The Moral Vacuum in Governance

“Kursi hai tumhara, ye janāza toh nahi hai ,kuch kar nahi sakte toh utar kyon nahi jaate.”

These lines by Irtiza Nishat capture a profound critique of contemporary governance, echoing the frustration of citizens who witness public officials cling to power while accountability remains elusive. Democracy is built on the fragile yet indispensable contract between the rulers and the ruled. Citizens surrender authority, vote in leaders, and trust in the system’s fairness, expecting transparency, efficiency, and moral responsibility. When the custodians of power treat offices as a throne to sit upon indefinitely, rather than a responsibility to be wielded ethically, the very foundations of democracy are threatened.

According to the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, only 44% of Indians express trust in government institutions, highlighting a significant erosion of faith in public administration. Such statistics underline a stark reality: when offices are treated as entitlements rather than duties, society pays a tangible cost.

The consequences of this moral vacuum manifest in both micro and macro contexts. On a micro level, lapses in civic administration can directly cost lives, as seen in the Maha Kumbh stampede of 2025 in Prayagraj, where thirty pilgrims lost their lives due to inadequate crowd management, and in Noida’s Sector 150, where Yuvraj Mehta’s tragic death exposed glaring gaps in construction site safety and land documentation. On a macro level, unaccountable governance hampers national development, erodes public trust, and perpetuates systemic corruption. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2024 ranks India at 38/100, placing it 96th globally, underscoring the persistent structural weaknesses in accountability mechanisms.

Several factors contribute to this pervasive moral vacuum. First, the political culture often prioritises power retention over ethical action, encouraging leaders to avoid accountability. Second, bureaucratic inertia and hierarchical administrative structures dilute responsibility, allowing lapses to be ignored or superficially addressed. Third, citizens themselves are constrained by informational asymmetry, weak civic engagement, and limited access to

mechanisms that enforce accountability. This combination of factors creates an environment where transparency may exist in principle but is rendered ineffective in practice.

Transparency and Accountability: Pillars of Ethical Governance

In any democratic system, governance is legitimised not merely by elections or legal frameworks but by transparency and accountability. Transparency refers to the openness with which decisions, processes, and actions of government institutions are communicated to the public. Accountability, on the other hand, ensures that public officials are answerable for their actions and face consequences for failures or misconduct. Together, these twin pillars form the ethical backbone of governance, enabling citizens to trust that power is exercised responsibly. Yet, in India, these ideals are often aspirational rather than operational, leading to recurring crises and public disillusionment.

India’s Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, was a landmark attempt to institutionalise transparency. It empowered citizens to demand information from government departments, exposing corruption, inefficiency, and administrative lapses. Success stories abound: RTI petitions have uncovered illegal land allocations, delayed public projects, and irregularities in welfare schemes. For instance, RTI queries revealed misappropriation in several rural employment schemes, prompting corrective action and legal intervention. Yet, challenges persist. As of 2024, over 60% of RTI requests remain unresolved or delayed, according to data compiled by the RTI Annual Report, reflecting bureaucratic resistance and lack of enforcement. Delays, intimidation of applicants, and weak follow-up mechanisms severely dilute the effectiveness of this critical tool.

Transparency without consequences often results in a symbolic compliance that masks systemic dysfunction. The Bhagirathpura water contamination crisis in Madhya Pradesh illustrates this vividly. Despite multiple fatalities due to E. coli contamination, state authorities failed to immediately identify responsible officials or impose meaningful penalties, highlighting a glaring gap between transparency and actual accountability. The Maha Kumbh stampede of 2025 exposed lapses in crowd management, emergency preparedness, and administrative foresight. While reports were publicly released, and media coverage was extensive, the delay in judicial probes and absence of immediate disciplinary action reflect an accountability deficit.

