‘There will be drastic drop in conviction rates’
These amendments protect corrupt public servants.
These make it all the more difficult for investigators to probe corruption charges against them.
It is being made out as if the object of the Bill was to make bribe giving an offence. But even under the un-amended Act, the bribe giver could have been treated as an abettor. However, the biggest deterrent for prosecutors comes in the amendment that permits the statement made by the bribe giver be used against him. This will prevent the bribe giver from giving evidence. This ensures that fewer people will come forward to press corruption charges against public servants.
Earlier, permission was necessary to file a charge sheet against serving officers. Now, permission has to be sought before initiation of an investigation in certain cases. Moreover, the amendments require sanction to prosecute retired government officials. This further creates hindrance in the path of bringing to book guilty civil servants. One fails to understand the need for government permission to probe even retired public servants.
The clause that directs the inquiry to establish ‘intention’ of the person allegedly involved in corrupt practices is vague and ambiguous. How do prosecutors prove ‘intent’ of the person? Isn’t disproportionate increase in personal assets of the person good enough to prove ‘intent’?
With these changes it will become even more difficult for prosecutors to get conviction in corruption cases that involve public servants. The rate of conviction under the current Act is barely 15-20 per cent. Following these amendments, I expect there will be a drastic drop in conviction rates — to around 5 per cent.
On the whole, the amendments only dilute the anti-corruption Act. All the political parties are in favour of watered-down antigraft provisions. We have already seen that play out in Kartanaka with deliberate attempts to weaken the Lokayukta.
The author is former judge, Supreme Court, and ex-Lokayukta, Karnataka