Transforming Public Administration: The Administrative Reforms Commissions

Every nation that aspires to efficient, accountable, and people-centred governance must periodically examine its own administrative machinery – and reform it. For a democracy as vast and complex as India, this task is both critical and challenging. The Administrative Reforms Commissions (ARCs) represent some of the most ambitious attempts the government has made to do exactly that: to hold up a mirror to the bureaucracy, identify its shortcomings, and chart a course for improvement. Two such commissions have been constituted so far – one in 1966 and another in 2005 – each responding to the administrative needs of its time. Together, their work spans decades of recommendations covering governance, ethics, financial management, e-governance, and citizen rights.

The need for administrative reform in India 🔗

At independence, India inherited a colonial administrative apparatus designed primarily for control and revenue extraction – not for social welfare or participatory governance. The Indian Administrative Service (IAS) stepped into the shoes of the Indian Civil Service (ICS), but the underlying systems and procedures remained largely unchanged. As the decades passed, it became increasingly clear that the administrative machinery was struggling to keep pace with the demands of a growing democracy and a developing economy. Bureaucratic delays, corruption, poor grievance redressal, and a lack of coordination between departments were recurring complaints. It was against this backdrop that the Government of India set up the Administrative Reforms Commission – a body tasked with examining the public administration system and recommending concrete measures for reform.

The first Administrative Reforms Commission (1966-1970) 🔗

The first ARC was established on 5 January 1966 by the Ministry of Home Affairs. It was initially chaired by Morarji Desai, and later K. Hanumanthaiah took over as chairman when Desai became Deputy Prime Minister of India. The commission was constituted as a body of inquiry with a sweeping mandate – to examine virtually every aspect of the central government’s administrative structure and propose reorganisation wherever needed.

Mandate and scope 🔗

The first ARC was set up to examine the public administration of the country and make recommendations for reform and reorganisation covering the machinery of the Government of India and its procedures of work, as well as problems of redress of citizens’ grievances. While it had a broad remit, certain areas – such as defence, railways, external affairs, and security – were excluded from its detailed examination. The commission was free, however, to factor those sectors into recommendations about the general machinery of government.

The twenty reports and key recommendations 🔗

The commission submitted its reports in 20 parts containing 537 major recommendations, produced until the mid-seventies. These reports addressed a wide range of issues and remain influential reference points in public administration discourse.

Among the most significant recommendations was the creation of accountability institutions at both central and state levels. The commission recommended the establishment of two special institutions – the Lokpal, an independent authority at the central level to investigate complaints against administrative actions including those of ministers and secretaries, and the Lokayukta, similar authorities at the state level to handle complaints against state-level officials. Although the Lokpal Bill languished in Parliament for decades, the idea planted by the first ARC eventually culminated in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

On the question of Centre-State relations, the ARC constituted a study team under M.C. Setalvad and, on the basis of its report, made 22 recommendations for improving Centre-State relations – including the establishment of an Inter-State Council under Article 263 of the Constitution and delegation of powers to the maximum extent to the states.

In the area of personnel and civil service reform, the ARC proposed a unified competitive examination for Class I services, with the age limit raised to 26 years, while also recommending that lateral entry into senior technical posts be permitted to bring in specialised expertise. The commission also called for a national policy on civil service training and recommended performance budgeting – linking financial allocations to specific outcomes rather than mere expenditure.

Implementation: a mixed record 🔗

Of the 537 recommendations, 118 were implemented, 228 were rejected, and 21 were referred for further deliberation. A 1977 parliamentary report categorised them to ensure transparency. Many of the more foundational recommendations – particularly those requiring structural or legislative overhaul – remained unimplemented for years. Many of the recommendations involving fundamental changes were not acted upon. As a result, the framework, systems, and methods of functioning of the civil services based on the Whitehall model of the mid-nineteenth century remained largely unchanged.

That said, the first ARC did leave a tangible institutional legacy. It contributed to the establishment of the Central Vigilance Commission, provided the conceptual groundwork for Lokayuktas in several states, and prompted the creation of the Department of Administrative Reforms – which continues to function as the nodal agency for governance reform.

The second Administrative Reforms Commission (2005-2009) 🔗

By the early 2000s, India’s administrative landscape had changed considerably. Liberalisation, coalition politics, the rise of civil society movements, and the emergence of digital technology had all altered citizens’ expectations of the state. It was time for another comprehensive review. The Government of India set up the Second Administrative Reforms Commission on 31 August 2005, under the chairmanship of Shri Veerappa Moily, to prepare a detailed blueprint for revamping the public administration system.

Mandate and composition 🔗

The commission was asked to suggest measures to achieve a proactive, responsive, accountable, sustainable and efficient administration for the country at all levels of government. Its members included V. Ramachandran, Dr A.P. Mukherjee, Dr A.H. Kalro, and Dr Jayaprakash Narayan, with Smt. Vineeta Rai serving as Member Secretary. Unlike the first ARC, the second commission was also asked to look into specific areas such as ethics in governance, the right to information, and e-governance – themes that had barely existed as policy concerns in 1966.

Fifteen reports spanning a new governance agenda 🔗

Operational from 2006 to 2009, the second ARC published 15 comprehensive reports addressing diverse governance issues including ethics, e-governance, crisis management, and local governance. Each report was self-contained and focused on a specific theme, offering detailed recommendations backed by comparative research and stakeholder consultations.