The lack of transparency and accountability is further compounded by entrenched political and bureaucratic practices. Frequent rotation of officials without performance evaluation, overlapping responsibilities among departments, and discretionary powers that are seldom reviewed create an environment where responsibility becomes diffused, and failure is tolerated. Corruption, favouritism, and opacity in decision-making flourish in such an environment. According to Transparency International’s CPI 2024, countries like India, where public sector oversight is weak, score below 50, indicating widespread perception of corruption. Misallocation of climate funds, as noted in the CPI report, demonstrates how opacity undermines policy effectiveness, depriving vulnerable populations of critical resources.

Historical Exemplars of Moral Accountability

Lal Bahadur Shastri, one of India’s most respected leaders, embodies moral responsibility in public service. Serving as Railway Minister under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, Shastri faced two tragic railway accidents in 1956, first at Mahabubnagar and later in Ariyalur, resulting in a total of 256 deaths. Though technically not personally responsible, he tendered his resignation to uphold the principle of ministerial accountability, insisting that accepting moral responsibility was part of his duty to the nation. Nehru, recognising Shastri’s integrity, initially attempted to dissuade him, but Shastri’s resolve remained firm. His actions exemplify a rare ethical standard: the willingness to face political consequences for systemic failures.

VP Singh, as Finance Minister under Rajiv Gandhi, confronted institutional corruption by authorising investigations into black money stashed by influential individuals abroad. His pursuit of transparency clashed with political interests, particularly when the probe implicated acquaintances of the Prime Minister. When the government pressured him to ignore these irregularities, Singh resigned, prioritising ethical conduct over career advancement. His moral courage not only set a precedent in Indian politics but also demonstrated that accountability sometimes requires defiance of entrenched power structures.

The case of TT Krishnamachari, India’s Finance Minister in the 1950s, further underscores the importance of public accountability. The 1957 LIC-Haridas Mundhra scandal revealed irregularities in stock investments directed by LIC to stabilise certain companies. Even though Krishnamachari was not personally complicit, he chose to resign following the Chagla Commission inquiry, acknowledging that ministerial responsibility is inseparable from the

actions of one’s department. This act reinforced the principle that ethical governance demands ownership of institutional failures, not merely avoidance of personal blame.

VK Krishna Menon, India’s Defence Minister during the 1962 India-China conflict, faced intense public scrutiny and criticism for administrative lapses in military preparedness. Despite his previous achievements at the United Nations and in foreign diplomacy, Menon tendered multiple resignations, recognizing that the failures under his watch warranted moral accountability. Similarly, Keshav Dev Malviya, a stalwart in India’s oil sector, resigned after allegations surfaced about his involvement in political favouritism, even though investigations revealed no direct wrongdoing. His decision reflected a commitment to ethical governance over personal prestige.

Contemporary Transparency Metrics: Corruption and Governance Gaps

In modern governance, the principles of transparency and accountability are often quantified through indices and empirical measurements, providing a lens to assess the ethical health of institutions. One of the most widely referenced tools in this regard is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), published annually by Transparency International. The CPI ranks 180 countries based on perceived levels of public sector corruption, using a scale of 0 to 100, where 0 indicates a highly corrupt system, and 100 represents very clean governance. India’s performance in recent years has been concerning: in 2024, it scored 38/100, a slight decline from previous years, placing it 96th globally. This metric highlights systemic gaps in transparency, regulatory enforcement, and institutional integrity.

Corruption in governance manifests in multiple dimensions. First, financial corruption, including embezzlement, misallocation of public funds, and favouritism in public procurement, remains pervasive. A case in point is the diversion of climate funds, which Transparency International’s report indicates is a critical barrier to effective climate action. Countries most vulnerable to climate change often score below 50 on the CPI, suggesting a direct link between corruption and policy failure in addressing existential threats. Misuse of funds undermines not only development goals but also citizens’ trust in the capacity of the state to protect public welfare.

