Authorities Investigating Corruption Cases in India

The Author, Lohitaksh Shively, is a 3rd Year, BA.LLB student at ILS Law College, Pune. He is currently interning with LatestLaws.com.

Introduction

Corruption has prevailed from time immemorial in various forms and continues to find its way in modern society through it its most common and rampant guise i.e. bribery. The Transparency International’s (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) of 2020 has ranked India to the 86^th place among 180 countries, with a score of 40.[1] The index ranks each country on the basis of the perceived levels of public sector corruption on a scale of 0 to 100, where a zero is highly corrupt and a hundred is very clean. This exhibits that India has a comparatively high level of corruption, and hence it needs a steady supervisory mechanism i.e. the Anti-Corruption Investigating Authorities in the country.

The laws governing and penalizing corruption in India are predominantly the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); Prevention of Corrupt Activities, 1988 (PCA); Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988; Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Furthermore, India is a signatory to the UN Convention against Corruption since 2005 and is a member of the G20 Anti-corruption Action Group.

There are mainly three primary regulatory authorities for monitoring, investigating and prosecuting the activities of corruption and bribery in India – Central Vigilance Committee (CVC), Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).

Central Vigilance Commission –

This anti-corruption body is the Apex Vigilance Institution, having the power to investigate into matters engulfed by corruption. It however has no power to formulate any policy whatsoever. The CVC is an independent body as it is not controlled by an executive authority i.e. Ministry or Department; hence able to act on its own will, being answerable only to the Parliament.

The CVC was set up on 11^th February 1964 on the proposal of the Committee of Prevention of Corruption, headed by Shri K. Santhanam, with the motive of assisting the Central Government and its agencies on the issues of surveillance and vigilance. It was in 2003 when the CVC acquired statutory recognition by the implementation of the newly passed statute – the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (hereinafter the “Act”).

The object of the Act is to inquire into and cause inquiries into any offences alleged to be committed under the PCA by certain categories of public servants. It is noteworthy that the CVC has the power to refer cases to the CBI for investigation purposes as well as to the Central Vigilance Officer (CVO) as the CVC has no investigation wing of its own. As per Section 3(2) of the Act, the Commission shall comprise – a single Central Vigilance Commissioner i.e. the Chairperson; two Vigilance Commissioners to act as its Members. As per Section 4(1) of the Act, these three persons are to be appointed by the President on the recommendation of a committee comprising the Premier (Chairperson), Minister of Home Affairs (Member), and the Leader of the Opposition in the Lower House (Lok Sabha). The Term of Office of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners is 4 years from the date on which they enter their office or till they attain the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.

In the landmark case of  Vineet Narain & Others vs. Union of India (1997)[2], the Supreme Court held that the CVC be – given Statutory status, responsible for the efficient functioning of the CBI, entrusted with the responsibility of superintendence over the CBI's functioning. Furthermore, the CBI shall report to the CVC about cases taken up by it for investigation, progress of investigations, cases in which charge sheets are filed and their progress; the CVC shall have a separate section in its Annual Report on the CBI's functioning after the Supervisory role is transferred to it.

Central Bureau of Investigation –

The CBI, which is the most common investigating agency of India, traces its origin to the Special Police Establishment set up in 1946. Establishing itself as India's foremost investigative agency with the necessary resources for complicated cases, at various junctures it assisted the investigation of crimes such as murder, kidnapping and terrorism. It was originally set up with a view to look into matters concerned with bribery and governmental corruption; however, its jurisdiction was expanded to investigate violations of Central Laws too.

The CBI derives its powers from the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DSPE), hence functioning under the administrative control of the Central Government. As on date, CBI has the following Divisions – Anti Corruption Division, Economic Offences Division, Special Crimes Division, Directorate of Prosecution, Administration Division, Policy & Coordination Division, Central Forensic Science Laboratory.[3]

Moreover, in the last 75 years, this organisation has evolved from an anti-corruption agency to a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary central police law enforcement agency with capability, credibility and legal mandate to investigate and prosecute offences anywhere in India.

A few landmark cases involving the CBI are hereinunder mentioned –

1. Priyadarshini Mattoo Case[4] –

The grave injustice caused by the initial verdict in the extant case shocked the nation as the accused was “given the benefit of the doubt”. However, the CBI stepped in at the right time and saved the repute of the judiciary by appealing to Delhi High Court, which lead to the passage of a life imprisonment sentence against the guilty Santosh Singh for the crimes of rape and murder. This case was the perfect example of how influential people can delay investigations into crimes committed by themselves or by their family members. The guilty person was the s/o a Senior IPS officer, hence there was a great amount of inaction by the Delhi Police. A major driving force in this case was the role of the media which created a strong impression on the CBI to file the said appeal, restoring faith in the Indian Judiciary.

2. Permission to Investigate cases[5] –

The CBI will need permission from the respective states that have revoked their general consent accorded to the CBI to investigate into cases falling under those territories. As per Section 6 of the DSPE all states except Delhi and the Union Territories have the choice of either giving their consent to the CBI or revoking such consent. One such state having revoked its consent is Maharashtra. Therefore, the CBI needs explicit permission from the state governments if at all it has to investigate into any case. Furthermore, the CG can authorize the CBI to investigate into a crime after having obtained such consent from a non-consenting state. However, the Supreme and the High Courts being an independent body of law enforcement have the inherent power to order the CBI to investigate into a crime anywhere in the country by exercising their constitutional power of judicial review.

Anti-Corruption Bureau

The Anti-Corruption Bureau is an investigatory for corruption under the PCA and the IPC. It is a state-centric investigation authority as compared to the CVC and the CBI which are central investigating authorities. Citizens can report bribe demands and various other corruption cases to the Bureau.  According to the data from the ACB in the state of Maharashtra, which has the maximum numbers of corruption complains – Revenues, Land Survey, Registration, Home (Police) and Rural Development department are the top five in terms of corruption.[6]

The Supreme Court taking a liberal approach passed a landmark judgement[7] widening the scope of the PCA by including private bankers within the ambit of “public servants” as defined by the PCA, so as to keep a check into fraudulent sanctioning of loans thereby battling the non-performing assets (NPA) crisis in India. The sheer shrewdness of Justice R Gogoi and Justice PC Pant was reflected when they reasoned that the aim was to make anti-corruption law more effective and widen its coverage.

In the past India has seen a plethora of alleged corruption scandals, some of them being major frauds involving high-seated Government officials. To throw light on some viz, the Telecom Scandal, the Army Bribery swindle, the Cash for Votes racket, the Home for War Widows in Maharashtra, the Commonwealth Games scam, and the Illegal Mining issue. Therefore, it is imperative that these authoritative bodies continue functioning so as to nullify the rate of corruption and put an end to these dishonest and deceitful practices. In addition, the power to control corruption lies in the hands of the citizens too, by exercising their rights amplified by the Right to Information Act 2005, so as to monitor and hold any governmental body accountable for its corrupt practices.

Picture Source :