The Prevention of Corruption Act: India's Comprehensive Battle Against Corruption

By: Abhishek Bhatt

Introduction

Corruption has long been a significant challenge for India, affecting various sectors of society and hindering the nation’s progress. To combat this pervasive issue, the Indian government enacted the Prevention of Corruption Act in 1988, which has since been amended to strengthen its provisions. This comprehensive guide will explore the Act’s history, key features, amendments, and its impact on India’s fight against corruption, providing a detailed look at the legal framework designed to curb corrupt practices in the country.

What is the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988?

The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was a landmark legislation in India’s efforts to combat corruption. Enacted on September 9, 1988, it provided a comprehensive framework to address corrupt practices in the public sector. Prior to this Act, corruption was primarily dealt with under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which lacked specific provisions to tackle the complexities of corruption in modern governance.

Key Features of the 1988 Act

Definition of public servants: The Act provided a broad definition of public servants, encompassing various roles in government and public institutions.
Criminalization of bribe-taking by public servants: It made the acceptance of bribes by public servants a criminal offense.
Provisions for speedy trial through special courts: Special courts were established to handle corruption cases more efficiently.
Enhanced penalties for corrupt practices: The Act introduced stricter punishments for those found guilty of corruption.

The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018

Recognizing the need to further strengthen anti-corruption measures and align with international standards, the Indian Parliament passed the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act in 2018. This amendment introduced several significant changes to the original 1988 Act, aiming to make it more effective in the contemporary context.

Key Changes in the 2018 Amendment

Redefinition of existing offences: The amendment clarified and expanded the definition of various corruption-related offenses.
Enhanced powers for courts: Special courts were given more authority to effectively try corruption cases.
New rules for trials: The amendment introduced timelines and procedures to ensure speedy trials.
Alignment with the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) of 2005: The changes brought the Act in line with international anti-corruption standards.

Comparison: PCA 1988 vs. PCA 2018

To better understand the evolution of the Act, let’s compare key aspects of the 1988 and 2018 versions:

Aspect	Prevention of Corruption Act 1988	Prevention of Corruption Act 2018
Bribe giver prosecution	Bribe giver could not be prosecuted	Bribe giver can be prosecuted
Approval for prosecution	Prior approval required only for officials above joint secretary rank (struck down by Supreme Court in 2014)	Prior approval required for all public servants unless caught red-handed
Time limit for trial	No specified time limit	Trial should be completed within 2 years, extendable up to 4 years with reasons
Commercial organizations	No specific provisions	Can be charged with a fine if found guilty
Asset forfeiture	Limited provisions	Enhanced powers for attachment and forfeiture of property

Landmark Judgments

L. Narayana Swamy vs State of Karnataka (2016)

In this significant case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that a public servant can be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act even without sanction if they have ceased to hold the office in which the alleged offence was committed or if they are holding a different office. This judgment expanded the scope of prosecution and removed certain bureaucratic hurdles in pursuing corruption cases.

The court stated: “Where the alleged misconduct is in some different capacity than the one which is held at the time of taking cognizance, there will be no necessity to take the sanction”

This ruling has significant implications for the prosecution of corruption cases, especially those involving retired officials or those who have changed positions.

Measuring Corruption: The Corruption Perceptions Index

While there is no official tool to measure corruption within a country, several international organizations use various data sets to estimate corruption levels. One of the most widely recognized measures is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).

Understanding the Corruption Perceptions Index

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an annual ranking of countries by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys. Published by Transparency International since 1995, the CPI has become a leading global indicator of public sector corruption.

How the CPI Works

Countries are scored on a scale from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean)
The index is based on 13 surveys and expert assessments
A country must be featured in at least three of these to be included in the ranking
The CPI focuses on corruption in the public sector and defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain

India’s Performance in the CPI

As of 2023, India ranks 93rd out of 180 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index, with a score of 39/100. This score is below the global average of 45/100, indicating that there is still significant work to be done in combating corruption in India.

India and Its Neighboring Countries (2023 CPI Rankings)

Country	Ranking (Out of 180 Countries)	Score (Out of 100)
Bhutan	26	68
China	76	42
India	93	39
Nepal	108	35
Sri Lanka	115	34
Pakistan	133	29
Bangladesh	149	24
Afghanistan	162	20

It’s worth noting that among its neighbors, India stands at a moderate position. However, there is still significant room for improvement, especially when compared to countries like Bhutan, which has made remarkable strides in combating corruption.
Check full CPI 2023 report here.

Global Perspective

To provide a broader context, it’s important to note that as of the 2023 CPI:

Denmark is ranked as the least corrupt country with a score of 90/100
Somalia is ranked as the most corrupt country among the list of 180 countries with a score of 11/100

This global perspective helps in understanding India’s position in the worldwide fight against corruption.

Legal Framework and Jurisdiction

Special Judges for Corruption Cases

The Prevention of Corruption Act provides for the appointment of Special Judges to try offences under the Act. This ensures that corruption cases are heard by judges with expertise in this area of law, potentially leading to more effective and timely adjudication.

Appointment of Special Judges

The Central Government or State Government may appoint Special Judges through an official notification
Special Judges can be appointed for specific areas or for particular cases/groups of cases
This provision allows for the creation of dedicated anti-corruption courts, enhancing the efficiency of the judicial process in corruption cases

Jurisdiction and Powers of Special Judges

Special Judges have exclusive jurisdiction to try offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, including:

All offences specified in the Act
Conspiracies to commit such offences
Attempts to commit such offences
Abetment of any offences under the Act

The Act empowers Special Judges to try these cases without the need for committal proceedings, allowing for a more streamlined judicial process.

Who Can Be Held Guilty Under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

The Act casts a wide net to ensure comprehensive coverage of potential corruption scenarios. Those who can be held guilty include:

Public servants
Private individuals involved in corrupt practices with public servants
Commercial organizations engaging in corruption

Definition of a Public Servant

Public servants and any person, commercial organization committing any offence Under The Prevention of Corruption Act can be held guilty.

Section 2(c) of PCA 2018 defines public servant as

(i) any person in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty;

(ii) any person in the service or pay of a local authority;

(iii) any person in the service or pay of a corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or an authority or a body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

(iv) any Judge, including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;

(v) any person authorised by a court of justice to perform any duty, in connection with the administration of justice, including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner appointed by such court;

(vi) any arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by a court of justice or by a competent public authority;

(vii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election;

(viii) any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty;

(ix) any person who is the president, secretary or other office-bearer of a registered co-operative society engaged in agriculture, industry, trade or banking, receiving or having received any financial aid from the Central Government or a State Government or from any corporation established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, or any authority or body owned or controlled or aided by the Government or a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);

(x) any person who is a chairman, member or employee of any Service Commission or Board, by whatever name called, or a member of any selection committee appointed by such Commission or Board for the conduct of any examination or making any selection on behalf of such Commission or Board;

(xi) any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations;

(xii) any person who is an office-bearer or an employee of an educational, scientific, social, cultural or other institution, in whatever manner established, receiving or having received any financial assistance from the Central Government or any State Government, or local or other public authority.

This broad definition ensures that the Act covers a wide range of individuals who may be in positions to engage in corrupt practices.

Key Anti-Corruption Agencies in India

India has established several agencies to combat corruption at various levels of governance. These include:

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI):

Primary investigative agency for corruption cases involving central government employees
Handles complex and high-profile corruption cases
Has jurisdiction over cases referred by the central government and can take over cases from state police

Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB):

State-level investigative units that handle corruption cases involving state government employees
Each state has its own ACB, operating under state laws and guidelines
Investigates complaints against state government officials and public servants

Lokpal:

National-level authority that investigates complaints against high-ranking public officials
Can investigate the Prime Minister, former Prime Ministers, Union Ministers, and Members of Parliament
Has powers to order investigations and prosecutions against accused officials

Lokayukta:

State-level ombudsmen that investigate allegations against state government officials
Recommend disciplinary action against corrupt officials
Powers and jurisdiction vary from state to state

Central Vigilance Commission (CVC):

Apex vigilance institution that oversees and coordinates the work of various anti-corruption agencies
Advises central government organizations on vigilance matters
Receives complaints and initiates investigations into corruption cases

These agencies work in tandem to create a multi-layered approach to combating corruption in India.

Offences Under the Prevention of Corruption Act 2018

The Act defines several offences related to corruption. Some of the key offences include:

Public servant being bribed: Accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage in connection with the performance of official duties
Taking undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of personal influence
Bribing a public servant: Giving or promising to give an undue advantage to a public servant to induce or reward improper performance of public duty
Commercial organizations bribing public servants: When a commercial organization, through its representatives, bribes a public servant to obtain or retain business or advantage in business
Criminal misconduct by a public servant: Including fraudulent misappropriation, dishonest or fraudulent misuse of office, and possession of disproportionate assets
Habitual offending: Repeated commission of offences under the Act
Attempt to commit offences under the Act

Penalties Under the Prevention of Corruption Act

The Act prescribes severe penalties for various offences:

Offence	Punishment
Public servant being bribed	3-7 years imprisonment and fine
Taking undue advantage to influence a public servant	3-7 years imprisonment and fine
Bribing a public servant	Up to 7 years imprisonment or fine or both
Commercial organization bribing a public servant	Fine
Person in charge of commercial organization found guilty	3-7 years imprisonment and fine
Public servant obtaining undue advantage without consideration	6 months to 5 years imprisonment and fine
Abetment of offences	3-7 years imprisonment and fine
Criminal misconduct by a public servant	4-10 years imprisonment and fine
Habitual offender	5-10 years imprisonment and fine
Attempt to commit certain offences	2-5 years imprisonment and fine

These stringent penalties are designed to serve as a strong deterrent against corrupt practices.

Exception to Bribe Giver Prosecution

It’s important to note that the 2018 amendment includes an exception for bribe givers who are compelled to give a bribe. Specifically:

A person who is compelled to give an undue advantage shall not be charged with an offence if they report the matter to law enforcement authorities within seven days of giving the bribe.
This provision aims to protect individuals who might be forced into corrupt practices and encourages reporting of such incidents.

Reporting Corruption: A Citizen’s Guide

Reporting corruption is a crucial step in combating this issue. Here’s how citizens can report corruption:

For Central Government Employees:

File a complaint with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
Use the CVC online portal
Send an email to CVC
Write a letter to the CVC office

For State Government Employees:

Contact the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of the respective state
Use email, phone, or letter to file a complaint
Many states have dedicated anti-corruption helplines

Lokpal Complaints:

File electronically through the Lokpal website
Submit a hardcopy within 15 days of electronic filing
Complaints can be made against high-ranking officials including the Prime Minister

Lokayukta Complaints:

File in person or through registered post
Procedures may vary by state, so check with your state’s Lokayukta office

Anti-Corruption Helpline:

Call the national anti-corruption helpline at 1064
This 24/7 helpline is operated by the Central Vigilance Commission

When reporting corruption, it’s important to provide as much detail as possible, including names, dates, and any evidence you may have. Remember, your identity can be kept confidential if requested.

Investigation Process

The Prevention of Corruption Act specifies the rank of police officers authorized to investigate corruption cases:

In Delhi: Inspector of Police or above
In metropolitan areas: Assistant Commissioner of Police or above
Elsewhere: Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent rank

These officers can investigate offences under the Act without requiring an order from a magistrate and can make arrests without a warrant. The investigation process typically involves:

Preliminary enquiry to establish the veracity of the complaint
Registration of a First Information Report (FIR) if prima facie evidence is found
Gathering of evidence, including documents, witness statements, and forensic analysis if necessary
Arrests of accused persons, if required
Filing of a charge sheet in court upon completion of the investigation

The Act emphasizes the need for thorough and timely investigations to ensure effective prosecution of corruption cases.