Second, administrative opacity compromises decision-making and accountability. Complex bureaucratic hierarchies, discretionary powers, and a lack of public disclosure mechanisms allow officials to make decisions with minimal scrutiny. Incidents such as the Bhagirathpura

water contamination in Madhya Pradesh, which claimed 21 lives, reveal the human cost of administrative opacity. Despite the crisis, state authorities initially failed to identify the officers responsible, reflecting systemic inefficiencies in accountability protocols. Likewise, urban infrastructure challenges in cities like Noida, where unclear land documentation contributed to the death of techie Yuvraj Mehta, highlight the lethal consequences of governance opacity.

Third, corruption erodes the equity and inclusivity of governance. Vulnerable populations, marginalised communities, women, and low-income groups bear the brunt of opaque decision-making. For instance, heat-induced health crises disproportionately affect women in rural and urban informal sectors, as shown by MSSRF studies, yet funds and interventions often fail to reach the intended beneficiaries due to leakages and bureaucratic inefficiencies. CPI metrics emphasise that low transparency correlates with the deepening marginalisation of these groups.

Case Studies in Governance Failure: From Kumbh to Bhagirathpura

The efficacy of governance is best understood not only through indices but also through real-life events that reveal systemic failures. India’s administrative machinery, while vast and multifaceted, has repeatedly displayed gaps in planning, accountability, and responsiveness. Two emblematic incidents-the 2025 Maha Kumbh stampede in Prayagraj and the Bhagirathpura water contamination crisis in Indore, Madhya Pradesh-illustrate how lapses in governance can have lethal consequences, and why transparency and moral accountability are essential pillars for effective administration.

The Maha Kumbh stampede tragically resulted in the deaths of 30 pilgrims and injuries to 60 others. The incident occurred in the Sangam area between 1 a.m. and 2 a.m., when devotees broke through barricades in the dense early morning crowd. Investigations revealed that crowd management protocols were insufficient, barricades were inadequate, and emergency response systems were either delayed or improperly deployed. The DIG of Mahakumbh, Vaibhav Krishna, stated that despite the scale of the event and repeated warnings about crowd density, preventive measures were insufficient. The Uttar Pradesh government’s limited disclosure and delayed coordination compounded the crisis, highlighting systemic deficiencies in risk assessment, inter-agency coordination, and real-time surveillance.

Bhagirathpura water contamination case underscores how urban governance failures directly threaten public health. At least 21 lives were lost due to bacterial contamination caused by a leak in a joint sewerage and water supply pipeline. Court proceedings revealed that the state initially failed to identify the officers responsible and lacked clarity about the exact source of contamination. Senior Advocate Ajay Bagadia emphasised that local authorities’ lackadaisical and perfunctory approach exacerbated the crisis, while the response of merely transferring officers, instead of taking substantive disciplinary action, highlighted an institutional culture that often prioritises optics over accountability. The contamination of 51 borewells and the widespread exposure to E. coli infections reflected both inadequate urban planning and the absence of rigorous monitoring mechanisms.

These incidents reveal several recurring challenges in India’s governance landscape. First, planning and preventive mechanisms are often insufficient, with risk assessments either ignored or poorly executed. In Prayagraj, despite large-scale crowd projections, authorities failed to implement dynamic crowd control measures, real-time surveillance, or contingency protocols. In Indore, the joint sewage-water pipeline had long been a known hazard, yet corrective measures were delayed, reflecting systemic inertia.

Second, accountability structures are weak. In both cases, officers responsible for oversight were either unidentifiable or shielded by bureaucratic procedures, which allowed lapses to persist. There is a culture of post-event blame avoidance, where transfers replace substantive disciplinary action, eroding both public trust and deterrence against future negligence.

Third, citizen engagement and transparency are lacking. Information about hazards, safety protocols, and risk zones was either inaccessible or delayed, preventing proactive public action. For instance, devotees at the Kumbh had no real-time alerts or guidance to navigate dense crowds safely, while residents of Bhagirathpura were not informed about the contamination until fatalities occurred.

