)
Aditi Phadnis spoke to former home secretary G K Pillai on changes in the Prevention of Corruption Act. Edited excerpts:
What do you think of the changes in the Prevention of Corruption Act? The Lok Ayukta and Lok Pal will now also have to sign off before a case is registered, inquired and investigated.
I am not clear if this is an additional tier or whether only the Lok Ayukta and Lok Pal will have to give their assent before a case is registered. I would have thought a more practical measure would have been to have is a time limit. If there is a complaint, the minister has three months to tell the CBI why a case should or should not be registered. He can't sit on a complaint. I think the government is in a better position to carry out its own internal investigation and judge if a corruption case is merited and what the circumstances were.
In any case, we don't have a Lok Pal yet and in many states there is no Lok Ayukta either. Even the post of chief information commissioner was lying vacant for about 10 months. So what if the government is not in a position to appoint a Lok Pal or Lok Ayukta?
The real issue is different. In the 39 years that I was in government, I don't think there was a single occasion when I thought: If I take this decision will the CBI come after me? In the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), there was a procurement case and people said the matter should be referred to the CBI or CVC. The minister, Chidambaram, said: 'You inquire. If you think it should go to the CBI, I will sign off on it.' I did the inquiry and found that it was largely a case of rivals who had lost out on the contract - it was for bullet-proof jackets - instigating the campaign that there had been corruption. It was an acquisition we did not want to delay. So, we decided to go ahead with the acquisition and said the matter need not be referred to the CBI. My minister stood by me.
I would any day trust the government or the minister to understand and appreciate the circumstances of a decision rather than an outside agency like a Lok Ayukta or Lok Pal, which might not be able to fully grasp the issue.
In the last government, the coal mine allocation case cast a shadow.
In 2005, special economic zones had to be allocated. There were hundreds of applicants and applications. The first question we in the commerce ministry and the board of approvals asked ourselves was: 'Who should be given an SEZ (special economic zone) and who should not be given'. I was clear that a panwallah applying on someone's behalf had no business being given an SEZ. So, through a method of elimination, we devised a list of all those who should not get an SEZ. That led to those who should - a company, not individual with a set networth, competence, experience… The coal ministry at the time did not follow this. That was a mistake.
The argument is that fear of CBI scrutiny has prevented officials from taking decisions and the PCA must change this.
We used to joke that there are several secretaries in government because they haven't taken a single decision in their lives! If you never take a decision, you can't take a wrong one!
I had suggested to the former Comptroller and Auditor General that you should act not against those who take decisions, may be wrong ones, but against those who take no decisions at all - and corruption will come down significantly.
When we were young officers, cement was a controlled commodity. You could sell cement and make a lot of money. When we got cement, we decided: 50 per cent of the bags would go to the government, to the PWD for roads, buildings, etc. The next lot to get it would be schools, hospitals, etc. Then it would be released in the market. Nobody complained because everyone knew.
It is the intent, in the final analysis. And you always know.
