Tech in governance can minimise corruption, bridge trust gap between people & govt: Krishna Byre Gowda

Technology-driven governance means using digital systems to run some or all government processes. It can replace slow, unclear manual steps with procedures that are easier to track. This matters because citizens can see how services move, while officials can deliver decisions more consistently. Better visibility can also narrow the trust gap between people and government.

The article gives Karnataka’s Land Revenue Department as an example. During Krishna Byre Gowda’s tenure, officials introduced technology-based solutions to completely or partly automate government functioning. They used technology wherever possible to make processes more transparent and visible to people. Automation can create recorded steps, reduce unnecessary discretion, and help departments respond more effectively.

This approach does not make technology a complete answer. Gowda said it can minimise corruption and improve public service delivery if governments are willing to adopt it. Its wider value depends on responsible administration and citizen cooperation. Bengaluru’s infrastructure and civic challenges show that digital systems must support broader governance reforms, not replace them.

Karnataka’s land-administration changes focused on using technology throughout government functioning. The purpose was not simply to digitise records. It was to automate processes where possible, expose progress more clearly, and improve the department’s ability to deliver results. Greater visibility matters because citizens can better understand how decisions and services are handled.

Krishna Byre Gowda referred to his earlier tenure in the state’s Land Revenue Department. He said officials implemented many technology-based solutions that completely or partly automated government functioning. They introduced technology at whatever level possible. The article does not name individual platforms or specific land records, but it identifies automation, transparency, and public visibility as the central changes.

Gowda said these interventions significantly improved delivery and reduced opportunities for corruption. The broader lesson is that land administration can become more accountable when processes are structured and easier to observe. Karnataka’s experience also supports his argument that wider technology adoption can improve services and lower corruption levels.

Automating public services can reduce corruption by making government procedures more consistent, visible, and trackable. When fewer decisions depend on hidden manual steps or personal intervention, there are fewer opportunities to demand or offer improper benefits. Citizens can also gain confidence when services are delivered more predictably. That matters because Gowda identified technology as a way to bridge the trust gap between governments and people.

His example comes from Karnataka’s Land Revenue Department. Technology-based solutions completely or partly automated government functioning and made processes more transparent and visible. Gowda said these interventions improved the government’s ability to deliver results and reduced opportunities for corruption. The mechanism is straightforward: clearer processes and less discretion can make misconduct harder, while better records and visibility support accountability.

Automation is not a guarantee that corruption disappears. Gowda cautioned that technology alone cannot eradicate systemic corruption. Its benefits depend on government willingness, effective delivery, and civic behaviour. Used alongside those changes, digital systems can minimise corruption and help governments meet citizens’ expectations more reliably.

Bengaluru’s compliance gap is substantial. The city is estimated to have 35 lakh to 50 lakh properties, but only 23 lakh have registered titles, known as khatas. That means between 12 lakh and 27 lakh properties lack registered titles, depending on which estimate is used. The difference is large even before considering tax payments.

Property-tax compliance is lower still. Only 18 lakh properties pay property taxes. Compared with the estimated 35 lakh to 50 lakh total, that leaves between 17 lakh and 32 lakh properties outside the reported tax-paying group. There are also 5 lakh fewer tax-paying properties than properties with registered titles. These figures show two connected but distinct compliance gaps.

Gowda used the numbers to show why governance cannot rely on technology alone. Digital systems may improve administration, but public services also depend on residents obtaining legal titles and paying taxes. The figures point to a major challenge for Bengaluru’s finances, planning, and civic accountability as the city grows.

Better government performance cannot solve civic problems without public compliance. Governments must provide services, enforce rules, and plan infrastructure. Citizens must also meet basic responsibilities that fund services and make planning accurate. Gowda therefore described corruption and civic failure as a shared problem, saying they are not a one-way street.

Bengaluru’s property figures show the issue clearly. Of an estimated 35 lakh to 50 lakh properties, only 23 lakh have registered titles, or khatas, and only 18 lakh pay property taxes. Waste management offers another example. The government should ensure daily doorstep garbage collection, but residents should not dump garbage by the roadside. Both sides must perform their part for the system to work.

This shared responsibility affects trust and the city’s future. Tax payments support public administration, while legal titles help establish a clearer property base for planning. Responsible waste disposal protects civic services. Technology can improve delivery, but it cannot substitute for cooperation or remove behaviour that undermines governance.

Decades of unplanned expansion have produced serious infrastructure deficits and bottlenecks in Bengaluru. New development did not consistently reserve enough land for roads and other public needs. As the city expanded, these choices made movement and infrastructure upgrades harder. Gowda linked today’s problems to mistakes repeated over the past 25 years.

The contrast with Jayanagar makes the mechanism clear. Planned localities such as Jayanagar allocate 23% of their land area to roads. Problem-ridden unplanned areas may allocate as little as 8%. When roads receive less land from the beginning, later widening and connectivity become much more difficult. The difference reflects the lasting effect of proactive layout planning.

The government has stopped new illegal layouts and begun proactive planning across 2,000 square kilometres. That area is much larger than the current 750-square-kilometre Greater Bengaluru Authority geography. The aim is to avoid repeating past mistakes and halt further degradation. Better planning is therefore a forward-looking infrastructure response.

In standard governance terms, corruption is using public power or responsibility for improper private benefit. The article focuses less on defining it than on reducing the opportunities that allow it. Technology can make procedures visible, automate decisions, and reduce unnecessary discretion. Those changes matter because misconduct becomes harder when actions leave clearer records and services follow more consistent steps.

Gowda said Karnataka’s Land Revenue Department introduced technology-based solutions that completely or partly automated government functioning. He reported better delivery, greater transparency, and fewer opportunities for corruption. Yet he also warned that technology alone cannot eradicate systemic corruption. His phrase that corruption is “not a one-way street” points to the role of both officials and citizens in sustaining the problem.

Digital systems can therefore limit access points for corruption, but they cannot eliminate every incentive or behaviour. Citizens may still seek improper advantages, and officials may still misuse authority if wider accountability is weak. Gowda’s argument is for parallel change: adopt technology, improve administration, and encourage responsible civic conduct.