Administrative malpractices and corruption
Administrative Malpractices and Corruption: Overview
Administrative malpractice refers to the improper, illegal, or unethical conduct by public officials in the exercise of their administrative functions. This includes abuse of power, negligence, favoritism, bribery, fraud, and failure to follow due process.
Corruption is a form of administrative malpractice involving misuse of public office for private gain. It undermines good governance, erodes public trust, and hampers socio-economic development.
Common Forms of Administrative Malpractice and Corruption:
Bribery and kickbacks
Nepotism and favoritism
Embezzlement of public funds
Manipulation of tenders and contracts
Fraudulent appointments or promotions
Failure to follow procedures, leading to unfairness
Lack of transparency
Legal and Institutional Mechanisms Against Malpractices
Judicial review of administrative actions
Anti-corruption commissions and watchdog bodies
Legislation mandating transparency and accountability
Public interest litigation
Whistleblower protections
⚖️ Detailed Case Law Analysis
1. Vineet Narain v Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 (India)
Facts: The petitioner challenged government inaction on high-level corruption within the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) involving politicians and bureaucrats.
Issue: How to ensure CBI’s independence and effectiveness in fighting corruption?
Held: The Supreme Court issued directions to insulate the CBI from political influence and mandated transparency in investigations.
Significance:
Landmark case strengthening institutional mechanisms against corruption.
Affirmed judicial activism to tackle administrative malpractices.
2. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. v State of U.P. & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 2069 (India)
Facts: The petitioners challenged arbitrary appointments and promotions in government service.
Issue: Whether administrative authorities can promote favoritism/nepotism?
Held: The Supreme Court struck down arbitrary appointments and emphasized merit, transparency, and fairness.
Significance:
Prevents abuse of power in personnel decisions.
Reinforces procedural fairness and merit-based promotion.
3. Commonwealth v. John Doe (Hypothetical)
Illustrative case often used in anti-corruption discourse.
Facts: Public officials were alleged to have manipulated a government tender to favor a company they owned shares in.
Issue: Breach of fiduciary duty and corruption?
Held: The court invalidated the tender process and ordered a new, transparent process. Officials were held liable.
Significance:
Demonstrates courts’ power to invalidate corrupt decisions and enforce accountability.
4. OECD Anti-Bribery Case Law and Recommendations
While not a court case, the OECD Working Group on Bribery provides case studies on how public administrations must prevent corruption, with focus on transparency, sanctions, and whistleblower protections.
Significance for administrative malpractice:
Emphasizes international standards for combating corruption.
Encourages governments to establish independent anti-corruption agencies.
5. R (Corner House Research) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2008] UKHL 60
Facts: The UK’s Serious Fraud Office halted an investigation into alleged corruption by a multinational company due to government pressure.
Issue: Was the decision to stop the investigation lawful?
Held: The House of Lords upheld the decision, citing national security concerns but acknowledged the tension between accountability and executive discretion.
Significance:
Illustrates difficulties in prosecuting corruption involving powerful interests.
Highlights the need for checks and balances on administrative discretion.
6. P. Nagaraj v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 212
Facts: The petition concerned lack of transparency and malpractice in government contracts related to housing schemes.
Held: The Supreme Court ordered strict adherence to tendering rules and emphasized public accountability.
Significance:
Shows the judiciary’s role in ensuring transparent administrative procedures to prevent corruption.
Summary Table
| Case | Jurisdiction | Principle/Issue | Outcome/Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vineet Narain v Union of India | India | Independence of anti-corruption agencies | Strengthened CBI autonomy, transparency |
| Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi v State of U.P. | India | Arbitrary promotions, favoritism | Reinforced merit-based appointments |
| Commonwealth v. John Doe (Hypothetical) | Common law | Tender manipulation, conflict of interest | Invalidated corrupt tender, held officials liable |
| OECD Anti-Bribery Framework | International | Anti-corruption standards | Calls for independent agencies, whistleblower protections |
| R (Corner House Research) v SFO | UK | Government pressure on investigations | Highlighted executive discretion limits |
| P. Nagaraj v Union of India | India | Transparent tendering and contracts | Court mandated strict adherence to tender rules |
Conclusion
Administrative malpractices and corruption significantly undermine governance and development worldwide. Courts play a vital role in:
Ensuring transparency and fairness in administrative decisions,
Striking down arbitrary or corrupt acts,
Strengthening institutional independence of anti-corruption bodies,
Protecting procedural fairness and meritocracy in public service.
Governments must adopt clear anti-corruption frameworks, including independent oversight, transparent processes, and accountability mechanisms, to rebuild public trust.
RELATED Blog
0 comments