Time Limit for Trials

To ensure speedy justice, the Act stipulates:

Trials should be conducted on a day-to-day basis when practicable
Efforts should be made to conclude trials within two years
If a trial exceeds two years, the Special Judge must record reasons for the delay
Extensions may be granted for up to six months at a time, with written reasons
The total trial period should not exceed four years

These time limits are crucial in preventing the prolonged pendency of corruption cases and ensuring timely justice. However, it’s important to note that complex cases may require more time, and the Act provides for extensions with proper justification.

Appealing Authority

The High Court serves as the primary appellate authority for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It can exercise all powers of appeal and revision as provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, treating the Special Judge’s court as a Session Court within its jurisdiction.

Specific powers of the High Court in relation to Prevention of Corruption Act cases include:

Hearing appeals: The High Court can hear appeals against the judgments, sentences, or orders passed by Special Judges.
Revision of orders: It has the power to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before a Special Judge to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order.
Ordering further inquiry: The High Court can direct the Special Judge to make further inquiry into any complaint dismissed by them or in which the accused has been discharged.
Transfer of cases: It has the authority to transfer cases from one Special Judge to another within its jurisdiction.
Bail matters: The High Court can hear and decide on bail applications in corruption cases.

These powers ensure that there is a robust mechanism for review and appeal in corruption cases, safeguarding the rights of the accused while also ensuring that the ends of justice are met.

Challenges in Implementing the Prevention of Corruption Act

Despite the comprehensive nature of the Prevention of Corruption Act and its amendments, several challenges persist in its implementation:

Bureaucratic delays: The requirement for prior sanction to prosecute public servants can lead to delays in initiating proceedings.
Lack of protection for whistleblowers: While the Act encourages reporting of corruption, there’s a need for stronger protection mechanisms for whistleblowers.
Pendency of cases: Despite the time limits set for trials, many corruption cases remain pending in courts for extended periods.
Political interference: In some cases, political pressure can hinder the effective investigation and prosecution of corruption cases.
Limited resources: Anti-corruption agencies often face constraints in terms of manpower and resources, affecting their ability to investigate complex cases.
Evolving nature of corruption: As corrupt practices become more sophisticated, especially with the use of technology, the law enforcement agencies need to continually update their skills and methods.
Public awareness: There’s a need for greater public awareness about the provisions of the Act and the mechanisms for reporting corruption.

Addressing these challenges requires a multi-pronged approach involving legal reforms, institutional strengthening, and public participation.

Recent Developments and Future Outlook

The fight against corruption in India is an ongoing process, with several recent developments and potential future directions:

Use of Technology

E-governance initiatives: The government is increasingly using digital platforms to reduce human intervention in administrative processes, thereby reducing opportunities for corruption.
Data analytics: Anti-corruption agencies are exploring the use of big data and analytics to detect patterns of corrupt behavior.
Online complaint systems: Many agencies now offer online portals for citizens to file corruption complaints, increasing accessibility and transparency.

International Cooperation

India has been strengthening its international cooperation in fighting corruption:

UNCAC implementation: As a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), India is working on aligning its anti-corruption laws with international standards.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties: India has signed MLATs with several countries to facilitate information exchange and asset recovery in corruption cases.
G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group: India actively participates in this forum, sharing best practices and coordinating anti-corruption efforts globally.

Proposed Reforms

Several reforms have been proposed to further strengthen anti-corruption efforts:

Amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act: There are ongoing discussions about further amendments to address emerging challenges and close loopholes.
Strengthening Lokpal: Proposals to enhance the powers and resources of the Lokpal to make it more effective.
Witness Protection Law: Implementing a robust witness protection program to encourage more people to come forward with evidence in corruption cases.
Electoral Reforms: Discussions on reforms to reduce the influence of money power in elections, which is often linked to corruption.

