Syllabus: GS: II- Government Intervention

Why in the News?

The issue of corruption in public offices once again drew attention with the arrest of Nupur Bora, an Assam Civil Services (ACS) officer, on charges of disproportionate assets and misuse of office. The case highlights the continued relevance of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), 1988, which serves as the primary legislative framework in India to curb corruption among public servants.

About the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

• Enacted in 1988, the Act consolidated earlier anti-corruption laws such as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and provisions of the IPC relating to bribery.
• It criminalises corruption among public servants, and extends liability to private individuals and commercial organisations if they abet corrupt practices.
• The definition of public servant is deliberately wide, covering anyone authorised to perform a public duty.

Salient Features of the Act

• Criminal Liability: Public servants can be prosecuted for acts of bribery, undue advantage, and criminal misconduct.
• Broad Coverage: Covers not just serving public servants but also those who have ceased to hold office at the time of alleged offence.
• Sanction Requirement: Requires prior sanction for prosecution (Section 19) to safeguard honest officials from harassment.
• Presumption of Guilt: Section 20 allows presumption of guilt once foundational facts (acceptance/obtainment of bribe) are proven by the prosecution.
• Disproportionate Assets: Section 13 criminalises possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income.
  

2018 Amendment to the PC Act

The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 significantly revised the law to align with UNCAC (United Nations Convention against Corruption). Key changes:

• Defined  undue advantage: As any gratification (other than legal remuneration) in the form of monetary or non-monetary benefit or advantage.
• Criminal Misconduct narrowed: Limited to misappropriation of property and possession of disproportionate assets.
• Bribe Givers also criminalised: Bribe-giving made a punishable offence (up to 7 years).
• Prior Sanction Mandatory: Extended even to retired officials for offences committed during service.
• Corporate Liability: Commercial organisations held liable if found guilty of giving bribes to public officials.
• Time-bound Sanction: Authorities must decide on prosecution sanction within 3 months (extendable by 1 month).
• Attachment of Property: Strengthened provisions for seizure of disproportionate assets.
  

Major Judgments Regarding the Act

• Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani vs State of Gujarat (2025): Clarified the scope of demand and acceptance under the Act.
• Neeraj Dutta vs State (2023): Demand for bribe must be proved in obtainment cases; mere acceptance suffices in acceptance cases.
• State of TN vs R. Soundirarasu (2023): In disproportionate assets cases, burden shifts to accused to disprove charges.
• Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani vs State of Gujarat (2025): Misuse of authority does not automatically create presumption of corruption unless demand/acceptance proven.
• Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of UP (2013): Preliminary inquiry may be required in corruption cases; upheld in later rulings.
• State of Chhattisgarh vs Aman Kumar Singh (2024): High Courts should avoid quashing FIRs in corruption cases at the investigation stage.

How the Act Helps Curb Corruption?

• Legal Deterrence: Establishes criminal liability and imprisonment for corrupt acts.
• Checks Abuse of Power: Targets both demand (public servants) and supply side (bribe givers, corporates).
• Institutional Support: Works alongside CVC, CBI, Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act (2013) for systemic enforcement.
• Judicial Oversight: Ensures accountability of state machinery through judicial review and statutory presumptions.

Challenges of the Act

• Prolonged Trials: Corruption cases often take 10–15 years, reducing deterrence.
• Sanction Bottlenecks: Requirement of prior sanction sometimes delays prosecution.
• Narrow Scope Post-2018: Redefinition of “criminal misconduct” reduced prosecutable cases.
• Fear of Harassment vs Under-prosecution: While safeguards protect honest officials, they sometimes shield the guilty.
• Weak Enforcement: Low conviction rates — NCRB data shows conviction rate under PC Act hovers around 30–35%.
• Political & Bureaucratic Nexus: High-level corruption cases often face political interference.

Way Forward

• Strengthen Investigative Capacity: Modern forensic accounting, data analytics, and financial intelligence for tracking illicit enrichment.
• Fast-Track Courts: Specialised courts to ensure time-bound disposal of corruption cases.
• Transparent Sanction Process: Independent body to decide prosecution sanction to avoid delays.
• Whistleblower Protection: Strengthen implementation of the Whistleblower Protection Act, 2014.
• Preventive Vigilance: Digitisation of government services, e-procurement, and DBT to minimise human discretion.
• Awareness & Ethics Training: Embed integrity frameworks in public administration training.

Conclusion

The PC Act, 1988, reinforced by the 2018 amendment, remains India’s central legislative weapon against corruption. However, as the Nupur Bora ACS case and other high-profile scandals demonstrate, enforcement gaps persist. While the judiciary insists on strict accountability, the government emphasizes balancing punitive measures with protection of honest officials. A comprehensive approach — combining legal deterrence, institutional reforms, and systemic transparency — is essential to tackle corruption, which continues to be a major barrier to good governance and inclusive development.

Mains Practice Question

1. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been India’s primary tool to tackle corruption, yet conviction rates remain low and high-profile cases often linger for decades. Critically evaluate the strengths and limitations of the Act. (250 words / 15 Marks)

The Assam Tribune