Twitter
Advertisement

Babus need protection from 'honest errors', but graft cannot be tolerated: Bureaucrats on anti-corruption law

There should be no shield against probing corrupt government officials, but civil servants need to be protected from penalisation in case of honest errors, some former bureaucrats on Thursday said while hailing the proposed amendments in the anti-corruption law approved by the Centre.

Latest News
article-main
Representational Image
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

There should be no shield against probing corrupt government officials, but civil servants need to be protected from penalisation in case of honest errors, some former bureaucrats on Thursday said while hailing the proposed amendments in the anti-corruption law approved by the Centre.

"It is a very positive step. But there is a need to take many more steps to check corruption in India. Political corruption also needs to be checked," former Cabinet Secretary, TSR Subramanian, told PTI. He said there has to be some protection for civil servants for making bona fide mistakes.

"There must be a senior officer in an investigating agency to decide whether or not a decision was taken in good faith. It should not be left to a junior official to decide on a particular case.

"One should not judge a civil servant on the basis of whether a decision is right or wrong, but on the basis of the documents or the information available to him as he took that decision," Subramanian said.

There should be no shield for an official in case of corruption. If an officer is found to own assets more than his known sources of income or hold benami property, then there should be no shield, the former bureaucrat said.

He was commenting on Wednesday's Union Cabinet decision to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by incorporating stringent penal provisions in it.

"It is a welcome a step. But it has to be seen that these provisions, after they become part of law, are implemented in letter and spirit," said former Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC), PJ Thomas. Legal experts also said they feel that the proposed changes will help in checking corruption in the country.

"This will go a long way towards bringing the fear of law with respect to corrupt practices in the country. In public dealings, some babus extort money by unnecessarily delaying the work or raising trivial doubts. But, with these amendments, corruption will be curbed," said senior Supreme Court lawyer G Venkatesh Rao.

Noting that corruption is taken very seriously across the globe, Rao said, "I feel that the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), which has been ratified by India, must be followed in toto to check the menace." 

Former IAS officer G Sundaram said there should be a time limit for finalising grant of sanction for probes.

"Any step to check corruption is welcome. I always believe there has to be a shield for bureaucrats, serving or retired. Investigating agency should take government's permission before probing them.

"But there must be a time limit for grant of such permission. May be two or three months. If the permission is not given within that time period, then it should be presumed as having been granted," said Sundaram, who had served as Secretary to the Government of India.

Former IPS officer N Dilip Kumar, who is known for his anti-corruption work, said there should not be any sanction where an officer is caught red-handed or for disproportionate assets cases.

"If an officer is not guilty prima facie, the Investigating Officer will see to it while investigating the case. There may be one in 1,000 cases in which CBI or any other anti-corruption agency might make an error in probe.
So... there should not be any shield," he said. Kumar said that trial in corruption cases should not be dragged for long.

"The maximum limit of two years for completion of a trial in corruption cases (as proposed in the official amendments approved by the Union Cabinet yesterday) is okay. But it has to be seen that all cases are not dragged for two years.

"There has to be classification of cases. As far as possible, corruption cases should be completed as early as possible," said Kumar, the former chief of Delhi government's anti-corruption branch.

The proposed amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, provide for more stringent punishment for the offences of bribery -- both for bribe giver and bribe taker.

"Penal provisions being enhanced from minimum six months to three years and from maximum five years to seven years (the seven year imprisonment brings corruption to the heinous crime category)," said a press release issued on Wednesday. To ensure speedy conclusion of corruption cases, a time limit of two years has been proposed.

"The average trial period of cases under PC Act in the last four years has been above eight years. It is proposed to ensure speedy trial by providing a trial completion (period) of within two years," the release said. It is also proposed to extend the protection of prior sanction for prosecution to public servants who cease to hold office due to retirement, resignation, etc.

"Further, prior sanction for inquiry and investigation shall be required from the Lokpal or Lokayukta, as the case may be, for investigation of offences related to recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties," the release has said. The official amendments, approved yesterday by the Cabinet, will be the part of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013, which is pending in Rajya Sabha. The amendments also provide guidelines for commercial organisations to prevent persons associated with them from bribing a public servant.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement