Opinion - Editorials   

Bringing the corrupt to book

Provisions in the law that prevent courts from taking cognisance of charges against public servants, in the absence of prior authorisation of the appropriate government authority, were intended to serve a specific purpose. Their object was to permit public servants to perform their duties without the fear of unnecessary harassment and to shield them from vexatious litigation. However, in practice, these provisions — Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 — have become infamous for providing de facto immunity to Ministers, MPs, MLAs and bureaucrats from criminal prosecution. By ruling that prior sanction is not necessary to prosecute public servants in corruption cases, the Supreme Court has removed a major obstacle that has delayed, and sometimes even prevented public servants from being brought to book. Rather than act in the public interest and allow genuine charges to be examined by the courts, those in charge of granting sanction have often subverted the criminal prosecution process through prejudiced and arbitrary decisions. The necessity of prior sanction has also resulted in slowing down the delivery of justice. This is because the process of sanctioning (or refusing) prosecution is often inordinately slow. According to data put out by the Central Vigilance Commission, at the end of 2005, prosecution sanctions sought by the Central Bureau of Investigation were pending for over a year in cases relating to as many as 31 public servants. Another cause for delay has been the frequent litigations over prosecution sanctions — for example, over their validity.

In holding that protection under Section 197 of the CrPC is limited to acts or omissions by public servants done in the discharge of their duty, the Court has emphasised that the provision was never intended to provide a general immunity for indulging in or abetting corruption. Here, the Court has drawn on earlier judgments, which have stressed that cover under Section 197 can be availed of only if an offence is committed "within the scope of official duty." By ruling that the protection of prior sanction will not apply to specific offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court has in effect nullified the force of Section 19, which specifically prohibits the courts from taking cognisance of offences such as taking a bribe or accepting a valuable thing without consideration. The Court's ruling will eliminate some part of the delay that has come to mark corruption cases against public servants. By eliminating the slow and often arbitrary procedure for sanctioning prosecution, the judgment will increase the operational swiftness and foster the autonomous functioning of the investigating and prosecuting agencies.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Bringing the corrupt to book
No to unjust enrichment
The fear of democracy of the privileged
Thinking about money
Feasibility of a moonbase
Corrections and Clarifications
The rationale for the Iraq Study Group
Famine threat to tropical seas as warming quickens
Foreigners issue to the fore in Assam
Landmark verdict
Singur issue
Sachar panel findings

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu