JOIN USThe proposed amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act do not remove all the shortcomings in the existing law, though they are touted as part of a major initiative to fight corruption. The union cabinet has cleared the changes to be made to the 1988 law, and the amendment bill is to be taken up by parliament soon. The bill prescribes harsher punishment for corruption and has some other welcome provisions. But the most damaging provision in the law, which has bred and facilitated corruption, has been left untouched. The provision that pubic servants can be prosecuted only with prior sanction from the government has shielded officials from facing the consequences of their decisions for long. It has, in fact, created a legal infrastructure for corruption and other forms of misconduct. But, instead of dismantling it, the amendments seek to perpetuate it and extend it. This will undermine the usefulness and efficacy of the anti-corruption law.
The amendments also give officials who have retired from or left service immunity from prosecution resulting from their past decisions and actions. They cannot also be investigated without permission, for decisions which may be considered as part of official duties. The UPA
government had proposed this in the bill it formulated in 2013 on the ground that a provision for this existed in the CrPC in the form of Section 197. The NDA government has decided to retain it. The right course should have been to drop the provision from the CrPC also. The requirement of prior sanction is the biggest factor that gives confidence to officials to indulge in corruption. Since bureaucracy always tries to preserve and protect itself, sanctions for investigation and prosecution of erring officials are not usually given. With retired officials also practically out of its ambit, the law will lose much of its sting now. The original intent of the provision was to discourage false and motivated cases against government officials. But this has been misused for promoting corruption. Honest, upright and law-abiding officials do not need such a shield during their service or after retirement. This provision should be dropped from the amendment bill if the claimed commitment against corruption is genuine.
The bill enhances punishment in terms of jail sentence for corruption but it is debatable whether a two-year increase will have any greater deterrent effect than now. There are some positive features like greater powers for trial courts, a time frame for trials and a provision to curb inducements of officials by commercial entities. But they do not make it the best possible law against corruption.