AGAINST CORRUPTION TOGETHER
DENIED TEETH,THEY CANT BITE
DENIED TEETH,THEY CANT BITE
The current anti-corruption regime is full of holes.Nobody really has the powers to nail the guilty,says Manoj Mitta
Three out of four Indians think that politician is the biggest culprit for corruption.Or so it would seem from an online survey conducted by TOI for this campaign.The irony is that the national ombudsman for corruption,Central Vigilance Commission (CVC),has no jurisdiction over politicians,the very category perceived to be the biggest culprit.
As a result,in the 2G telecom scam,which has been rated in the same survey as the biggest ever corruption scandal,all that the CVC could do was to recommend to the CBI to register a corruption case,steering clear of the then minister A Raja although he was directly responsible for the alleged deviations.
In a further irony,the CVC is currently headed by the very officer who had served as telecom secretary and had justified the 2G scam.That P J Thomas could be handed over the charge of the CVC despite his controversial background indicates yet another structural deficiency in the anti-corruption regime,which is skewed in favor of politicians.
The government has sought to save its face by reviving the 40-yearold proposal of establishing an ombudsman to deal exclusively with politicians.But the Lokpal envisaged by the government has been denounced by civil society as the idea of having separate watchdog bodies for politicians and bureaucrats smacks of an attempt to maintain the existing level of impunity for corruption.
When Lokpal was first proposed by the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in 1966,the CVC dealing with bureaucrats had already been in existence for two years.So,what the ARC recommended was a body that could probe policy makers at the highest level,ministers and secretaries to the government at the Centre.The danger it posed to those holding the reins of power ensured that the Lokpal Bill never got enacted,despite the motions of being introduced in Parliament repeatedly.
The leeway given to politicians in turn ensured a range of structural deficiencies in the anti-corruption regime.The tokenism is evident even from the modest size of the CVC set up.It has staff strength of less than 200 although it is supposed to check corruption in more than 1,500 Central government departments and ministries.It is therefore reduced to a post office as it is forced to depend on the vigilance wings of the respective departments.
Most complaints received by the CVC are routinely forwarded to the departmental vigilance wings,which are riddled with conflict of interest as they are manned mostly by the staff of those very departments.Whether a complaint is probed by itself or by the departmental wing,all the CVC can do is to recommend disciplinary action which is often rejected.
As if that were not bad enough,the CVC has no administrative control over officials of the various vigilance wings to which it forwards corruption complaints.Even in the matter of appointing chief vigilance officers of those departmental wings,the CVC’s recommendation is not binding on the government.The Thomas episode bears testimony to the deficiencies in the process of appointments to the CVC as well.
Although it turned into a statutory body about a decade ago thanks to the Supreme Court’s intervention,the CVC still does not have powers to register criminal cases as it has no investigative machinery at its disposal.It cannot get even the CBI to initiate criminal investigation if the officer accused is of the rank of joint secretary or above.The CBI then would have to seek the permission of the department to which the officer belongs.Despite its much-touted supervisory powers,the CVC cannot call for any file from the CBI or issue directions to it in any case.
While the CVC has independence,it is sorely lacking in powers.Just the opposite is the case with CBI,which has powers to investigate and prosecute but is deficient in independence.For,it is directly under the control of the Centre,making it vulnerable to charges of conducting politically motivated investigations.Clearly,corrupt politicians and bureaucrats have much to feel comfortable with the present legal regime.
WHY THE EXISTING ANTI-CORRUPTION BODIES ARE INEFFECTIVE
CVC
* No jurisdiction over politicians,only bureaucrats
* No power to register criminal cases.It deals only with vigilance or disciplinary matters
* No direct power over departmental vigilance wings.It mostly forwards corruption complaints to them and keeps sending reminders
* Supervisory powers over CBI have made little difference as CVC can’t call for any file or issue directions to the agency
* No power to register criminal cases.It deals only with vigilance or disciplinary matters
* No direct power over departmental vigilance wings.It mostly forwards corruption complaints to them and keeps sending reminders
* Supervisory powers over CBI have made little difference as CVC can’t call for any file or issue directions to the agency
DEPARTMENTAL VIGILANCE WINGS
* Manned mostly by officials from within same department,on temporary basis
* Since each wing is under direct control of head of department,can hardly probe any senior official of that department.
* Even otherwise,in complaints against senior colleague,vigilance officer might hesitate as he could be posted later under the same person
* No jurisdiction over politicians and no power to register FIRs against anybody.Can only deal with disciplinary proceedings
* Since each wing is under direct control of head of department,can hardly probe any senior official of that department.
* Even otherwise,in complaints against senior colleague,vigilance officer might hesitate as he could be posted later under the same person
* No jurisdiction over politicians and no power to register FIRs against anybody.Can only deal with disciplinary proceedings
CBI
* Though it can book cases against bureaucrats and politicians,CBI’s independence compromised as it comes directly under Centres control
* Govt control leaves it vulnerable to charges of investigations being politically motivated
* Since it is overburdened,CBI does not accept cases unless amount involved runs into crores
* Cannot book cases against officers above the rank of joint secretary without prior sanction from their department
* Govt control leaves it vulnerable to charges of investigations being politically motivated
* Since it is overburdened,CBI does not accept cases unless amount involved runs into crores
* Cannot book cases against officers above the rank of joint secretary without prior sanction from their department
Similar structural deficiencies lead to impunity for corruption at the state level
HERES WHY THE CORRUPT NEED NOT FEAR THE LAW …..TIMES INSIGHT GROUP
The accompanying article explains just what is wrong with the mechanism we currently have to deal with corruption.Lest you think that is just a theoretical argument,take a look at the official data on the subject and your doubts should be settled.The rapidly diminishing circles depicted alongside show how just a fraction of those accused of corruption actually end up getting nailed.
The data presented here is all from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).The first set of circles pertains to the status of investigations by the state anti-corruption or vigilance wings under the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant section of the IPC.
In 2008,the latest year for which data is available,there were 8,554 cases for investigation across all states and Union territories.Of these,7,292 were actually investigated during the year,while 2,543 resulted in chargesheets.In other words,only about a third of the cases investigated resulted in chargesheets as a proportion of the cases available for investigation,the figure drops even further to about 30 %.
But chargesheeting is only the first stage in the tortuous road to nailing the accused.The next set of circles depicts what happens to those being tried for corruption.In 2008,there were 29,783 people facing such trials.Of these,trials were completed only for 2,985 people.Of those,977 were convicted.That translates again to about a third of all those whose trials were completed being convicted,but when compared to those facing trial,the proportion drops to a mere 3%.
Is this reading too much into one years figures After all cases tried in one year might lead to conviction in a subsequent year.True,but the fact is that we looked at figures for the last few years and found that in each case these proportions are roughly the same.
Now,lets look at happens when cases are reported for departmental action against the accused.Thats the third set of circles.In 2008,there were 736 such people,of whom 268 were punished in some form or the other by their respective departments.But only 65 of them lost their jobs.That means less than one in eleven reported for action actually were sacked.
Put all these figures together and the picture you get makes it clear why public servants can indulge in corrupt practices with such impunity in our country.The chances of the investigation leading to chargesheeting are slim,even if they do get chargesheeted the chances of the trial concluding any time soon are even slimmer and finally when the trial does conclude the odds are on being let off.
A final thought.We are dealing here with a few thousand people being investigated or tried in any given year.Now consider the fact that there are about 10 million central and state government employees.Assuming conservatively that just 1% of them are corrupt,that would mean about a lakh of people indulging in corruption.With less than 1,000 getting convicted,the corrupt can be 99% sure theyll get off.Thats the problem.