EDITORIAL DISCUSSION – 30thJuly, 2018
2. Layers of protection– THE HINDU – 30th JULY, 2018
LokSabha passes anti-graft amendment Bill
– THE HINDU – 25th JULY, 2018
IMPORTANT CHANGES MADE
POINT NO. 1 -- BRIBE GIVERS
WHAT WAS THE EARLIER PROVISION?NEWLY PROPOSED
It could empower the public to refuse to give a bribe, but 7 day limit may not be enough. There is also a concern what will happen, if citizen’s report of coercion is not registered by the police.
POINT NO. 2 -- PRE-INVESTIGATION APPROVAL
WHAT WAS THE EARLIER PROVISION? NEWLY PROPOSED
Protection was formerly available to the officials of rank of Joint Secretary and above. However, Supreme Court struck it down, now it is extended by law to all its public servants.
POINT NO. 3 -- SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION
WHAT WAS THE EARLIER PROVISION? NEWLY PROPOSED
Sanction for Indian Penal Code offences covered both serving and retired officers. Guidelines and time-limit may help make sanction process easier.
POINT NO. 4 -- CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT
WHAT WERE THE EARLIER PROVISIONS? NEWLY PROPOSED
This is to protect public servants from being wrongly prosecuted for official decisions. Earlier, it was a crime to obtain advantage to a private party without public interest.
POINT NO. 5 -- FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY
WHAT WAS THE EARLIER PROVISION? NEWLY PROPOSED
This helps avoid a fresh procedure to confiscate property obtained through corruption and enables Court conducting trial to do so itself.
WHAT IS THE CRUX OF THE REAL PROBLEM?
1. Honest officers are prosecuted, even when they gained nothing and merely exercised their power or discretion in favour of someone.
2. This is because of Section 13 (1)d in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where the public servants are culpable for securing a pecuniary advantage for another “without any public interest”.
3. Provision 13 (1)d has got a chilling effect on the governance and several officials are hesitating to take the bold decisions.
4. It restricts criminal misconduct to two offences
Misappropriating or converting to one’s own use property entrusted to a public servant or is in his control.
Amassing unexplained wealth.
A person “shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself”, if he cannot account for his assets through known sources of income.
CRITICAL APPRAISAL
POINT NO. 1 -- ISSUE OF BRIBE GIVERS
1. It makes citizens liable for offering a bribe to a public servant. The anti-corruption law has been brought now in line with the UN Convention Against Corruption.
2. The only exception is, when one is forced to give a bribe.
3. This kicks in, when one was forced to pay a bribe reported to the law enforcement authority within seven days.
The penal provision can empower people by allowing them to cite it to refuse to pay a bribe. At the same time, it is not clear what happens, when the police or any other agency refuses to register a complaint. People may be left in the lurch with no redress. It may render them vulnerable to threats from unscrupulous public servants, who collect money to speed up public services, but do not deliver.
POINT NO. 2 -- PRIOR APPROVAL TO START AN INVESTIGATION
1. When a prior sanction requirement already exist in law for prosecution, it is incomprehensible that the Legislature should create another layer of protection in the initial stage of a probe.
2. Public servants need to be protected against unfair prosecution, but a genuine drive against corruption requires a package of Legislative measures.
3. These should contain penal provisions, create an ombudsman in the form of a Lokpal or Lokayukta, as well as assure citizens of time-bound services and whistle-blower protection.
Laws to fulfil these objectives are either not operational or are yet to materialise.
2. Layers of protection– THE HINDU – 30th JULY, 2018
LokSabha passes anti-graft amendment Bill
– THE HINDU – 25th JULY, 2018
IMPORTANT CHANGES MADE
POINT NO. 1 -- BRIBE GIVERS
WHAT WAS THE EARLIER PROVISION?NEWLY PROPOSED
It could empower the public to refuse to give a bribe, but 7 day limit may not be enough. There is also a concern what will happen, if citizen’s report of coercion is not registered by the police.
POINT NO. 2 -- PRE-INVESTIGATION APPROVAL
WHAT WAS THE EARLIER PROVISION? NEWLY PROPOSED
Protection was formerly available to the officials of rank of Joint Secretary and above. However, Supreme Court struck it down, now it is extended by law to all its public servants.
POINT NO. 3 -- SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION
WHAT WAS THE EARLIER PROVISION? NEWLY PROPOSED
Sanction for Indian Penal Code offences covered both serving and retired officers. Guidelines and time-limit may help make sanction process easier.
POINT NO. 4 -- CRIMINAL MISCONDUCT
WHAT WERE THE EARLIER PROVISIONS? NEWLY PROPOSED
This is to protect public servants from being wrongly prosecuted for official decisions. Earlier, it was a crime to obtain advantage to a private party without public interest.
POINT NO. 5 -- FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY
WHAT WAS THE EARLIER PROVISION? NEWLY PROPOSED
This helps avoid a fresh procedure to confiscate property obtained through corruption and enables Court conducting trial to do so itself.
WHAT IS THE CRUX OF THE REAL PROBLEM?
1. Honest officers are prosecuted, even when they gained nothing and merely exercised their power or discretion in favour of someone.
2. This is because of Section 13 (1)d in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, where the public servants are culpable for securing a pecuniary advantage for another “without any public interest”.
3. Provision 13 (1)d has got a chilling effect on the governance and several officials are hesitating to take the bold decisions.
4. It restricts criminal misconduct to two offences
Misappropriating or converting to one’s own use property entrusted to a public servant or is in his control.
Amassing unexplained wealth.
A person “shall be presumed to have intentionally enriched himself”, if he cannot account for his assets through known sources of income.
CRITICAL APPRAISAL
POINT NO. 1 -- ISSUE OF BRIBE GIVERS
1. It makes citizens liable for offering a bribe to a public servant. The anti-corruption law has been brought now in line with the UN Convention Against Corruption.
2. The only exception is, when one is forced to give a bribe.
3. This kicks in, when one was forced to pay a bribe reported to the law enforcement authority within seven days.
The penal provision can empower people by allowing them to cite it to refuse to pay a bribe. At the same time, it is not clear what happens, when the police or any other agency refuses to register a complaint. People may be left in the lurch with no redress. It may render them vulnerable to threats from unscrupulous public servants, who collect money to speed up public services, but do not deliver.
POINT NO. 2 -- PRIOR APPROVAL TO START AN INVESTIGATION
1. When a prior sanction requirement already exist in law for prosecution, it is incomprehensible that the Legislature should create another layer of protection in the initial stage of a probe.
2. Public servants need to be protected against unfair prosecution, but a genuine drive against corruption requires a package of Legislative measures.
3. These should contain penal provisions, create an ombudsman in the form of a Lokpal or Lokayukta, as well as assure citizens of time-bound services and whistle-blower protection.
Laws to fulfil these objectives are either not operational or are yet to materialise.
No comments:
Post a Comment