Civic Neglect and Urban Governance: The Case of Noida

Urban governance in India faces unique challenges, particularly in rapidly expanding cities like Noida, where infrastructure development often struggles to keep pace with population growth and commercial expansion. The tragic death of Yuvraj Mehta, a 27-year-old techie, in Noida’s Sector 150 on January 16, 2025, starkly illustrates the consequences of civic neglect, regulatory gaps, and poor accountability. Mehta’s car plunged into a water-filled pit at a construction site near a drain while returning from work, highlighting severe lapses in urban safety protocols, land management, and municipal oversight.

Investigations revealed that the pit was part of a basement construction for a commercial complex. Despite repeated warnings about the hazards of unbarricaded and waterlogged construction sites, the area lacked basic safety measures such as reflectors, warning signs, barricades, or flood prevention mechanisms. Dense fog on the night of the accident compounded the risk, rendering the pit nearly invisible. The two-hour ordeal, during which Mehta was trapped and called for help, underscores the human cost of administrative apathy.

One of the core issues in this case is fragmented land documentation and regulatory oversight. The plot where the accident occurred had originally been allotted to Lotus Greens but was subdivided and sold to multiple developers after 2014. The Noida Authority admitted uncertainty regarding the current ownership of the specific parcel, reflecting a systemic weakness in land governance. This ambiguity delays enforcement of safety regulations, complicates accountability, and creates a hazardous environment for citizens.

Civic neglect in Noida is emblematic of broader urban governance failures in India’s satellite cities. Rapid urbanisation, coupled with commercial pressures, often prioritises construction speed over safety. Municipal authorities frequently face resource constraints, personnel shortages, and overlapping jurisdictional responsibilities, which impede effective monitoring of construction sites, water drainage, and urban safety standards.

Challenges in Achieving Transparent and Accountable Governance

Transparency and accountability are widely acknowledged as the cornerstones of effective governance. Yet, despite constitutional mandates, legal frameworks, and institutional mechanisms, India continues to grapple with significant obstacles to ensuring transparent and morally accountable governance. These challenges range from systemic corruption and bureaucratic inertia to gaps in legal enforcement and citizen participation. Examining these barriers is essential for understanding why governance failures persist and what measures can mitigate them.

One of the most persistent challenges is corruption and misuse of power. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2024 by Transparency International highlights that 85% of the world’s population lives in countries with scores under 50, reflecting endemic corruption. India scored 38 out of 100, ranking 96th globally, indicating moderate but pervasive governance risks. Corruption directly undermines transparency by diverting resources, distorting policy decisions, and creating opaque processes. For example, climate action policies are particularly vulnerable: misappropriation of climate funds, undue influence of industrial lobbies, and opaque decision-making structures reduce the effectiveness of environmental interventions and deepen social inequities, particularly among marginalised communities.

Second, bureaucratic complexity and overlapping jurisdictions create significant accountability gaps. Governance in India involves multiple layers of administration—central ministries, state departments, municipal bodies, and autonomous agencies-often resulting in diffused responsibility. Incidents like the Bhagirathpura water contamination crisis in Indore reveal how administrative confusion, unclear ownership of pipelines, and delayed identification of responsible officers contributed to fatalities. Similarly, the Maha Kumbh stampede in Prayagraj demonstrated failures in inter-agency coordination among police, disaster management, municipal authorities, and volunteer organisations, leading to preventable deaths.

Third, weak enforcement mechanisms hinder both transparency and accountability. Laws may exist on paper, but implementation is often inconsistent or perfunctory. Regulatory bodies frequently rely on transfers, warnings, or token penalties rather than substantive action against negligent officers or corrupt actors. This weak enforcement creates a culture of impunity, where systemic failures persist without consequence, eroding citizen trust. For instance, in urban construction zones like Noida’s Sector 150, unclear land ownership and ineffective oversight resulted in a fatal accident despite repeated warnings about unsafe sites.

