Anti-Corruption Laws in India

• India ranks 76^th (2015) in corruption index published by Transparency International every year. The corruption is rampant in India, both at lower and higher levels. At lower levels, things doesn’t seem to move without greasing hands of officials, and at higher levels too, the news are filled with one scam or the other.

• The Tamilnadu government recent order mandating prior sanction of government for an inquiry into corruption charges against any state official, has brought the issue of anti-corruption laws in India back into common discussion. Before the order, government approval for preliminary inquiry was only needed in cases related to All India Services Officers (IAS, IPS and IFoS). In light of above, it would be pragmatic to see all the anticorruption laws/directives at a place.

• Indian government has enacted several laws in light of increasing corruption in the country, especially after two decades after independence when the trend of rising corruption took a flight, especially after emergence of license raj. To list them down, they would be

1. Indian Penal Code, 1960: has few section for corruption but punishments are mild
2. Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964: Serves as central light post to guide each activity of central civil servants. Each state may have their own guidelines.
3. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: acted as watershed event in India’s drive for anti-corruption.
4. The Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988
5. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
6. Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003
7. Lokpal and Lokayukt Act, 2013
8. The Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014 with approved amendments

• With Lokpal Act still not implemented, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) and Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (CVC Act) acts as main deterrents. Recently, union cabinet approved amendments to PCA act to strengthen it further. Let’s take a note of proposed amendments:
  • More stringent punishment for bribery, both for bribe giver and bribe taker.
  • Penal provisions has been enhanced both for minimum and maximum punishment. Minimum has been increased from 6 months to 3 years and maximum to 7 years.
  • Power of attachment of property to trial court.
  • Holding of responsibility to all of commercial organisation rather than individual (eg. Recent document leak from Ministries, but only individual being held and companies spared)
  • Ensure speedy trials within 2 years
  • Extension of prior approval for prosecution to retired public servants as well.

• These amendments, though brought in with right spirit may still prove ineffective to address the loopholes, especially in ambit “prior sanction”. We talked about the same in very first line. This was provided by directive to the CBI in 1969. The stated objective of the Directive is to protect decision making level officers from the threat and ignominy of malicious and vexatious inquiries/investigations. It is said that such protection to officers at the decision making level is essential to protect them and to relieve them of the anxiety from the likelihood of harassment for taking honest decisions. It was also stated that absence of any such protection to them could adversely affect the efficiency and efficacy of these institutions because of the tendency of such officers to avoid taking any decisions which could later lead to harassment by any malicious and Vexatious inquiries/investigations. It was made clear that the Directive does not extend to any extraneous or non-official acts of the government functionaries and a time frame has been prescribed for grant of sanction in such cases to prevent any avoidable delay.

• Though permission to prosecute has always been talked to be provided in a limited time frame, the reality on grounds is different and it sometimes exceeds over a year or two. This provides ample time for evidences to be removed. The PCA amendment seek to put it in law, that the initial permission should be granted strictly within a time frame.

• Right to Information Act, though not an exclusive anti-corruption law but has risen to the fore, as an indirect means of anti-corruption in India. Citizens empowered by the act, can demand the data related to all public affairs (except few exceptions) and thus indirectly prosecute mischievous decisions.

• Steps which can be taken to improve the scenario can be:

• Adaptation of technology – like recording of activities in public space and e-governance
• Political will
• Greater courage on part of senior officials to stand up to unethical pressure from top
• Quick freezing of account and attachment of properties acquired by fraudulent means
• Speed permission for initial enquiry – a time frame which is strictly adhered to.
• Community action or Citizen Movement: resolve to pay no bribe
• Greater autonomous powers to CBI and CVC
• Quick implementation of Lokpal and Lokayukt Act and proper implementation by providing it with necessary machinery.

Legislation, combined with government and citizen will can only wipe out the menace of corruption from India.