Fighting corruption in a digital age

Graft is a scourge that is pervasive in nature, encompassing a vast array of agencies and organisations in both the public and private sectors. Academic institutions, scientific and technical organisations, and even areas related to entertainment and sports have not remained untouched.

The need to curb, if not eliminate, corruption has therefore been accorded high priority by political leaders, administrators, scholars, NGOs and the global media.

Despite the plethora of measures taken by successive governments over several decades at the national and state levels, the malaise of corruption remains a major challenge in India. It undermines trust in governments and financial institutions, erodes the fabric of the country’s economy and adversely impacts the principle of equality before the law.

One of the structural causes of corruption lies in complex and opaque laws that grant excessive discretionary power to public officials. Such frameworks create opportunities for misuse, where bribes become instruments for hastening processes or bypassing regulations.

Weak enforcement and bureaucratic red tape often turn legal provisions into tools for extortion or undue advantage. Recognising this, the Government of India has undertaken a determined initiative to remove obsolete, redundant and archaic laws from the statute book in order to improve the “ease of living” and “ease of doing business.” Since 2014, more than 1,577 outdated laws have been repealed or amended.

In December 2025, Parliament passed the Repealing and Amending Act, 2025, which removed 71 outdated Acts—some dating back to 1886—from the statute book. These include the repeal of the Indian Tramways Act, 1886, and amendments to laws such as the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in order to modernise language, for example, replacing “registered post” with “speed post.”

In addition, the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2025 proposes to decriminalise 288 provisions across 16 central Acts. The emphasis is on cleaning up colonial-era laws, reducing legal complexity and prioritising civil penalties over criminal imprisonment. Various state governments are also actively engaged in repealing antiquated legislation.

At the same time, new challenges have emerged with the rapid digitisation of economic activity. Provisions of the Income Tax Act that authorise entry into premises and the seizure of undisclosed assets now extend to “computer systems” and “virtual digital space”, including smartphones, cloud accounts and communication archives.

The search architecture, originally designed for cupboards and ledgers, now claims access to devices that contain information far beyond tax inquiries.

Digital devices differ qualitatively from physical ledgers. A smartphone can contain years of intimate medical, personal and professional information unrelated to tax liability. Unrestricted access therefore risks converting a specific fiscal search into a broad exploratory intrusion that may be disproportionate to its intended objective.

Moreover, the new search regime does not mandate prior independent judicial approval before a digital search is conducted, relying instead on internal departmental authorisation. This differs from international best practices, where digital searches typically require a specific warrant tailored to the realities of the digital age.

While revenue collection remains a vital state function, methods of enforcement must remain proportionate to the liberties and interests they affect. Historical experience across societies and polities shows that legitimate power is strengthened when anti-corruption mechanisms are carefully designed and transparently implemented.

Indeed, the effectiveness of search operations themselves is increasingly being questioned. Critics argue that some investigations have evolved into “fishing expeditions”, raising concerns about digital privacy and the growing reliance on circumstantial or questionable electronic evidence rather than concrete physical proof.

While tax authorities maintain that such powers are essential to curb evasion, critics warn that unchecked search powers in the digital age could undermine long-term effectiveness. They point to allegations that such powers have occasionally been used for retaliatory raids against activists, journalists or corporate entities critical of the government.

When searches are driven by motivations other than curbing evasion, their credibility and effectiveness inevitably suffer.

Many traditional anti-corruption mechanisms also suffer from outdated investigative methods that fail to address modern and increasingly sophisticated forms of financial wrongdoing. A notable example is the phenolphthalein test, which has been a staple of anti-corruption operations for more than seven decades.

In such operations, currency notes are coated with a chemical that turns pink when washed with an alkaline solution, thereby helping agencies catch individuals red-handed while accepting bribes.

While the method has served a useful purpose, it is increasingly seen as inadequate in tackling complex financial crimes and digital corruption. Experience has therefore prompted calls for more advanced scientific and technological investigative techniques.

Thus, while the technical capacity to search and seize data has expanded significantly in the digital age, the effectiveness of such methods remains open to debate. Concerns persist regarding privacy violations, lack of transparency and the high rate of legal challenges arising from weak or circumstantial evidence.

During my years in public service, working across various departments of both the central and state governments, I found it useful to adopt what I call the “A, B and C” approach—an extremely effective method for improving performance while containing graft and dishonesty.

In addressing corruption, the first step is to resolve to ignore trivial and unimportant matters, which constitute the “A” category, large in volume but of limited significance. The next step is to identify and focus on the “C” category, consisting of areas that may be small in volume but extremely important in terms of their impact.

Having decided to ignore “A” and concentrate resources on “C”, it becomes necessary to summon the courage and determination to disregard the remaining “B” category as well. In my experience, this approach consistently yielded the best results by ensuring that limited administrative resources were deployed where they mattered most.

I used this strategy to considerable advantage during my tenure as Deputy Commissioner in the Commercial Taxes Department in the 1970s.

Another effective method for reducing corruption is to minimise direct contact between low-level officials and individuals or organisations whose contribution to revenue is relatively small.

This reduces opportunities for harassment and rent-seeking while having only a negligible impact on overall revenue collection. Similarly, prescribing precise check memos for activities such as tax assessments, raising demands or conducting searches can significantly reduce discretion and arbitrariness in administrative decisions.

Administrative efficiency can also be improved by adopting summary assessment methods. Under such systems, tax returns below a specified threshold are accepted as filed without elaborate verification or procedural scrutiny, thereby saving time and administrative resources.

Increasingly, the need is being felt to create institutional environments that reduce opportunities for dishonest practices, if not eliminate them altogether, much in the spirit of the old adage that a stitch in time saves nine.

Many organisations are therefore adopting a balanced “carrot and stick” approach, rewarding integrity while imposing exemplary punishment on individuals found guilty of corruption. Such strategies fall under the broader framework of preventive vigilance.

Preventive vigilance emphasises proactive measures such as system improvements, procedural reforms and administrative education designed to detect and prevent corruption before it occurs. By enhancing transparency, simplifying rules and strengthening internal controls, it promotes good governance while reducing the need for punitive action.

Officials in revenue-earning departments must also develop the ability to distinguish clearly between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Avoidance refers to the lawful use of legal provisions and loopholes to minimise tax liability. While it may not always be desirable, it remains legitimate and should not be frowned upon.

Evasion involves deliberate concealment or dishonest practices aimed at suppressing tax liability. Such conduct is illegal and must be dealt with firmly and, where necessary, harshly. Education initiatives, especially those targeting the youth, play an important role in fostering a culture of integrity. Such efforts shift the focus from punishment to prevention.

(The writer was formerly Chief Secretary, Government of Andhra Pradesh)