Fourth, limited citizen engagement and access to information restrict public oversight. While mechanisms such as the Right to Information Act (RTI) exist, citizens often face challenges in obtaining timely and actionable information. The lack of accessible platforms to report grievances or track government action diminishes civic participation and allows governance failures to continue unchecked. For example, in both the Kumbh and Bhagirathpura cases, delayed information dissemination and inadequate public alerts increased vulnerability to harm.

Fifth, political expediency and cultural factors can inhibit accountability. Leaders may prioritise electoral considerations, party loyalty, or bureaucratic appeasement over ethical responsibility. Hierarchical pressures, fear of backlash, and short-term political incentives

often discourage officers from taking proactive steps, enforcing regulations rigorously, or reporting lapses. This cultural dimension of governance contributes to systemic inertia and a reactive rather than proactive approach.

Solutions and the Way Forward: Building Transparent and Accountable Governance

Achieving transparent and accountable governance in India is both a structural and cultural challenge. While laws, policies, and institutions exist to ensure administrative integrity, persistent failures reveal that compliance alone is insufficient. Moving forward requires a holistic approach combining legal reforms, institutional strengthening, technological adoption, and citizen participation to foster a governance ecosystem that is ethical, efficient, and resilient.

• Strengthening Legal and Institutional Frameworks: The backbone of accountability lies in robust legal and institutional mechanisms. Existing frameworks, such as the Right to Information Act (RTI), Lokpal and Lokayuktas, and anti-corruption agencies, provide essential tools but often suffer from limited capacity and enforcement gaps. Expanding the mandate and independence of these institutions is critical. For instance, empowering anti-corruption agencies with investigative autonomy, faster prosecution powers, and protection against political interference will ensure that systemic lapses are addressed swiftly.
• Leveraging Technology for Governance: Digital innovation can transform transparency and accountability. Geospatial Information Systems (GIS), AI-based monitoring, and IoT sensors can provide real-time oversight of urban infrastructure, construction sites, water distribution networks, and public service delivery. For example, in cities prone to water contamination like Indore’s Bhagirathpura area, real-time monitoring of pipelines and sewage systems using sensors can prevent bacterial outbreaks by flagging anomalies before they become catastrophic.
• Enhancing Citizen Participation: A vibrant democracy depends on active citizen engagement. Mechanisms such as public audits, community oversight committees, participatory budgeting, and civic education programs can empower citizens to hold authorities accountable. For instance, local Gram Sabhas in rural and semi-urban areas can conduct time-bound inspections of development projects, ensuring transparency in fund allocation and execution. In urban contexts, public dashboards displaying real-time project status, expenditure, and compliance metrics can increase civic oversight and discourage corrupt practices.
• Promoting Ethical Leadership: Institutional reforms alone are insufficient without a culture of ethical governance. Leadership at both political and bureaucratic levels must internalise moral responsibility, as demonstrated historically by figures like Lal Bahadur Shastri, VP Singh, and TT Krishnamachari. Promoting codes of ethics, mandatory training in public administration ethics, and recognition of principled leadership can cultivate a culture where officials voluntarily uphold accountability, even under political pressure. Incentivising ethical performance through awards, public acknowledgement, and career advancement opportunities can further reinforce this norm.
• Transparent Policy Design and Fund Management: Policies and public expenditure must be designed to minimise discretionary power and maximise traceability. For instance, climate and urban development funds should be digitally tracked, with open access to allocation, utilisation, and outcomes. The Corruption Perceptions Index 2024 highlighted that mismanagement of funds directly undermines citizen trust and policy effectiveness. Transparent fund management, coupled with strict auditing and independent oversight, ensures that resources reach intended beneficiaries and reduces opportunities for malfeasance.
• Multi-stakeholder Collaboration: Addressing accountability challenges requires collaboration between the government, civil society, the private sector, and academia. Multi-stakeholder platforms can identify risks, share best practices, and co-create solutions for governance challenges. For example, collaborations between municipal authorities, NGOs, and urban planners can improve disaster preparedness and public safety, reducing incidents like the Maha Kumbh stampede in Prayagraj or water contamination crises.
• Encouraging Predictive and Proactive Governance: Traditional governance is reactive; it often addresses failures after they occur. Moving forward, predictive governance using risk mapping, scenario modelling, and early warning systems can prevent crises. Cities can adopt urban risk indices for construction, environmental hazards, and public safety, allowing proactive interventions before human casualties or financial losses occur.

