Code of Conduct for Ministers
Setting the Stage — Why Do Ministers Need a Code?
Imagine you are a shopkeeper who has been trusted by the entire colony to manage the colony’s common fund. You can do whatever you want with it — nobody is watching you every second. Will you spend it for the colony, or for yourself?
This is exactly the dilemma at the heart of political ethics. In a democracy, every Minister — be it at the Centre or in a State — holds power that ultimately belongs to the people. They are not owners of that power; they are its trustees.
Democracy and the Idea of Trusteeship
Democracy rests on one foundational belief: all power originates from the people. When citizens vote, they are not surrendering their power permanently — they are lending it temporarily. A Minister is therefore a trustee, not a sovereign. The authority entrusted to an official must be exercised in the best interest of the public — this is what we call public interest.
“A trustee who misappropriates trust is not just committing a legal wrong — he is committing a moral betrayal.”
The increasing role of government in every citizen’s life has amplified the influence that ministers and civil servants exercise. Greater power demands greater accountability.
| Concept | What It Means |
| Political Ethics | Principles of responsibility and accountability for those who hold political office. |
| Trusteeship | Ministers are trustees of the people’s power — they must exercise it in public interest only. |
| Public Interest | The collective well-being of all citizens; the supreme consideration for any public action. |
| Accountability | The obligation to explain one’s decisions and actions to the people and their representatives. |
| Code of Ethics | High moral values and guiding principles for good behaviour — aspirational in nature. |
| Code of Conduct | Specific, enforceable rules enumerating unacceptable conduct — minimum standards of behaviour. |
KEY INSIGHT: A Code of Ethics and a Code of Conduct are NOT the same thing. The Code of Ethics is broader and aspirational (like a moral compass), while the Code of Conduct is specific and enforceable (like a traffic rulebook). One guides; the other governs.
Framework for Ethical Behaviour — What SARC Tells Us
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (SARC) is India’s most authoritative body on governance reform. It recommended that any framework of ethical behaviour for public functionaries must include four essential elements:
| No. | Element | What It Means |
| (a) | Codify Ethical Norms | Write down the ethical standards in clear, documented form so everyone knows the rules. |
| (b) | Disclose Personal Interests | Ministers must declare their business interests to avoid conflict between personal gain and public duty. |
| (c) | Enforcement Mechanism | There must be a body or process to check whether the codes are actually being followed — rules without enforcement are meaningless. |
| (d) | Qualifying / Disqualifying Norms | Clear norms for what makes someone fit (or unfit) to hold public office. |
Think of it as a four-legged chair — remove any one leg and the whole structure collapses. All four elements are indispensable for any meaningful ethical framework.
The Nolan Committee’s Seven Principles of Public Life
The Committee on Standards in Public Life in the United Kingdom — popularly known as the Nolan Committee — outlined seven ethical standards for public office holders. These are globally recognised, widely accepted, and directly relevant to UPSC aspirants.
MEMORY TRICK: “SIOAOHL” — Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, Leadership
| # | Principle | Explanation |
| 1 | Selflessness | Decisions must be taken solely in terms of public interest — not for personal financial gain, not for family, not for friends. The public interest is the only valid consideration. |
| 2 | Integrity | Public officials must not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence their official duties. |
| 3 | Objectivity | All choices — public appointments, contracts, awards — must be made on merit alone. Favouritism and nepotism are direct violations of objectivity. |
| 4 | Accountability | Public officials are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public. They must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. |
| 5 | Openness | Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all decisions and actions. Information may be restricted only when wider public interest clearly demands it. |
| 6 | Honesty | Officials have a duty to declare private interests relating to their public duties. Any conflicts must be resolved in a way that protects public interest, not personal interest. |
| 7 | Leadership | Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example — not just follow them personally, but inspire others to follow them too. |
These seven principles are not merely for British politicians. They have been universally adopted as the gold standard for public office across democracies.
The Spanish ethical code expands this further by including neutrality, credibility, impartiality, confidentiality, austerity, accessibility, transparency, and promotion of equality — showing that different nations elaborate these principles according to their context.
UPSC CONNECTION: The UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) also echoes these principles, urging member nations to promote integrity, honesty and responsibility among public officials and lay down codes for honourable performance of public functions.
