Honest public servants should be
protected
Sincere anti-corruption efforts should
be done. The amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is a good
effort aimed at combating corruption in government. The amended form may have a
liberating effect on honest officials. It is more concise and restricts
criminal misconduct to two offences: misappropriating or converting to one’s
own use property entrusted to a public servant or is in his control, and
amassing unexplained wealth. A
person “shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself” if he cannot
account for his assets through known sources of income.
By making citizens liable for
offering a bribe to a public servant, the anti-corruption law has been brought
in line with the UN Convention Against Corruption. The only exception to this
rule is when one is forced to give a bribe. The penal provision can empower
people to refuse to pay a bribe.
Public servants need to be
protected against unfair prosecution. The "giver" is equally
responsible as the "taker", however, it still seems difficult to curb
the corruption in the form of bribes. After this amendment, a corrupted
official per se, may remain assured that no one is going to complain because of
the nature of the amendment which says "both" are culprits.
Nevertheless, this amendment is in line with the UN Convention Against
Corruption and that's the only good thing about it.
The giver having to face music
hampers levelling of charges. The insulated provisions for bureaucracy
indulging in corruption act as dampener for the teethy laws to crack down on
corruption. Requirement of prior sanction for initiating investigation against
government officers is a shield for corrupt govt officers; such officers will
commit corruption with impunity.
Corruption should be curbed at any
cost. Law maker make policy for their interest and they don’t introduce
anything that will benefit public but introduce thing which is better for
themselves. It’s not their fault; it’s our fault; we choose them.
When an individual is forced to
part with bribe and he has to report to law enforcement agencies within seven
days and if the agencies refuse to accept what is the alternative? Further
prior permission to start investigation only will help increase corruption
since the permission to start investigation is very rarely sanctioned.
While assets not proportionate to
income can be assumed as obtained illegitimate it is to be proved by court and
it may take its own time hence it is indirect protection. Still the law favours
the corrupt.
The amendment saving the honest
officials is welcome. The previous provisions were menacing the officials who
exercised their power which resulted in favour to some others. Indeed
prevention of corruption should start from top brass. If the polity is very
strict and serious on corruption the officials will have the fear. But now the
top to bottom fearless corruption made it normal and the public servants demand
it. Another side of the coin is the public who yield to the demand for
corruption from polity and officials. Hence eradicating corruption is a two way
process and this will never happen. Lakhs of officials are booked for
corruption but it is not a whistle blower and corruption is still rampant. Strong
judiciary with time bound trials may have some effect on corruption.