The Rajya Sabha’s proposed amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act deserve far greater attention than they have so far received. As it stands, these amendments, which enjoy cross-party support, will effectively gut the law that is supposed to provide for the prosecution of corrupt public servants. Unless drastic changes are made to this proposed version of the anti-corruption legislation, serious questions can and should be asked of the government and whether it is serious in its claims to have brought down high-level corruption effectively. The existing Prevention of Corruption Act lays out three ways in which public servants can be prosecuted. First – and the weakest – is through proving that they have amassed assets disproportionate to known and declared sources of income. The second is through provable bribery, in which the quid pro quo is clear. And third, through demonstrating that they have used the powers of their office to lead to illicit gains elsewhere.
The third of these is the most powerful, and also the most controversial. As the law currently stands, it could be argued that any act of a public servant that leads to enrichment of another party is tantamount to corruption. That has understandably led to considerable inhibition on the part of bureaucrats in particular when it comes to pro-market reforms or regulation. However, the problem can easily be solved simply by ensuring that the new law retains an emphasis on abuse of position. However, the draft changes intend to do away with this section entirely, which will severely weaken the authorities’ ability to prosecute major offenders. It is worth noting that modern corruption is no longer a matter of suitcases of money being handed over. The quid pro quo is often subtle or delayed; what is needed is the ability to prove abuse of position. That should be the bulwark around which the law should be rewritten, instead of being massively diluted.
Other aspects of the law also give rise to concern. Bribery prosecution is dependent on the bribe-giver coming forward, but protection for such actions has been watered down in the Bill. Meanwhile, the investigation of disproportionate assets has become even tougher. Rather than pegging any investigation to declared sources of income, the new amendments will allow the corrupt official to retrospectively claim various sources of income, and so escape prosecution. This loophole was closed in the 1980s and is now being reopened.
The government’s actions on corruption run counter to its declared stance. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself has used corruption as one of the key justifications for the demonetisation of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 notes. Even under the existing Act, prosecutions have been tardy — few members of the Indian Administrative Service have been called to account, and even those that have been, such as Arvind and Tinoo Joshi, have been able to stall action for years. What is needed clearly is for the Prevention of Corruption Act to be updated and streamlined as befits a more complex and modern economy, with new sources of corruption. Unfortunately, the government and legislators seem to have moved instead to render it useless. In its proposed form, the Bill will only serve to dilute and defeat the whole point of anti-corruption legislation in more ways than one. Searching questions must now be asked of the government’s intentions in doing so.
