-Which all are the problematic proposals?
>First, the proposed amendment *narrows down the definition of corruption*, as demanded by the powerful lobby of civil servants.
Section 13(1)(d) of the *existing PCA covers various indirect forms of corruption.*
The *present Bill removes this section* and replaces it with a *truncated definition of criminal misconduct* by a public servant.
Under this *new definition*, *any benefit that is not economic, that is indirect or that cannot be proven to be intentional fraud will not be punished as corruption.*
The corrupt public servant usually receives illegal gratification in an extremely clandestine manner such as *off-shore transactions or non-monetary considerations such as a better posting, post retirement benefits*, etc.
>Second, the Bill makes it more difficult to hold someone guilty of disproportionate assets as it *raises the threshold of proof.*
Under the *existing law*, the possession of monetary resources or property disproportionate to the public servant’s known sources of income is enough to prove corruption.
Now the prosecutor will *also have to prove that this disproportionate asset was acquired with the intention of the public servant to enrich himself illicitly.*
>Third, *“known sources of income”* are now limited only to those receipts which had been “intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders *for the time being* applicable to a public servant”.
This provision was made in 1988 in order *to cover an earlier loophole*, whereby many accused persons would cite *fresh sources of income at the stage of trial*, resulting in acquittal in a large number of disproportionate assets cases.
Strangely, the *government proposes to delete this requirement* without any recommendation to this effect from any stakeholder.
Thus the big offenders have secured a vital escape route for themselves.
>Fourth, the proposed amendment makes it *more risky for a bribe-giver to give evidence against a bribe-taker.*
Under the *existing law*, if a person makes a statement during a corruption trial that he gave a bribe, it *would not be used to prosecute him* for the offence of abetment of corruption.
The *current Bill omits this provision* and proposes that *bribe-taking and bribe-giving will be equally punishable.*
This would obviously *deter bribe-givers from appearing as witnesses* in cases against public officials.
>Fifth,it proposes to insert a new Section 17A that would *bar investigating agencies from even beginning an inquiry* or investigating the offences under this Act *without prior approval* from an “authority competent to remove” the person from office.
Effectively, it means that now, the *political masters will decide whether they wish to allow a corruption inquiry against any government employee or not.*
Source:The Hindu
>First, the proposed amendment *narrows down the definition of corruption*, as demanded by the powerful lobby of civil servants.
Section 13(1)(d) of the *existing PCA covers various indirect forms of corruption.*
The *present Bill removes this section* and replaces it with a *truncated definition of criminal misconduct* by a public servant.
Under this *new definition*, *any benefit that is not economic, that is indirect or that cannot be proven to be intentional fraud will not be punished as corruption.*
The corrupt public servant usually receives illegal gratification in an extremely clandestine manner such as *off-shore transactions or non-monetary considerations such as a better posting, post retirement benefits*, etc.
>Second, the Bill makes it more difficult to hold someone guilty of disproportionate assets as it *raises the threshold of proof.*
Under the *existing law*, the possession of monetary resources or property disproportionate to the public servant’s known sources of income is enough to prove corruption.
Now the prosecutor will *also have to prove that this disproportionate asset was acquired with the intention of the public servant to enrich himself illicitly.*
>Third, *“known sources of income”* are now limited only to those receipts which had been “intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders *for the time being* applicable to a public servant”.
This provision was made in 1988 in order *to cover an earlier loophole*, whereby many accused persons would cite *fresh sources of income at the stage of trial*, resulting in acquittal in a large number of disproportionate assets cases.
Strangely, the *government proposes to delete this requirement* without any recommendation to this effect from any stakeholder.
Thus the big offenders have secured a vital escape route for themselves.
>Fourth, the proposed amendment makes it *more risky for a bribe-giver to give evidence against a bribe-taker.*
Under the *existing law*, if a person makes a statement during a corruption trial that he gave a bribe, it *would not be used to prosecute him* for the offence of abetment of corruption.
The *current Bill omits this provision* and proposes that *bribe-taking and bribe-giving will be equally punishable.*
This would obviously *deter bribe-givers from appearing as witnesses* in cases against public officials.
>Fifth,it proposes to insert a new Section 17A that would *bar investigating agencies from even beginning an inquiry* or investigating the offences under this Act *without prior approval* from an “authority competent to remove” the person from office.
Effectively, it means that now, the *political masters will decide whether they wish to allow a corruption inquiry against any government employee or not.*
Source:The Hindu
No comments:
Post a Comment