Code of Conduct for Ministers in India
India has its own Code of Conduct applicable to both Central and State Ministers. Let us understand what a minister is expected to do before and during their time in office. Think of it as a set of ‘rules of the game’ that every player must accept before entering the field.
Obligations Before Taking Office
Before being sworn in, every minister must:
- Inform the Prime Minister (for Central ministers) or the Chief Minister (for State ministers) about all assets, liabilities, and business interests of themselves and their family members. The declaration must cover: all immovable property, approximate value of shares and debentures, cash holdings, and jewellery.
- If the minister owns any business, they must disassociate themselves from its conduct and management. However, they need NOT give up ownership — only management.
- If the minister owns or manages a business that supplies goods or services to the Government or government undertakings, they must give up their interest in that business. (Exception: regular supplies made at market rates in the ordinary course of business are allowed.)
- If a business mainly depends on government licences, permits, quotas, or leases, the minister must give up their interest in it entirely.
- Ministers must prevent their family members from starting or joining the two categories of businesses mentioned above (government-supply businesses and licence-dependent businesses).
- A minister may transfer such a business and its management to any adult family member (other than their spouse) or a relative who has long been associated with it.
- Ministers can generally continue to hold shares in public limited companies — this is not restricted.
Key Provisions
| Step | Action Required | Details / Nuances |
| 1 | Asset Declaration | Disclose all immovable property, shares, debentures, cash, jewellery to PM/CM. |
| 2 | Disassociate from Business | If the minister owns a business — step away from management, but can retain ownership. |
| 3 | Govt-Supply Business | Must give up interest in any business supplying to Govt/PSUs (except routine market-rate transactions). |
| 4 | Licence-Dependent Business | Must give up interest in businesses that depend on govt licences, permits, quotas, or leases. |
| 5 | Family Members | Prevent family from starting/joining the above two categories. Business may be transferred to adult family (not spouse) or long-standing associate. |
| 6 | Public Company Shares | Holding shares in public limited companies is generally permissible — no restriction. |
The underlying logic of all these provisions is one: eliminate every possible conflict of interest. A minister’s decisions should never be clouded by personal financial gain. Wherever such a shadow could fall, the Code demands that the minister step back.
Case Studies — Learning Ethics Through Real Scenarios
‘Concepts without application are just words. The real test of understanding is when you can reason through a messy, real-world scenario.’ Let us now apply everything we have learned.
| CASE STUDY 1 |
| SCENARIO Bhushan Kumar’s father has been sworn in as a minister. Bhushan Kumar’s son Vinay is a wholesale steel supplier of long standing. He has been supplying steel to many government departments. Someone advises Vinay that he would have to disassociate himself with the business. QUESTION What will be the correct course of action for Vinay? |
| Option 1: He should close his business. |
| Option 2: He can continue with his business. [CORRECT] |
| Option 3: He should stop dealing with government departments and public undertakings. |
| Option 4: He should separate his household from that of his father. |
| ANALYSIS This is a beautiful case study in understanding what the Code actually restricts — and what it does NOT. Vinay is a grandson of a minister, not the minister’s child or spouse. More importantly, his steel business is a long-standing, pre-existing business — it has no connection with his grandfather becoming a minister. Vinay is not being favoured; he is simply continuing legitimate trade at market rates. Closing the business or separating households would be unnecessarily harsh and unwarranted. The Code targets conflict of interest, and here there is none. |
| CASE STUDY 2 |
| SCENARIO Ramananda has become a minister with the portfolio of mines and minerals. His son wants to join a mining business. His partner is looking for government mining leases. Can Ramananda’s son join the business? QUESTION What is the correct course of action which Ramananda’s son should follow? |
| Option 1: He can join the business as planned. |
| Option 2: He can join and Ramananda can report the matter to the Chief Minister. |
| Option 3: He should NOT join the business as planned. [CORRECT] |
| Option 4: He can join as a sleeping partner. |
| ANALYSIS This is the opposite of Case 1 — here, conflict of interest is glaring. Ramananda is the Minister of Mines and Minerals. His son wants to join a business that needs government mining leases — leases that Ramananda directly controls. This is a textbook conflict of interest. Option 1 is clearly wrong. Option 2 is also wrong — reporting to the CM does not remove the conflict, it just creates an additional layer of oversight that does not address the problem. Option 4 is perhaps the most insidious — hiding an improper action behind the facade of a ‘silent partnership’ does not make the impropriety acceptable. Hiding wrong does not equal correcting wrong. |
