Anti-graft law should not be for honest mistakes
The amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which the Union Cabinet cleared on Wednesday, strengthen the fight against graft and save bureaucrats from being needlessly dragged into corruption cases. These may seem to be contradictory but they complement each other. While it is true that Government officials are, among others, responsible for corruption in public life, it is equally true that absurd laws that unfairly target public servants have a debilitating impact on administrative processes. This leads to bad governance which then becomes one of the primary causes for corruption. The new amendments address both sides of the problem — one set gives the anti-corruption law more teeth and the other accords stronger protection to well-meaning bureaucrats. In the first case, the Union Cabinet has approved longer prison terms for graft cases, heightened the focus on corporate bribery and pushed for quicker trials.
Under the existing law, the prison term for corrupt public servants is between a minimum of six months and a maximum of five years. The amendment proposes a minimum sentence of three years and a maximum of seven years. Notably, the seven-year term will bring graft cases under the category of heinous crimes. Also, if a bureaucrat who is under investigation, is found to have assets that are disproportionate to his or her known sources of income, those assets will be considered proof of illegal enrichment. The current law has no such provision. Trial courts are also being endowed with attachment powers, so that they don't have to go to District Judges for permission — a time-consuming process.
With regard to corporate bribery, bribe-giving corporate entities are being brought under the ambit of the anti-corruption law; prsently, only individuals can be prosecuted, even if they are working on behalf of a corporate entity. Guidelines for corporates on how to prevent their employees and associates from bribing Government officials are also included. To ensure prompt delivery of justice in corruption cases, the amendments call for the completion of trial in two years — the current law has no such time-frame and cases often drag on for decades.
On the other hand are the preventive mechanisms to shield bureaucrats from being scapegoats in malicious trials. Most importantly, the Government wants the anti-graft law to differentiate between honest mistakes and illegal acts driven by corrupt motives. Currently, the law is grey on this, and so it allows for many interpretations of the fact that without mens rea, or a proven intent to commit a criminal act, one cannot be held guilty. The other big shield that the Government has offered is the prior permission that complainants must seek from an ombudsman before a filing a case against a bureaucrat.
This protection extends only to those cases related to controversial policy recommendations. Still, this provision will possibly disappoint those who assume that all bureaucrats are guilty of wrongdoing until proven innocent and belong to some cabal of officers who shield one another. There cannot be any dispute on the need for bureaucrats to be free to take honest decisions in the regular course of things, without having to constantly worry about how those decisions will boomerang.