Non-performance of duty represents a breach of public trust and constitutes corruption as defined by Transparency International and CVC guidelines.

Top-down flowchart with sequential rectangular boxes

Non-performance as Corruption: Evidence and Analysis

• Definitional Framework: CVC categorizes non-performance under passive corruption, where public servants fail to deliver services despite receiving salaries from public funds.

• Breach of Social Contract: Rousseau's social contract theory emphasizes that public servants hold positions of trust; non-performance violates this fundamental agreement with citizens.

• Economic Impact: World Bank studies show that administrative delays cost India approximately 2% of GDP annually through lost productivity and increased transaction costs.

• Denial of Rights: Non-performance effectively denies citizens their fundamental right to public services, as upheld in PUCL vs Union of India regarding food distribution.

• Systemic Consequences: Creates rent-seeking behavior where citizens pay bribes to access basic services, as observed in passport and license processing delays.

• Moral Dimension: Kautilya's Arthashastra emphasizes that dereliction of duty by officials is equivalent to theft from the state treasury.

Non-performance constitutes corruption as it involves misuse of public resources and breach of fiduciary duty. Implementing performance-based evaluations and citizen feedback mechanisms like Sevottam can address this challenge effectively.