Bureaucrats’ Asset Declarations Reveal Major Disclosure Gaps: 115 Properties Lack Area Details, 115 Have No Current Valuation
Annual declarations of immovable assets are intended to strengthen transparency and accountability among India’s senior civil servants. However, a review of the latest disclosures by The Indian Express has revealed significant gaps in the information furnished by top-ranking government officials, raising questions about the effectiveness of the existing monitoring and verification mechanisms.
The review covered 131 Secretary-level officials, Chief Secretaries and other senior officers. Of these, the newspaper accessed the latest publicly available declarations of 102 officials, uploaded on official portals by March 31, 2026.
The declarations listed 244 self-acquired immovable properties. However, 115 properties had no details of their area or dimensions, while another 115 lacked information about their current market value. Ten of the 102 officials reported that they owned no self-acquired immovable property.
The findings have brought renewed attention to the completeness of mandatory asset disclosures and the extent to which the information submitted by senior public servants is independently scrutinised.
244 Properties Declared by 102 Senior Officials
The 244 properties identified in the declarations comprised 219 residential properties, three commercial properties and 22 agricultural land parcels. The review further found that 44 officials and/or their spouses owned at least three self-acquired properties. Among them, seven officials declared five properties each, 13 reported four properties each, and 24 listed three properties apiece.
A Secretary-rank IAS officer reported the highest number of self-acquired properties, declaring eight properties, including seven in Kerala and one in Meghalaya. Another Secretary-rank IAS officer disclosed six properties spread across Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. These included three properties in Mumbai and a Delhi Development Authority (DDA) flat in the national capital.
115 Properties Missing Area and Dimension Details
One of the most significant gaps identified in the review relates to the absence of basic physical details of declared properties. Of the 244 properties, 115 had no information about their area or dimensions. This means nearly half of the properties listed in the declarations lacked details that could help establish their physical size.
Among residential properties for which measurements were available, the reported areas ranged from 617 square feet to 23,925 square feet. Agricultural land holdings varied considerably, from relatively small plots to parcels measuring as much as 39 acres.
A substantial number of the properties were located in Delhi-NCR and state capitals. Several had been allotted through cooperative housing societies, including Kendriya Vihar projects developed by the Central Government Employees Welfare Housing Organisation.
Current Valuation Missing for Another 115 Properties
The disclosures also revealed considerable gaps in the reporting of property valuations.Although officials declared 244 properties, current-value information was available for only 129. For the remaining 115 properties, the declarations contained descriptions such as “not known”, “value not determined”, “as per circle rate”, “not valuated”, “not assessed”, “not ascertained” and “no assessment made”.The absence of current valuations makes it difficult for citizens to assess the present worth of these assets on the basis of the publicly available records.
Ten Officials Report No Self-Acquired Immovable Property Of the 102 officials whose declarations were examined, ten reported that they had no self-acquired immovable property.One IAS officer belonging to the Jammu and Kashmir cadre has reportedly declared “nil” self-acquired property in every annual filing since 2011.
The remaining nine officials had disclosed immovable assets in some of their earlier declarations but reported no self-acquired property in their latest filings.It is important to note that the review covered only self-acquired immovable properties and excluded ancestral assets.
Who Were Covered in the Review?
The broader group of 131 officials included 95 Secretaries heading departments under the Central Government, including officials serving in the President’s Secretariat, Prime Minister’s Office, NITI Aayog and the Office of the Principal Scientific Adviser. The category also covered the Chief Secretaries of 28 states and eight Union Territories.
Among the officials were nine scientists, five Indian Foreign Service officers and three Indian Police Service officers. One official heading two departments belonged to the Indian Legal Service, while another was from the Indian Postal Service. The remaining officials were IAS officers, most of them belonging to the 1989-1998 batches.
While Secretaries head departments at the Centre and rank immediately below the Cabinet Secretary, Chief Secretaries lead the administrative machinery of their respective states and Union Territories. According to the newspaper, the officials whose declarations were examined were holding their respective positions as of October 1, 2026.
Why Are Bureaucrats Required to Declare Their Assets?
Under the conduct rules governing their respective services, civil servants are required to submit annual declarations of their immovable assets, covering properties held by themselves, their spouses and dependents. These declarations are required to be updated by January 31 every year and placed in the public domain by March 31.
The public disclosure framework emerged in 2011 amid Right to Information (RTI) petitions, demands for the establishment of a Lokpal and the wider anti-corruption movement. Its stated objective was to make the property holdings of public servants accessible to citizens and strengthen accountability in public administration.
Section 44 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act originally required public servants to declare their movable and immovable assets, broadly reflecting disclosure requirements applicable to electoral candidates, Members of Parliament and ministers.
However, the provision was amended in December 2016. The amended provision stated that rules prescribing the form, manner and timelines for filing asset and liability declarations by public servants would be notified “in due course”. According to the report, those rules are still awaited.
Questions Over Verification and Accountability
The findings have raised a fundamental question: how effectively are the annual asset declarations of senior bureaucrats monitored, and what happens when officials leave essential information undisclosed?
The Indian Express reportedly sent questions to the Cabinet Secretariat and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), seeking clarification on whether an independent verification mechanism exists, what action has been taken against officials who omitted mandatory details in their 2025 filings, and the status of the rules envisaged under Section 44 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act.
Neither department responded to the newspaper’s emailed queries.
Another aspect of the disclosure framework concerns the difference between information that officials are required to report and information that is made publicly accessible. While civil servants must report additions to their movable assets above a prescribed value to the government, those details are not placed in the public domain.
By comparison, ministers’ asset declarations are available on the Prime Minister’s Office website, electoral candidates are required to make their asset details public, and the assets and liabilities of Supreme Court judges were also made public last year.
The latest findings have therefore put the effectiveness of the existing asset disclosure system under scrutiny. While annual declarations are intended to promote transparency in public service, the absence of property dimensions and current valuations in a substantial number of filings raises concerns about the completeness of the information available to citizens.
Ultimately, transparency depends not merely on the submission of annual declarations but also on the quality of information disclosed, the existence of effective verification mechanisms and accountability for incomplete reporting.
