The Hindu Business Line : Supreme Court's push to corruption cases

There has been nation-wide jubilation at the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court (SC) on December 6 freeing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) from the requirement of prior sanction. The Apex Court has held that sanction is necessary only in respect of anything done by a public servant "while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty", and taking bribes can in no way be construed as falling within this definition.

Amendments needed?

However, going by published reports, there is need for further elucidation of certain aspects of the decision before it can come into play with full force. First of all, though the references in the judgment are to Sections 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , and 19 of the PCA, the latter, has a blanket coverage, not limited to acts "in the discharge of official duty", as laid down in section 197 of the CrPC.

Section 19 of the PCA, which seems to apply independent of S.197 of the CrPC, lays down unambiguously that no court shall take cognisance of an offence under the Act except with the previous sanction of the Central or State Government, as the case may be. While, for all intents and purposes, the SC's ruling comes into effect automatically on the strength of its own authority, nevertheless, since it over-rides clear-cut statutory stipulations, it will be advisable to have its pronouncement incorporated as an amendment to the relevant Sections of both the Acts.

The ruling will certainly help curb the tendency of the Central and State governments to withhold or delay sanctions to shield political VIPs involved in allegations of corruption and, to that extent, overcome the deliberate efforts made by the political cohorts of the culprits to prevent the cases from reaching the stage of trial. But, it is from that stage on that the well-connected and well-placed accused in corruption cases manage to drag them on for decades by exploiting every loophole in the procedure, while fouling up oral and documentary evidence by intimidating and buying up witnesses.

Court martial

Unless, as the veteran leader C. Subramaniam used to be constantly urging when he was alive, corruption cases are subjected to summary trial analogous to a court martial, and are brought to a conclusion within a mandatory time limit, they will be no more than an eye wash and a farce and, in the bargain, will bring the entire judicial system into disrepute. It will be well worthwhile for the civil society to mount pressure on the Government, by seeking, if necessary, the help of the SC with a public interest petition, to amend the procedures for the trial of corruption cases on the following lines:

The trial should proceed from day to day on a continuing basis and should be brought to a conclusion within a period of six months.

The onus in every trial for corruption to prove their innocence should be on the accused.

Throughout the trial period, the accused should be in custody and not let on bail.

No adjournments should be granted except on manifestly compelling grounds such as the grave illness of a witness or the accused.

There should be no appeal permitted to the higher court on the finding on facts by the trial court. Only one appeal should be allowed to a higher court confined to important and substantive grounds of law.

B. S. RAGHAVAN

More Stories on : Economic Offences | Courts/Legal Issues | Offhand

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Project politics

Giving farmers a marketing platform

Is `carry trade' impacting New Zealand economy?

Remembering tariff when detariffing arrives

`Eastern States have great future'

VAT: Implementation at short notice is one more challenge

Supreme Court's push to corruption cases

Pocket

NTPC's merchant plant route