Cabinet approved the ammendments in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that provide for classifying corruption as a heinous crime and longer prison terms for both bribe-giver and bribe- taker. The proposed amendment act will also ensure speedy trial, limited to two years, for corruption cases. This is done in view of country's obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption more effectively.
But these amendments have some problems and not all amendments inspire public confidence or meet the objective of filling gaps in domestic anti-corruption law.
1)The Bill drops the protection accorded to bribe-givers if they depose during trial, thereby deterring those coerced into giving a bribe from subsequently testifying against offenders. A distinction ought to have been made between collusive bribery and bribery under coercion.
2)The sanction provision ought to have been restricted to prosecutions that flow from deviations from public policy, laws and regulations but possessing un explained wealth, caught red handed cannot be actions in the course of official functions, and in such cases prior sanction cannot be required.
3)Policy for retired officials and those currently in service are not in sync. This act only covers serving officials while CrPC protected retired officials from prior sanction.
4)There is a single clause of criminal misconduct which should be revistied.
5) Another use of term “possession of disproportionate assets” will be proof of “such illicit enrichment”. It is to be hoped that this will mean the prosecution need not prove the intention to amass wealth, as such an additional requirement would allow those in possession of ill-gotten wealth to escape the law.
Although there are some positive changes as well like time frame, curbing commercial entities, power to trial courts but if the loopholes existed after amendments can be pluged in parliament then it would help in giving public confidence and will make our democracy more stronger.
Ans2:
The recent amendments accepted by the Cabinet for the due changes in the Prevention of Corruption Act calls is an answer to the continuous debate.
Some of the positive developments done in this direction that will also help in meeting the country's obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Corruption more effectively are :
1) Recognition of corruption as an heinous crime. This will enable a psychology attitudinal change in the society. This has been recognised by increasing the punitive action for the bribe giver as well as the bribe taker.
2) Removal of protection accorded to the bribe-givers if they depose during trial. This will ultimately lead to deterrence of the coerced bribe giving
3) provides for issue of guidelines to commercial organisations to prevent persons associated with them from bribing a public servants as against the current law against only individuals.
4)Speedy trial has been facilitated by fixing a time frame for the grant of sanction and completion of trial. And also, trial court can itself deal with the process of attachment of property instead of a district court expediting the process
Even though after a lot of deliberation, the Amendment has still failed to address the key issues in corruption jurisprudence.
1) "Sanction" provision ought to have been restricted to prosecutions that flow from deviations from public policy, laws and regulations. As activities like being caught red handed, possessing unexplained assets etc are not part of official functions, hence cannot require prior sanctions
2)Subsuming most offences now covered under 'criminal misconduct' into a single clause should be revisited - this opens a backdoor for some form of abuse to slip through the net
3)Change made to the offence of possessing 'disproportionate assets' - is suffice to be a proof of such 'illicit enrichment' might only be effective if the prosecution need not prove the intention to amass wealth, otherwise it would only leave open a back door to escape the law
4)While defining the terms in the law
----there has been no distinction made between collusive bribery and bribery under coercion
----there has been no distinction made between collusive bribery and bribery under coercion
5) There is still a problem with the serving and retired officials. The law should be brought in consonance with the CrPC.
No comments:
Post a Comment