The paradox of accountability

‘A new category of “habitual complainants” has emerged in the government — individuals who repeatedly send complaints. The digital age has magnified this problem, as it has become effortless to send a complaint to dozens of authorities in a few clicks.

- AJAY KUMAR

‘These individuals are not whistle-blowers but people who exploit systems designed to protect genuine whistle-blowing. Revenge, resentment, leverage, or a misplaced sense of power fuels them.

‘Many are insiders — aggrieved subordinates denied promotion, officers facing disciplinary action, retired employees, or vendors unhappy with contractual decisions. Their goal is not accountability but to embarrass, cast suspicion, and damage reputations.

They weaponise complaints, preying on a civil servant’s instinctive fear of being perceived as guilty even when innocent. They exploit a system built on multiple layers of checks and balances including internal supervisory layers and external agencies such as the Central Vigilance Commission, Central Bureau of Investigation, and the Lokpal.

In a risk-averse bureaucracy, no one wants to be blamed for ignoring a complaint. So, discretion is replaced by procedure. Even allegations from a known mischief-maker are processed, “just in case.” A single frivolous letter can trigger an avalanche of scrutiny and the process itself becomes the punishment.

‘The habitual complainants have learned to exploit the system’s procedural anxiety. They understand the hierarchy, the sensitivity of timing, especially around promotions or transfers of the targeted officer. And the most cruel part of this paradox is that the complainant has nothing to lose. There is no penalty for falsehood, no cost for malice, no consequence even for a pattern of repeated deceit.