Download free Android App
Bureaucracy
and Corruption- There are enough provisions to tackle with
corrupt officials. The abused faced by certain honest officer happened due to
section 13(1) (D)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. According to this
section when any honest official tried to a take a decision related to even
some crucial sectors such as Mines, Coals and Petroleum, they were accused of ‘pecuniary
(Related to Money) advantage for any person’ .
What is
Section 13(1)(d) Of Prevention of Corruption Act(PCA) 1988?
Under Section
13(1) (d) of PCA 1988, it laid down five forms of criminal misconduct
by public servants. Finding that some officers were giving in too
easily to corrupt demands— and did not do anything to resist
such demands under the belief that as long as they were not beneficiaries, no
criminal liability was liable to be attached to officers. Section 13(1) (d) (iii), a public servant
commits the offence of criminal misconduct if he, “while holding office as a
public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage without any public interest”.
 |
| Original Law of PCA- Section 13 |
This stopped bold
decision making and hampered the growth of the Economy as well.
What is
new?
1- Giving
a bribe is now included as a crime.
2- If
anyone forces to give bribe then the bribe-giver must inform the
authorities within seven days of giving the bribe.
3- Also
included for the first time is the liability for ‘commercial organizations’,
which will be punished if any person associated with them, provides or promises
to provide, undue advantage (Some sort of benefits) to a public
official.
4- Under
the new Section 17A, except when a public official is caught ‘redhanded',
the police cannot begin a probe, without the approval of the relevant
authority, of any public official.
5- The
new Section 18A also introduces a provision for special courts to
confiscate and attach the property acquired through corrupt practices.
6- To
ensure speedy justice, guidelines will be set under the Amendment Act included
a limit of resolving cases within two years.
7- One of the fundamental features of the amended
act is that a new section — Section 17A — has been inserted, which bars
an “enquiry or inquiry or investigation” by an anti-corruption agency (CBI
included) against a public servant in matters relatable to the discharge of his
official duties, without the prior approval of the Centre or the state
government, as the case may be, or the disciplinary authority. This
provision would apply to all public servants, including the lowest rungs of
administration. Importantly, no enquiry is now permissible against an incumbent
minister or, for that matter, a former minister, without the prior approval of
the President. In case of MPs and MLAs, approval of the Speakers concerned
shall be essential.
Criticism-
1- By divesting the anti-corruption agencies of
initiative in combating corruption, this provision is likely to render them
toothless. As now anti- corruption agencies need more approval than the past.
2- Cases may be delayed as permission is needed.
3- In case the case extends more than two years
which is given limit for a corruption case to be closed, it is unclear that
what would happen to the case.
4- The public servants often show undue favors to
third-parties without leaving any evidence of quid pro quo or acceptance of
“undue advantage”. As provision protects honest officers yet it may help those
corrupt officials to escape safely.
5- The top executives of the public sector
financial institutions are likely to escape the long arm of the law despite
evidence of showing undue favors — because there is no evidence of their
intentions as well as law supports the decision making.
Conclusion
- It appears that the amended law is
public servant-friendly, concentrates the decision-making power with the
government in matters of initiation of enquiries and investigations but deprives
the anti-corruption agencies of initiative in combating corruption. It
needs a relook. Time-bound decision-making
is the best way for ease of justice, and GoI must be complimented for
introducing such provisions in statutes, including the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
