More than 100 properties listed in senior officials' declarations do not carry current valuation information. (Img: Pinterest)
New Delhi: A review of the latest property declarations submitted by senior bureaucrats has brought to light significant shortcomings in the transparency framework governing the disclosure of assets by India's top civil servants. A substantial number of properties listed in the returns lack basic particulars, including their area, dimensions and present valuation, raising questions about the effectiveness of the disclosure mechanism intended to promote accountability and prevent corruption.
An examination of the declarations of 102 senior officials out of a total 131 Secretary-level officers and Chief Secretaries found that 115 of the 244 self-acquired properties listed did not specify their area or dimensions. An equal number of properties had no details of their current value. The declarations were made available on government websites on March 31, 2026, as part of the mandatory annual disclosure requirements applicable to senior public servants.
The 244 properties identified in the declarations comprise 219 residential properties, three commercial properties and 22 agricultural land parcels.
The review also found that 44 officials or their spouses held at least three self-acquired properties each. Of these, seven officials reported ownership of five properties apiece, while 13 disclosed four properties each. Another 24 officials had three properties in their declarations.
The highest number of properties was reported by a Secretary-rank IAS officer who listed eight self-acquired properties, seven situated in Kerala and one in Meghalaya. Another senior IAS officer declared six properties spread across Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi, including three in Mumbai and a Delhi Development Authority flat in the national capital.
The absence of valuation particulars emerged as one of the most prominent shortcomings in the declarations. Of the 244 properties examined, only 129 entries contained information in the column meant for indicating present value. In the remaining cases, officials used descriptions such as 'value not determined', 'not known', 'as per circle rate', 'not assessed' and 'not ascertained'.
The declared dimensions of residential properties varied considerably, ranging from 617 square feet to 23,925 square feet. The agricultural land holdings ranged from relatively small parcels to stretches measuring as much as 39 acres.
Most of the properties were located in Delhi-NCR and various state capitals. Several were situated in cooperative housing societies, including Kendriya Vihar residential projects developed by the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation.
The review further revealed that ten of the 102 officials had reported having no self-acquired immovable property in their latest declarations. Among them, an IAS officer belonging to the Jammu and Kashmir cadre has consistently submitted a 'nil' declaration since 2011. The other nine officials had disclosed property holdings in some of their previous annual returns but reported no self-acquired properties in the latest filing.
The exercise covered 95 Secretaries heading departments and offices under the Union Government, including the President's Secretariat, Prime Minister's Office, NITI Aayog and the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser, besides Chief Secretaries of 28 states and eight Union Territories.
The group also included nine scientists, five Indian Foreign Service officers and three Indian Police Service officers. One official belonged to the Indian Legal Service and another to the Indian Postal Service, while the remaining officials were IAS officers, predominantly from the 1989-1998 batches.
Under the applicable service conduct rules, bureaucrats are required to furnish details of their immovable assets, including those held by their spouses and dependent family members, by January 31 every year. These declarations are subsequently required to be placed in the public domain by March 31.
The practice of making such disclosures publicly accessible began in 2011, following demands arising from Right to Information (RTI) applications, the campaign for a Lokpal and the wider anti-corruption movement.
The disclosure requirement is intended to enable public scrutiny of the assets accumulated by public servants and provide an additional safeguard against corruption and the acquisition of disproportionate assets.
Section 44 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, originally envisaged comprehensive disclosure of movable and immovable assets and liabilities by public servants.
However, the provision was amended in December 2016, leaving the form, manner and timelines for filing such declarations to be prescribed through rules at a later stage. The rules contemplated under the amended provision have yet to be notified.
Consequently, while senior officials are required to disclose their immovable properties under applicable service conduct rules, a comprehensive framework for asset and liability declarations under Section 44 remains incomplete.
Questions have also been raised about whether the information furnished by officials is independently scrutinised and whether any action follows when mandatory particulars are omitted. The Cabinet Secretariat and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) did not respond to questions concerning the existence of a verification mechanism, action taken against officials who submitted incomplete declarations for 2025, or the status of the rules envisaged under Section 44 of the Lokpal Act.
While government employees are required to report certain additions to their movable assets when they cross prescribed thresholds, such information is not placed in the public domain. In contrast, asset declarations submitted by electoral candidates are publicly accessible, details of ministers' assets are available on the Prime Minister's Office website, and declarations concerning the assets and liabilities of Supreme Court judges were also made public last year.
The findings have once again brought the effectiveness of public asset disclosures into focus, particularly the need for complete declarations, meaningful verification and a uniform framework capable of ensuring transparency among those holding senior public offices.
