Evolution of Lokpal bills and other anti-graft efforts – Mohan Rao (Part III) We have covered the story of Lokpal and the internal and external control systems evolved over the years to tackle this problem. One important constituent of the internal control system is the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), as already mentioned earlier. It was set up as the second prop of the enforcement structure in 1964 following the suggestion of The Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption. The functions assigned to it included: Inquiry or investigation of cases of alleged corruption by public servants; Exercise a general check and supervision over vigilance and anti-corruption work in Ministries or Departments of GOI and other organizations to which the executive control of the Union extends; Conduct, through its organization of Chief Technical Examiners, independent technical examination mainly from vigilance angle, of construction and other related works undertaken by various Central Government organizations. Later under an Ordinance promulgated in 1998, additional powers were conferred on the CVC which included, among other things, power to a) exercise superintendence over the functioning of CBI in respect of offences under the PCA, 1988 and (b) review the progress of investigations of corruption cases conducted by the CBI. On the directions of Supreme Court in Vineet Narain’s case, statutory status was given to the CVC in 2003. Unfortunately the Act limited its jurisdiction to inquire into or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made in to the alleged commission of offences under the PCA and Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 only, and that too against certain categories of employees. This only weakened the institution. In the earlier issues, we had described briefly the history of Lokpal bills and other laws/institutions in place for dealing with corruption. Many of the critics of Jan Lokpal bill have been referring to these laws and institutions and arguing that there is no need for another institution like Lokpal. What they have failed to consider is the fact that these have failed to control corruption which, if anything, is only getting amplified in scope and scale lately and that therefore there is need for a Lokpal-like institution with adequate powers and free of the inadequacies of the existing institutions to deal with this menace. In this context an enquiry into causes of failure of the extant machinery will be useful in order to appreciate the nuances of the Jan Lokpal bill and the civil society’s demands for changes in the Bill as introduced/passed in the Lok Sabha. The failure can be attributed to deficiencies in the legal framework and in the structure and powers of enforcement agencies. There is a consensus among experts that a dedicated anti-graft agency is a must and that its charter should give it the necessary combination of institutional independence, fiscal autonomy, and strong law enforcement powers, particularly in investigation. Other essential pre-requisites include genuine interest and will at the highest political levels and strong public action to fight corruption. There are several other contributory factors for failure as well, some of which are listed below: • Politicians have weakened the system; promotion policy and transfer policy are being used by the politicians and senior officials to tame the recalcitrant officials and co-opt them in corrupt practices. • Prior sanction requirement (“single directive” in government parlance) helps them to protect the officials helping them in their corrupt activities. • Investigating and prosecuting agencies are not independent of the executive; powers to appoint/transfer along with “supervisory powers” rest with the executive. Thus they lack autonomy and independence to act. Even in instances where a prima facie case exists, they have to seek Government’s permission to prosecute. • Final decision to proceed against the corrupt civil servant rests with the executive; procedural snarls are too many; the constitutional safeguards in Art.311 have only worked in favor of the corrupt. • The internal vigilance system is subverted by collusion between the corrupt and the investigating officers. • Prevention of Corruption Act alone is not adequate; CVC had suggested enactment of supplementary laws that would have strengthened the legal set up considerably. These included: Corrupt Public Servant (Forfeiture of Property) Act, Benami Transaction Prohibition Act, Whistle Blower’s Act and Freedom of Information Act. Government has not cared to act on these suggestions, other than the one relating to Freedom of Information Act, even after nearly two decades. Share and Care For Latest Updates Always visit http://satish24k.blogspot.in For Beautiful Wallpapers Always visit http://24ksatish.blogspot.in |
Print
PDF
For Further Reading,
About the Author
0 comments:
Post a Comment