Comment

All of a sudden we have heard a spate of statements on the evil that is corruption in public life. These are coming from those in high office, which is most welcome, although the traditional cynics — we have any number of them in India — will say that this is all empty rhetoric from the public platform meant to hoodwink the average citizen. It is absolutely true that many of us have lost hope that India will ever become an honest nation, one where you can demand and obtain services to which you are legally entitled without paying a bribe.

First it was prime minister Manmohan Singh who spoke to anti-corruption chiefs at a biennial conference organized by the CBI a few weeks ago. I wonder there is any other leader in the country who will be heard with such respect and without derision on this subject. Singh should however remember that while there is hardly anybody who doubts his sincerity or ability, not many are convinced that he has the required administrative and political structures at his command to change a situation that is out of control.

Chief Justice Balakrishnan, at a national seminar a few days ago, said that he would like to see anti-corruption agencies moving swiftly to seize the properties of corrupt civil servants so that the latter do not continue enjoying the fruits of their tainted acquisitions while facing court proceedings. This is again a very sensible proposition.

I remember former central vigilance commissioner N Vittal carried on a vociferous campaign on this issue and even suggested a legal framework that would facilitate such a drastic measure. He was hardly heard because there was no political will. Law Minister Veerappa Moily, speaking at the same forum as the Chief Justice a day later, categorically stated that a corrupt public servant should not be protected by archaic procedures relating to government sanction for prosecution.

These procedures are so tortuous that they serve only to shield those caught with their pants down while receiving a bribe. I have personally fought many a battle to persuade ministries to accord the required sanction against senior officials whose reputation was known even beyond the Himalayas. The situation has worsened since then with the CBI requiring permission even to register a case against a Joint Secretary level officer, to say nothing of sanctions for prosecution at the end of an investigation.

I am happy that the CBI has achieved notable successes in connection with such cases in the past few months. The agency needs a lot more infrastructure and employee incentives. Parsimony in allocations to the CBI will be misplaced if not mischievous. The Prime Minister needs to personally oversee this, because, he should know that not many senior civil servants want the CBI to succeed. Given a chance they will use every subterfuge at their command to deny important files or delay permission to register a case or sanction prosecution.

Finally, a word about the law on anti-corruption measures. The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is a reasonably well drafted statute. But what is appalling is the judicial proclivity to find every possible infirmity in the prosecution story to let off the accused. The most favourite expression of a tendentious judgment is that the prosecution has “miserably failed” to prove its case.

Many such judgments go unchallenged because it is impractical to take every case on appeal. What we need is a fiat from the higher courts to the subordinate judiciary that their judgments should be written with greater seriousness, cogency and adherence to truth. They should also be told that their orders will be studied closely for their logic and consistency. Nothing short of this will bring about some quality in the disposal of corruption cases, something that would give meat to the anti-corruption movement.