Role of Civil Society and Media

Civil society organizations and the media play a crucial role in India’s fight against corruption:

Awareness campaigns: NGOs and civil society groups conduct awareness programs to educate the public about their rights and the means to fight corruption.
Investigative journalism: Media investigations have often been instrumental in exposing major corruption scandals, leading to official inquiries and legal action.
Public Interest Litigations (PILs): Activists and organizations have used PILs as a tool to bring corruption issues to the attention of the courts.
Social audits: In some states, civil society organizations conduct social audits of government schemes to ensure transparency and accountability.
Right to Information (RTI) activism: RTI activists have been at the forefront of exposing corruption by seeking information about government decisions and expenditures.

The active involvement of civil society and media is essential for creating public pressure for reforms and ensuring the effective implementation of anti-corruption laws.

Conclusion

The Prevention of Corruption Act, with its 2018 amendments, represents a significant step forward in India’s fight against corruption. It provides a comprehensive legal framework to tackle various forms of corrupt practices in public life. However, the persistence of corruption in the system highlights that legislative measures alone are not sufficient. Effective implementation, institutional integrity, public awareness, and active citizen participation are crucial for creating a corruption-free society.

Key takeaways include:

The Act provides stringent penalties for corrupt practices, covering both public servants and private entities involved in corruption.
Special courts and time-bound trials aim to ensure speedy justice in corruption cases.
The inclusion of commercial organizations under the Act’s purview recognizes the role of private sector in corruption.
Multiple agencies like CBI, Lokpal, and state ACBs form a multi-layered anti-corruption framework.
Citizen participation through reporting mechanisms is crucial for the Act’s success.

As responsible citizens, we must understand that both giving and receiving bribes are equally damaging to the system. Instead of resorting to corrupt practices, we should utilize the legal channels available to report and combat corruption. The fight against corruption requires sustained effort, vigilance, and integrity from all sections of society.

Remember, as the saying goes, “When you don’t take a stand against corruption, you tacitly support it.” By working together – citizens, government, and anti-corruption agencies – we can strive to create a more transparent, accountable, and corruption-free India for future generations.

The journey towards a corruption-free society is long and challenging, but with persistent efforts and a collective commitment to integrity, it is an achievable goal. Each citizen has a role to play in this crucial battle for the nation’s progress and prosperity.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Prevention of Corruption Act in India

1. What is the Prevention of Corruption Act?

The Prevention of Corruption Act is a comprehensive legislation enacted in India to combat corruption. It was first introduced in 1988 and later amended in 2018 to strengthen its provisions and align with international anti-corruption standards.

2. Who does the Prevention of Corruption Act apply to?

The Act applies to public servants, private individuals involved in corrupt practices with public servants, and commercial organizations engaging in corruption. It provides a broad definition of ‘public servant’ that includes government employees, judges, employees of public sector undertakings, and others in positions of public duty.

3. What are the key features of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

Key features of the 1988 Act include:

A broad definition of public servants
Criminalization of bribe-taking by public servants
Provisions for speedy trial through special courts
Enhanced penalties for corrupt practices

4. How did the 2018 amendment change the Prevention of Corruption Act?

The 2018 amendment introduced several significant changes:

Redefinition of existing offences
Enhanced powers for courts
New rules for trials, including timelines
Alignment with the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC)
Provisions for prosecuting bribe-givers
Inclusion of commercial organizations under the Act’s purview

5. What are the penalties for corruption under this Act?

Penalties vary depending on the offence but generally include:

Public servant being bribed: 3-7 years imprisonment and fine
Bribing a public servant: Up to 7 years imprisonment or fine or both
Criminal misconduct by a public servant: 4-10 years imprisonment and fine
Habitual offender: 5-10 years imprisonment and fine

6. Are there any exceptions for bribe-givers under the Act?

Yes, the 2018 amendment includes an exception for bribe-givers who are compelled to give a bribe. If they report the matter to law enforcement authorities within seven days of giving the bribe, they shall not be charged with an offence.

