences and allotments.
• Abuse of discretion: decisions for extraneous reasons, or to harass.
• Misuse of information: leaking tender details, insider dealing in government decisions.
• Collusion with contractors, suppliers and criminals.
• Deliberate inaction: refusing to register complaints, sitting on files.
• Political misuse of investigating agencies and of State machinery during elections.

Some are offences. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 punishes a public servant who knowingly disobeys a direction of law intending to cause injury (section 198, old IPC section 166), one who disobeys a direction of law in the investigation of certain offences (section 199, old section 166A), one who frames an incorrect document to cause injury (section 201, old section 167), and one who unlawfully engages in trade (section 202, old section 168). Bribery, misappropriation and disproportionate assets are under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Causes

• Wide discretion with little transparency, under a system of licences and controls.
• Low pay at lower levels and high stakes at higher levels.
• Delay in the official process, which makes speed money worth paying.
• The cost of elections and the link between political funding and administrative favours.
• Weak enforcement: the need for sanction, slow trials, low conviction rates.
• Social tolerance: the bribe is seen as normal, and the corrupt official keeps his standing.

4. The Santhanam Committee (1962–1964)

The Government of India appointed the Committee on Prevention of Corruption in 1962, with K. Santhanam, a Member of Parliament, as chairman. It reported in 1964. Its findings are still quoted:

• Corruption had increased since Independence, and the expansion of controls, licences and public sector spending had multiplied the opportunities.
• It identified speed money — payments made not to get an illegal favour but to make an official do his duty quickly — as widespread and especially demoralising.
• It said the public believed corruption existed at high levels, including among ministers, and that this belief was itself damaging, whether or not each instance was proved.
• It found that the existing vigilance machinery was weak, departmental inquiries were slow, and prosecutions failed for want of evidence.

Main recommendations, and what came of them.

• A Central Vigilance Commission to oversee vigilance in the Central Government. Set up by Government resolution in February 1964; made statutory by the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
• Amendment of the anti-corruption law to make possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income an offence in itself, with the burden on the public servant to account for them. Done in 1964 by inserting section 5(1)(e) in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947; now section 13(1)(b) of the 1988 Act.
• Wider definition of public servant, to cover employees of corporations and bodies receiving public money. Done in 1964 and widened again in section 2(c) of the 1988 Act.
• Vigilance officers in every ministry and department.
• A code of conduct for ministers, with declaration of assets, and an independent machinery to inquire into allegations against ministers.
• Simplification of procedures and reduction of discretion to remove the occasion for speed money.
• Revision of the government servants' conduct rules, adopted as the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 itself records that the 1947 Act was amended in 1964 on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee.

5. Controls on official deviance today

• Criminal law: the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the BNS, and the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.
• Investigating agencies: the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, State anti-corruption bureaus and Lokayukta police.
• Vigilance bodies: the Central Vigilance Commission; the Lokpal and the State Lokayuktas.
• Transparency: the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.
• Courts: In Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1997 INSC 826, (1998) 1 SCC 226 (the Jain hawala case), the Court used continuing mandamus to monitor investigation of high officials, struck down the executive “single directive” that required prior approval to investigate senior officers, and directed statutory status for the CVC and a fixed tenure for the CBI Director. When Parliament re-enacted the protection as section 6A of the DSPE Act, it was struck down in Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI, 2014 INSC 358, (2014) 8 SCC 682, as violating Article 14 by classifying officers by rank. In CBI v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 INSC 817, a Constitution Bench held that the declaration of invalidity operates from the date section 6A was inserted, and that Article 20(1) has no application to it.
• Accountability: the Comptroller and Auditor General, parliamentary committees and the press.

How this is examined

June 2025: explain the meaning of official deviance (10 marks), and a note on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee. February 2025 and January 2026: a note on official deviance. For the essay: the definition and its three elements, the forms, causes, Santhanam's findings, and the controls with Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy. For the Santhanam note: who, when, the speed money finding, and the recommendations matched with what was done.