THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The latest amendments to Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, especially making government permission mandatory for initiating probe against a public official, has raised questions about the effectiveness of the corruption prevention mechanism. On the other hand, officials can heave a sigh of relief as the same provision would bring an end to numerous incidents of character assassination of officials in the name of investigation.
The Prevention of Corruption (amendment) Act, 2018, notified by the Centre, on Thursday, has among other changes, inserted section 17 (1) that says, "No police officer shall conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the government."
The section has triggered multiple concerns with regards to the investigations, conducted mainly by vigilance and anti-corruption bureau (VACB) and Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against government officials. According to a senior official with
VACB, the agency would not be able to make any further progress in the probe into complaints of graft and even setting trap to nab junior-level officials accepting
bribe.
"In trap cases, accused are caught red-handed after registering case secretly. With the new amendment, it cannot be done. Also, conducting a quick verification into allegations of graft before registering a case would come to an end as government permission is required for the same," he said.
However, some feel that filing frivolous petitions to settle scores would not happen hereafter. "Investigators need not presume that the government will not grant the permission. It would be an embarrassment for the government as it stands for zero tolerance against corruption. Recent trend is that benami petitioners are used to harass officials, questioning every administrative action taken by them. This would not happen anymore," a top IAS official said.
An RTI query in November last year had revealed how a self-styled social activist Paichira Navas filed more than 40 petitions against bureaucrats and quick verification was conducted by VACB when Jacob Thomas was its chief.
Experts said it would be different in case of political allegations like the bar bribery case. "Going by the previous experiences, political affiliations and partisan views will prevail especially when politicians are involved. Earlier, by virtue of section 19, government permission was required only for prosecution, and if the government denies it, there would be enough material for individuals to approach a court seeking justice. With the inception of 17 (1), there would not be any evidence even to approach the court as the probe itself would require a government sanction," senior lawyer Kaleeswaram Raj said.
Former vigilance director Jacob Punnoose said classifying cases and treating each category accordingly might help. "In cases where petitioners are individuals who are victims themselves, government sanction needed be made mandatory. In cases where the government is at loss, the petitions by a third individual need not be entertained, but, the petitioner should be the government department head or higher ups concerned considering the quantum of allegation. In cases where there is a loss to the public like issue of quarrying, a preliminary inquiry should be conducted and then the government can decide on the basis of the opinion of the vigilance director," he said.
