Probity in Governance: A Complete Guide

1.1 Why is probity more than obeying the law?

A law sets the minimum. Probity sets the standard that people expect from those who hold public power.

Our own example: a clerk asks for a small fee to move your file. No rule may name that fee. The clerk is still wrong, because he breaks the public’s trust.

1.2 What did India’s reform commission say?

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) said probity should mean more than a criminal conviction. It wrote that probity means propriety. Independent bodies should judge it.

It added that the standard should be the conduct of Caesar’s wife, and of Caesar himself.

1.3 Can an official lose a job without a criminal case?

Yes. The Second ARC noted that some conduct may not be a criminal offence. It can still lead to the official’s exit from service.

It gave the Mudgal case as an example. A Lok Sabha member was expelled on 24 September 1951, even though he offered to resign.

1.4 What is a common slip?

Students write that probity means “no court case against the person”. The Second ARC said the opposite. Probity asks for propriety, not only a clean court record.

2.1 Why does openness protect probity?

Secrecy helps corruption grow. The RTI Act’s own preamble says democracy needs an informed citizenry. It adds that transparency is vital to contain corruption and to hold governments accountable.

Section 3 gives all citizens the right to information, subject to the Act.

2.2 When was the Act passed, and when did it start?

The Act is No. 22 of 2005, dated 15 June 2005. A few sections started at once. The rest began on the 120th day after enactment. The Central Information Commission says the Act came into force on 12 October 2005.

Do not mix the dates. June is passing. October is full force.

2.3 How does a citizen use it?

A citizen files a request. Section 6(2) says the applicant need not give any reason, except contact details.

The officer must decide within 30 days. If the request concerns a person’s life or liberty, the answer is due in forty-eight hours.

2.4 What if the officer refuses?

Section 7(8) says a refusal must state reasons. It must also give the appeal period and the appellate authority.

2.5 Can the Act override secrecy laws?

Yes. Section 22 says the RTI Act prevails over the Official Secrets Act, 1923 and any other inconsistent law. Section 8(2) also lets an authority allow access when the public interest outweighs the harm.

3.1 What is a Citizen’s Charter, and why does it help probity?

It is a public promise of service. It names the standards a department will meet, so a citizen can see when the promise is broken.

DARPG is the government department that coordinates charters. It says a charter covers service standards, information, choice and consultation. It also covers non-discrimination, accessibility, grievance redress, courtesy and value for money.

3.2 Where did the idea begin?

In the United Kingdom. John Major launched the Citizen’s Charter in 1991. The White Paper was published in July 1991.

A core idea was a minimum standard of service that users could expect. It acted like a sort of contract between the public and providers.

3.3 Is a charter a law?

No. DARPG answers this plainly. The Citizen’s Charter is not legally enforceable and is non-justiciable. It is a tool for delivering services to a stated standard and time frame.

The UK thesis we read says the same about the UK charter. It had no tangible, legally enforceable rights under it.

3.4 How common are charters in India?

DARPG’s FAQ says more than 600 charters had been issued by agencies of 24 States and Union Territories. Its page carries a 2019 date, so the count may be higher today.

4.1 Why do whistleblowers matter for probity?

Insiders often see corruption first. The Second ARC says whistleblowers play a crucial role. They are often unwilling to speak for fear of reprisal.

So the law must protect them. It urged a law at once. The law should give secrecy, a hidden identity and protection from career harm.

4.2 What does India’s Act say?

The Whistle Blowers Protection Act received the President’s assent on 9 May 2014. It was published on 12 May 2014. Its long title speaks of complaints of corruption or wilful misuse of power.

It also guards the complainant from being targeted. The competent authority must not reveal the complainant’s identity.

4.3 Is the Act in force today?

No. Section 1(3) says it starts on a date fixed by notification. The Government told the Rajya Sabha on 12 December 2024 that no notification has been made.

Its reason: the Act needs changes. They would guard against disclosures that harm India’s sovereignty, integrity or security.

4.4 What happened to the amendment?

The 2015 amendment Bill was introduced on 11 May 2015 and passed by the Lok Sabha on 13 May 2015. It has since lapsed with the Sixteenth Lok Sabha.

PRS says it would have barred disclosures in ten categories. These include India’s sovereignty and its strategic, scientific or economic interests.

4.5 Is there any route for complaints today?

Yes. The Government says the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is the agency named in the 2004 PIDPI Resolution. It receives complaints from whistleblowers about central government employees.

5.1 How do asset declarations help?

They put an official’s wealth on record. Later wealth can then be compared. The Lokpal Act, 2013 first required an annual return of assets and liabilities by 31 July, as on 31 March.

The original section also covered the spouse and dependent children.

5.2 Did that rule change?

Yes. The 2016 amendment substituted section 44. It says every public servant shall declare assets and liabilities in such form and manner as may be prescribed.

So the 31 July date no longer sits in the section itself. It depends on the rules. Check the latest rules before quoting a date.

5.3 What about ministers?

The Second ARC said a Minister should tell the Prime Minister or Chief Minister about assets, debts and business interests. This covers the Minister and family, before taking office.

5.4 What is misfeasance?

It is a tort, a civil wrong, for harm caused by an abuse of public power. The official either knew he was abusing it or was recklessly indifferent to its limits.

It is an intentional tort, and the intention is bad faith. It differs from simple negligence, because the official does not just slip up.

5.5 How real must the recklessness be?

Lord Steyn said reckless indifference had to be real, not imputed. The tort covers a person who knowingly took the risk. It does not cover a person who gave it no thought.

6.1 Why must officials answer to the public at all?

Social contract thinkers gave an answer. Hobbes, Locke, Kant and Rousseau are listed as social contract theorists. The Stanford Encyclopedia says this theory holds that rightful authority must come from the consent of the governed.

Our own reading: if power rests on consent, honesty in using it is a duty, not a favour.

6.2 What is the UN-linked framework of good governance?

UNEP, quoting UNESCAP, lists eight characteristics. Good governance has people take part. It seeks agreement. It is accountable, open, quick to respond, effective, fair and inclusive. It follows the rule of law.

It says such governance assures that corruption is minimised. It also takes minority views into account and hears the most vulnerable.

6.3 Which of the eight link most to probity?

Our own reading: accountable and transparent link most. RTI serves transparency. Charters and asset declarations serve accountability. Rule of law links to the Acts above.

7.1 What did the DPDP Act change in the RTI Act?

Section 44(3) of the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023 substituted section 8(1)(j). The new clause reads: information which relates to personal information.

The 2005 clause was longer. It exempted personal information with no link to public activity or interest. It also covered cases of unwarranted invasion of privacy.

7.2 What did the old clause also say?

It carried a test. The officer or appeal body could still release the facts if the wider public interest called for it.

Our own reading: the new clause is shorter and does not repeat that test inside clause (j).

7.3 What does the Government say?

A PIB release of 20 August 2025 says the change balances privacy, as upheld in the Puttaswamy case, with the right to information. It adds that section 8(2) remains.

Section 8(2) still lets an authority allow access when the public interest outweighs the harm.

7.4 How should you write this in Mains?

Name both values, privacy and transparency. Give the old clause and the new clause. Quote the Government’s position. Then argue for a balance.

8.1 Which questions came from this topic?

9.1 Which mistakes cost marks?

• Probity is more than legal compliance.
• The RTI Act was passed on 15 June 2005 and came fully into force on 12 October 2005.
• A Citizen’s Charter is not legally enforceable.
• The charter idea came from the UK, not from India.
• The Whistle Blowers Protection Act has assent but no commencement notification.
• Misfeasance is a knowing wrong, unlike negligence.