| CASE STUDY 3 |
| SCENARIO Jiva Daya Mandal is an old and established humanitarian organisation. Muralidharan, Social Welfare Minister, makes an appeal on behalf of the Mandal for donations. Some people criticised Muralidharan for impropriety. QUESTION How will you evaluate Muralidharan’s action? |
| Option 1: He should not have appealed for donations for the Mandal. |
| Option 2: No serious objection can be taken to Muralidharan’s action. [CORRECT] |
| Option 3: He should have told the Mandal not to approach him in such matters. |
| Option 4: He should have told the Mandal to approach some celebrity. |
| ANALYSIS This case tests whether we apply the Code too broadly or too narrowly. Muralidharan has associated himself with a reputed humanitarian cause — there is no personal financial gain, no conflict of interest, and no violation of any provision of the Code. The appeal is not for his own benefit but for a legitimate institution. The only caution the Code suggests is that he should recommend only highly reputed institutions and should NOT handle the donations personally — they must be directed straight to the Mandal. Options 3 and 4 are wrong because they assume impropriety where there is none. A minister’s role also includes being a moral leader in society. |
| CASE STUDY 4 |
| SCENARIO Kiran Mallu is a staunch supporter of a minister. He handles crowd mobilisation for the minister’s meetings. Mallu is engaged by an industrialist as a consultant to get a large piece of government land for a factory. Part of that land belongs to village pasture. The minister is bringing great pressure on officials to denotify the village pasture and hand it over to the industrialist. QUESTION What can be an appropriate reflection on the minister’s conduct? |
| Option 1: Unless land is made available to industry, no economic progress is possible. |
| Option 2: This is part of political dynamics in democratic societies. |
| Option 3: The minister’s action is wrong. [CORRECT] |
| Option 4: Ministers can make demands; it is for civil servants to resist wrong demands. |
| ANALYSIS This case is about a clear abuse of ministerial power — and it is wrong on multiple counts. First, the minister is supporting his political manager (Mallu), which is cronyism. Second, he is exerting undue pressure on officials to take an improper action, which violates their professional autonomy. Third, he is subordinating public interest (village pasture as community resource) to private interest (a factory for a private industrialist). Options 1 and 2 are dangerously general statements that do not justify this specific wrong. Option 4 has a grain of truth — civil servants must resist — but this does not absolve the minister. Ministers are supposed to provide moral leadership, not goading officials into wrongdoing. |
SARC’s Proposed Code of Ethics for Ministers
The existing Code of Conduct for Ministers is essentially a negative list — it tells ministers what NOT to do. SARC observed that this is insufficient. It recommended a Code of Ethics that tells ministers what they SHOULD do and how they should uphold the highest standards of constitutional and ethical conduct.
Think of it this way: A traffic code tells you ‘Don’t speed, don’t jump signals.’ But it doesn’t tell you to be a courteous, alert, and responsible driver. A Code of Ethics fills that positive space.
Key Provisions of SARC’s Proposed Code of Ethics
SARC’s proposed Code covers the following critical responsibilities for ministers:
| # | Provision |
| (a) | Ministers must uphold the highest ethical standards. |
| (b) | Ministers must uphold the principle of collective responsibility — the cabinet speaks with one voice. |
| (c) | Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies. |
| (d) | Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises — or appears to arise — between their public duties and private interests. |
| (e) | Ministers in the Lok Sabha must keep their roles as Minister and constituency member separate. |
| (f) | Ministers must NOT use government resources for party or political purposes. They must accept responsibility for their decisions — they cannot blame wrong advice. |
| (g) | Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service. They must NOT ask civil servants to act in ways that conflict with civil servants’ duties. |
| (h) | Ministers must comply with requirements laid down by both Houses of Parliament from time to time. |
| (i) | Ministers must recognise that misuse of office or official information violates their role as repositories of public trust. |
| (j) | Ministers must ensure that public funds are used with utmost economy and care. |
| (k) | Ministers must function as instruments of good governance and foster socio-economic development. |
| (l) | Ministers must act objectively, impartially, honestly, equitably, diligently and in a fair and just manner. |
Additionally, SARC prescribed that an Annual Report on violations of the Code by ministers should be submitted to the appropriate legislature. The Code should also be placed in the public domain — currently, most citizens do not even know such a Code exists!
