Dinesh Kamath's Editorial 'Honest public servants should be protected' that was published in Newsband

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.