Weaponised vigilance: Baseless complaints are paralysing administrators

Former Defence Secretary calls for accountability for false complaints, warns of systemic risk-aversion in bureaucracy

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. 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. 

Due to this menace, several upright, conscientious officers have been driven to anguish. Once a complaint is filed, the officer is instantly in the dock and the burden of proof shifts. He must now prove his innocence rather than the complainant proving guilt. Officers facing baseless allegations find themselves responding to humiliating queries. Each step is time-consuming, draining, and reputationally corrosive. In this lonely battle, truth becomes his only defence, and yet, truth alone is often not enough. Even when the officer is eventually exonerated, the process takes months, sometimes years. By the time the matter is closed, opportunities like promotions, postings, or key assignments may have passed and the officer is left with scars, both professional and psychological.  

One tempting option is to file a defamation suit and call out the lies for what they are. However, the moment an officer takes legal action, what was once a baseless whisper becomes a public duel. The second problem is that defamation suits also drag on for years, sometimes decades. By the time a verdict arrives, the purpose of the complaint has already been served.  

Accountability is the cornerstone of good governance. It is meant to ensure that those in authority are answerable for their actions, that transparency prevails over opacity, and that integrity becomes the bedrock of public life. It allows anyone, regardless of position or power, to raise a voice against wrongdoing.  The fear of being watched keeps the machinery honest.  

While openness is both desirable and necessary, it also brings hidden risks. Every time an officer takes a firm, principled decision, especially one that disrupts entrenched interests, he becomes vulnerable to complaints. As a result, the honest officer is forced into a constant balancing act: Exercise authority and risk personal attacks, or remain silent and allow inefficiency or wrongdoing to continue. Over time, this creates a dangerous behavioural shift within the system. Instead of pursuing bold reforms or taking difficult calls, officers begin favouring decisions that are safe, delay is preferred over action, and routine becomes safer than innovation.  

The consequences for governance are profound. Instead of enabling efficiency and ethics, the vigilance frameworks inadvertently incentivise timidity. That is the real paradox: Mechanisms created to protect honesty are paralysing decisive governance. A system designed to discipline the dishonest ends up discouraging the honest. 

The noble intent of openness has unfortunately been misused by some with impunity. A simple analysis of the number of complaints filed by habitual complainants and how many of them were found to have merit would be revealing. In a mature system, accountability must walk hand in hand with fairness. Vigilance without discretion becomes persecution; transparency without context becomes exposure; and scrutiny without proportionality becomes injustice. It is important not to weaken accountability, but to make it discerning. Some years ago, officers faced harassment due to anonymous or pseudonymous complaints. After the CVC and the Department of Personnel & Training issued clear instructions that no action should be taken on such complaints, the problem was largely resolved. Similarly, the issue of habitual complainants also needs to be addressed. 

Several reforms may be worth considering to address this growing challenge. First, accountability should be introduced for false or malicious complaints. Technology can help identify habitual complainants, and complaints from such sources could automatically carry a low confidence score, with officers advised not to act unless corroborating evidence exists. Second, conduct rules must explicitly recognise repeated unfounded complaints as misconduct and enable proportionate penal action. Finally, leadership must be empowered to exercise informed discretion, with senior officers supported when closing baseless cases.   

Accountability remains indispensable. But when it becomes detached from fairness, it breeds caution and sub-optimal decision-making. The nation suffers when the brightest minds and most dedicated public servants operate under constant fear. Reclaiming the balance between vigilance and trust is not merely a bureaucratic necessity, it is a national need.  

The author is Chairman, Union Public Service Commission and former Defence Secretary. The views are personal