Moral Responsibility, Civic Safety, and the Future of Governance

The recurring theme of governance in India—be it in the corridors of power, the streets of our cities, or the villages along rivers and canals-is the urgent need for moral responsibility intertwined with administrative competence. Historical examples, such as Lal Bahadur Shastri's resignation in the wake of railway accidents, VP Singh's standing against corruption in defence deals, or TT Krishnamachari stepping down after the LIC-Haridas Mundhra scam, illuminate that ethical accountability is not merely a theoretical ideal but a practical necessity for trust in governance. These instances highlight a stark contrast to contemporary failures, where bureaucratic inertia, opaque processes, and political expediency often obscure the line between responsibility and neglect.

Modern tragedies, from the Maha Kumbh stampede in Prayagraj to the Bhagirathpura water contamination crisis in Indore, and even urban negligence leading to the untimely death of Yuvraj Mehta in Noida, are grim reminders of how the lack of transparency, weak oversight, and absence of proactive governance can transform preventable incidents into public disasters. In each case, systemic gaps-whether in inter-agency coordination, real-time monitoring, or clear lines of accountability-compounded by human oversight or ethical lapses, led to tragic outcomes. These events underscore that governance is not merely a set of rules or procedural checklists; it is a moral contract between the state and its citizens, demanding foresight, courage, and integrity.

The contemporary governance challenges are multifaceted. Corruption, as highlighted by the CPI 2024, continues to erode the capacity of institutions to act in the public interest, often prioritising narrow vested interests over collective welfare. Bureaucratic complexity and overlapping responsibilities dilute accountability, while limited citizen engagement reduces pressure on institutions to perform effectively. The rapid digitisation of society and the “always-on” culture of urban governance further amplify the need for systems that are not.

Ethical leadership must be cultivated alongside smart governance tools such as AI-driven monitoring, real-time grievance redressal, and predictive risk mapping. Citizens, empowered through participatory mechanisms and transparent information, must become active partners rather than passive recipients of governance. Importantly, accountability should extend beyond punitive measures, fostering a culture where responsibility is embraced voluntarily, not merely enforced by law.

Ultimately, the lesson is clear: governance that lacks moral responsibility and fails to protect civic safety is not just inefficient-it is socially and ethically untenable. India’s democratic promise depends on bridging the gap between institutional authority and moral obligation, between policy design and effective implementation. By learning from the ethical examples of the past, confronting contemporary challenges head-on, and embracing solutions that are both practical and principled, India can evolve a governance model that is transparent, accountable, and resilient, ensuring that tragedies are prevented, trust is restored, and citizens can confidently rely on the state to act as a guardian rather than a bystander.

In a nation where the stakes are human lives, environmental sustainability, and societal equity, governance cannot be treated as a ceremonial seat of power-it must be a responsible, accountable, and ethical stewardship of public trust. As the saying goes, “कुर्सी है तुम्हारा ये जनाज़ा तो नहीं है; कुछ कर नहीं सकते तो उतर क्यों नहीं जाते?”—power without responsibility is a betrayal of the very people it is meant to serve. The future of India’s governance lies in making this ethical imperative operational, actionable, and non-negotiable, ensuring that public office is both a privilege and a solemn duty. 

.     .     .