SARC’s Specific Recommendations — What Needs to Change
SARC went beyond just proposing a Code — it also recommended a concrete institutional mechanism for enforcement. This is critical: even the best code is meaningless without a body to monitor it.
| Recommendation | What SARC Said | Why It Matters |
| Dual Code | In addition to the Code of Conduct, there should be a separate Code of Ethics on the lines described above. | Code of Conduct covers minimum standards. Code of Ethics covers aspirational values. Both are needed. |
| Monitoring Units | The PM and CMs should create dedicated units in their offices to monitor observance of both Codes. | Without monitoring, codes are just paper. Real-time oversight ensures compliance. |
| PM/CM Duty | The PM/CM is duty-bound to ensure observance of both Codes by all ministers — including coalition partners from different parties. | Coalition governments create complex dynamics. The Code must apply to all, regardless of party affiliation. |
| Annual Report | An annual report on observance of these Codes — including specific cases of violations and action taken — should be submitted to the legislature. | Transparency and accountability through documentation. Citizens and Parliament can scrutinise adherence. |
| Minister-Civil Servant Relations | The Code of Ethics should include broad principles of the minister–civil servant relationship. | This protects the professional integrity of civil servants from improper political pressure. |
| Public Domain | The Code of Ethics, Code of Conduct, and the Annual Report should all be placed in the public domain. | Citizens have a right to know by what standards their elected representatives are being held. |
| CRITICAL DISTINCTION: Code of Ethics vs Code of Conduct |
| Code of Ethics: Broad, aspirational, positive principles — what a minister SHOULD do. Reflects high moral values. Not directly enforceable but creates a moral framework. Example: ‘Act in public interest at all times.’ |
| Code of Conduct: Specific, mandatory, negative rules — what a minister must NOT do. Legally/procedurally enforceable. Example: ‘Do not hold shares in companies supplying goods to the government.’ |
| SARC’s position: Both codes are necessary and complementary. The Code of Ethics gives direction; the Code of Conduct sets boundaries. |
India in Global Context — International Ethical Standards
India’s Code of Conduct does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of a global movement to ensure that public office remains truly public — not an instrument of personal enrichment. Let us briefly map the international landscape:
| Country/Body | Standard/Code | Key Focus |
| United Kingdom | Nolan Committee’s 7 Principles | Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty, Leadership. |
| Spain | Ethical Code for Public Officials | Objectivity, neutrality, transparency, austerity, gender equality — 15+ values. |
| United Nations | UNCAC (Convention against Corruption) | Exhorts all member nations to promote integrity and lay down codes of conduct for public officials. |
| Canada, USA, etc. | Various national codes for ministers and legislators | Conflict of interest disclosure, lobbying restrictions, post-service restrictions. |
| India (SARC-recommended) | Code of Ethics + Code of Conduct for Ministers | Covering the full range from property declarations to minister-civil servant relations. |
A common thread runs through all these frameworks: public office is a sacred trust, and those who hold it must demonstrate not just legal compliance but moral exemplariness. ‘Mere legal compliance to rules is insufficient. Political functionaries have to adopt exemplary moral standards.’
Summary — The Big Picture
Let us now zoom out and see the whole landscape of this Section in one sweep:
| THE ARCHITECTURE OF MINISTERIAL ETHICS |
| FOUNDATION: Democracy = People’s Sovereignty → Ministers are Trustees → Trusteeship = Public Interest Must Prevail |
| GLOBAL STANDARDS: Nolan Committee’s 7 Principles + UNCAC + Various National Codes |
| INDIAN CODE OF CONDUCT: Asset disclosure, business disassociation, conflict of interest avoidance, family restrictions |
| SARC’S CODE OF ETHICS: 12 broad principles covering accountability, political neutrality, resource use, socio-economic development |
| SARC’S RECOMMENDATIONS: Monitoring units in PM/CM offices, annual reports to legislature, public disclosure of codes |