The first report, titled Right to Information: Master Key to Good Governance, set the tone for the entire series. It presented the RTI Act (2005) as a tool for shifting administration from secrecy to openness, and recommended applying RTI across all branches of government – executive, legislature, and judiciary – while also building the capacity for e-governance so that information is more accessible. The commission saw transparency not merely as a legal right but as a cultural shift in how government relates to citizens.

Ethics in governance 🔗

The fourth report, on Ethics in Governance, addressed one of the most persistent challenges in public administration – corruption and the erosion of public trust. It stressed that good governance rests on strong moral values and integrity, called for clear codes of conduct for public servants, and recommended eliminating rules or procedures that encourage corruption while restructuring incentives so that corrupt acts become high-risk and low-reward. This was the first time the Government of India had formally asked a commission to examine the permeation of ethics across the entire administrative culture – not just at individual instances of misconduct.

Local governance and citizen-centricity 🔗

On local governance, the second ARC recommended involving Gram Sabhas and Ward Committees in the planning and monitoring of local projects to make governance more responsive, and called for training local officials and elected leaders in management and accounting so they could handle new responsibilities effectively. The twelfth report introduced what is now known as the ARC Seven Step Model for Citizen Centricity, a practical framework that governments were advised to adopt for all public-facing organisations – covering everything from defining services and identifying clients to evaluating impact through independent mechanisms.

E-governance: the smart way forward 🔗

The eleventh report, Promoting e-Governance: The Smart Way Forward, proved particularly prescient. It focused on recommendations for promoting e-governance in India and enhancing civic engagement in the process of governance, with several of its initiatives subsequently implemented and others set in motion by successive governments. The push for digital government services that followed – from the National e-Governance Plan to the later rollout of the Digital India initiative – can trace much of its conceptual lineage to this report.

Financial management and crisis response 🔗

The second ARC also turned its attention to systemic problems in financial administration. It highlighted issues such as inadequate adherence to multi-year perspectives, an irrational plan-non-plan distinction that led to inefficiency in resource utilisation, and an excessive emphasis on meeting budgetary financial targets rather than on outputs and outcomes. On crisis management, the third report examined disaster scenarios ranging from floods and earthquakes to epidemics, recommending a supportive role for the central government while placing the major responsibility for disaster mitigation at the state level.

Implementation process for the second ARC 🔗

The procedure for processing second ARC recommendations required them to be first considered by the concerned administrative ministries and departments, then reviewed by the Core Group on Administrative Reforms (CGAR) headed by the Cabinet Secretary, before being placed before the Group of Ministers (GoM) for consideration. The GoM’s views were then submitted for the Prime Minister’s directions. The Government constituted a Group of Ministers on 30 March 2007 under the Chairmanship of the then External Affairs Minister to consider the second ARC’s recommendations and review the pace of their implementation.

Comparing the two commissions 🔗

While both ARCs shared the fundamental goal of improving public administration, they differed significantly in context, scope, and approach. The first ARC operated in a newly independent nation grappling with the basics of governance – reorganising ministries, reforming recruitment, and building accountability structures from scratch. The second ARC, by contrast, was shaped by a more mature democracy’s challenges: entrenched bureaucratic culture, the promise of technology, the demand for transparency, and the need to make governance genuinely citizen-centric.

The first ARC was broader in its structural approach – examining the entire machinery of government – while the second adopted a thematic strategy, tackling one governance challenge per report. This allowed the second ARC to go deeper into each subject, though it also meant that some structural issues received less comprehensive treatment.

Both commissions, however, share a common limitation: the gap between recommendation and implementation. Recommendations involving fundamental changes have often not been acted upon , and the deeper cultural shifts required in administrative behaviour are difficult to achieve through reports alone, however thorough. This is not a failure unique to India – administrative reform is universally slow – but it does underscore the need for sustained political will alongside expert recommendations.

The legacy and ongoing relevance of the ARCs 🔗

The ARCs have left a lasting, if uneven, imprint on India’s governance architecture. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas, performance budgeting, the Right to Information Act, the Civil Services Board, grievance redressal mechanisms, and the conceptual foundations of e-governance – all carry the intellectual DNA of one or both commissions. The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG), which itself was set up in 1964 and strengthened over time, continues to act as the institutional home for implementing reform recommendations.

The reports of both ARCs also serve as essential resources for students and practitioners of public administration. They document not just what needed to change, but why – laying out the diagnosis of administrative malaise in careful, evidence-based terms that remain instructive today. As governance challenges evolve – from managing big data to ensuring social equity in digital public services – the frameworks and principles articulated in these reports offer a solid intellectual foundation for the reforms of the future.

What do you think? Given that many recommendations of both the first and second ARCs were either partially implemented or shelved, what structural or political conditions do you believe are necessary for administrative reform recommendations to be fully acted upon? And with technology reshaping governance so rapidly, do you think a third Administrative Reforms Commission is now overdue?

References

1. https://darpg.gov.in/about-arc
2. https://legislative.gov.in/acts/lokpal-and-lokayuktas-act-2013
3. https://cvc.gov.in/
4. https://www.darpg.gov.in/sites/default/files/ARC_on_Sevottam_and_Seven_Step_Model.pdf
5. https://darpg.gov.in/