Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Chances of corrupt public servants being caught and punished very less by Bibek Debroy

Chances of corrupt public servants being caught and punished very less by Bibek Debroy

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Sep 2, 2011   modified Modified on Sep 2, 2011

The Lokpal legislation, in whatever form, will not be the only law we have on corruption. Apart from statutes on prohibition of benami transactions and prevention of money laundering, there is the IPC (Indian Penal Code). Under Sections 169 and 409 of IPC, depending on the offence, public servants can face imprisonment (from two years to life) and fines. This wasn't enough of a deterrent and after Bofors, we had the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) of 1988. This wasn't the first PCA. There was an earlier one from 1947. The 1988 PCA consolidated 1947 PCA, 1952 Criminal Law Amendment Act and some sections of IPC. Finally, in 1988, we would address the issue of corruption among public servants. Or so we thought.

There is a "Crime in India" database, published by National Crime Records Bureau through the home ministry and the last data are for 2009. Chapter 9 is on economic offences, the stuff we are talking about. Whether it is PCA or IPC, the channel is CBI or ant-corruption bureaus of states, CVC being somewhat different. In 2009, 3,683 cognisable anti-corruption crimes were registered. Data given are not quite amenable to statistical analysis of the kind one has in mind. Therefore, one has to take some liberties with numbers. How many "public servants" are there? Since the definition of public servant is broader than narrow figures on those directly employed by the Centre or state governments , this is not easy to pin down; but 45 million won't be far off the mark. How many of these are corrupt, or have been corrupt, in 2009? In this climate of angst about corruption among public servants, most citizens would probably say 100%.

Surveys by organisations like Transparency International (India) don't help, because they tell us what percentage of respondents faced corruption in obtaining public services of various kinds, not what percentage of public servants is corrupt. Let us assume a graft base of 50%, that is, 22.5 million public servants were corrupt in 2009. Then the probability of a cognisable crime being registered against a corrupt public servant is 0.00016. That's not the end of the matter; 3,683 was the number of new offences in 2009. There was a backlog, adding up to 9,580 cases in 2009. Not all of these were investigated and in instances where there was an investigation, chargesheets weren't necessarily filed . Charge-sheets were filed in 2,648 cases. Therefore, the probability of a charge-sheet being filed, if investigated, was 0.276. There were 746 convictions . Because of time-lags , some massaging of data is involved . However, broadly, if a charge-sheet was filed, probability of conviction was 0.282. If one adds up those numbers , it is impossible not to be acynical citizen. If I am a corrupt public servant, the probability of a cognisable crime being registered is 0.00016. If a crime is registered, probability of a charge-sheet being filed is 0.276.

If a chargesheet is filed, probability of conviction is 0.282 and we have no data on the kind of punishment this leads to. For all one knows, it might be a nominal fine or simple imprisonment for two years. And we have no data on how long a specific trial has taken . With these caveats, it is the nature of probabilities that they are multiplied. Hence, probability of conviction if I am a corrupt public servant is of the order of 0.000000955. Corruption by public servants (that's not the only kind) has been described as high-return and low-risk and one can see why. It was no different in Hong Kong before 1997, an example often cited in the present discourse . The Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) was formed then and there was plenty of cynicism floating around. For example, it was referred to as "Investigating Chinese Ancient Customs" and "I Can Accept Cash" . While there have been allegations against ICAC too, it has cleaned up Hong Kong.

The point isn't to enact a Lokpal law and hope for the best. That will like euphoria over PCA in 1988, followed by subsequent disenchantment . In hindsight, one can pick holes in PCA - for example , prior sanction from government needed under Section 19 or provisions of special judges. There are also problems with Article 311 of the Constitution. To my mind, more than who should be under the purview of Lokpal (and Lokayukta), two issues are critical. First, how independent is the body? Both in procedures followed and in appointment and removal . Institutions are as good or bad as the people appointed. Second, is it possible to delink such cases from the normal court system (with its backlog and delays) and fasttrack them? An argument is often advanced against "criminals" in Parliament and I have a problem with this.

Once convicted , and after having paid the consequent penalty, any person should be no different from any other citizen. The problem is that people have been accused, but have not been convicted. There can be a moral argument for debarring such people. However, a legal argument for debarring runs counter to principles of natural justice. In other words, this argument about "criminals" in Parliament is more an indictment of the criminal justice system. Twothirds of the backlog, concentrated in lower courts, is criminal cases. We have simplified procedures for civil cases. But reforms of the criminal justice system and the police are on no one's agenda. The final point about much of the present discourse is that it focuses inordinately on punishing the corrupt. However, graft often has economic and electoral roots. Those need to be addressed. As a start, how about signing the government procurement code?

The Economic Times, 2 September, 2011, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/comments-analysis/chances-of-corrupt-public-servants-being-caught-and-punished-very-less/articleshow/9830471.cms


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close