7. What is the role of Special Judges under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Special Judges are appointed to try offences under the Act. They have exclusive jurisdiction over corruption cases and can try these cases without the need for committal proceedings, allowing for a more streamlined judicial process.

8. How long can a trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act take?

The Act stipulates that trials should be conducted on a day-to-day basis when practicable and efforts should be made to conclude trials within two years. The total trial period should not exceed four years, though extensions may be granted with proper justification.

9. What is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?

The Corruption Perceptions Index is an annual ranking of countries by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys. It is published by Transparency International and serves as a leading global indicator of public sector corruption.

10. How does India rank in the Corruption Perceptions Index?

11. What are the main anti-corruption agencies in India?

The main anti-corruption agencies in India include:

Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) at the state level
Lokpal (national level)
Lokayukta (state level)
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)

12. How can citizens report corruption in India?

Citizens can report corruption through various channels:

For Central Government Employees: File a complaint with the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
For State Government Employees: Contact the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of the respective state
Lokpal Complaints: File electronically through the Lokpal website
Lokayukta Complaints: File in person or through registered post
Anti-Corruption Helpline: Call the national anti-corruption helpline at 1064

13. What is the process of investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

The investigation process typically involves:

Preliminary enquiry to establish the veracity of the complaint
Registration of a First Information Report (FIR) if prima facie evidence is found
Gathering of evidence, including documents, witness statements, and forensic analysis if necessary
Arrests of accused persons, if required
Filing of a charge sheet in court upon completion of the investigation

14. What is the role of the High Court in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

The High Court serves as the primary appellate authority for cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It can hear appeals, revise orders, order further inquiries, transfer cases, and decide on bail matters related to corruption cases.

15. What are some challenges in implementing the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Challenges include:

Bureaucratic delays
Lack of protection for whistleblowers
Pendency of cases
Political interference
Limited resources for anti-corruption agencies
Evolving nature of corruption
Need for greater public awareness

16. How is technology being used to combat corruption in India?

Technology is being used in several ways:

E-governance initiatives to reduce human intervention in administrative processes
Data analytics to detect patterns of corrupt behavior
Online complaint systems for citizens to file corruption complaints

17. What international cooperation does India have in fighting corruption?

India cooperates internationally through:

Implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC)
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties with several countries
Participation in the G20 Anti-Corruption Working Group

18. What is the role of civil society and media in combating corruption in India?

Civil society and media play crucial roles through:

Awareness campaigns
Investigative journalism
Public Interest Litigations (PILs)
Social audits of government schemes
Right to Information (RTI) activism

19. Can commercial organizations be held liable under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

Yes, the 2018 amendment includes provisions for holding commercial organizations liable if they engage in corrupt practices. They can be punished with fines, and persons in charge of the organization can face imprisonment and fines.

20. What is the significance of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in relation to India’s anti-corruption efforts?

The UNCAC provides a universal legal instrument against corruption. India, as a signatory, has been working on aligning its anti-corruption laws with international standards set by the UNCAC, which influenced the 2018 amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act.

21. What is the role of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in fighting corruption?

The CVC is the apex vigilance institution that oversees and coordinates the work of various anti-corruption agencies. It advises central government organizations on vigilance matters, receives complaints, and initiates investigations into corruption cases.

22. How does the Prevention of Corruption Act define ‘undue advantage’?

The Act defines ‘undue advantage’ as any gratification, whether pecuniary or not, other than legal remuneration that a public servant is permitted to receive. This broad definition covers various forms of bribes, including money, gifts, services, or other intangible benefits.

23. What is the provision for attachment and forfeiture of property under the Prevention of Corruption Act?

The 2018 amendment enhanced powers for attachment and forfeiture of property acquired through corrupt means. The Act now allows for the confiscation of assets obtained through corruption, even if they are held by third parties or have been transferred.

24. How does the Prevention of Corruption Act address the issue of disproportionate assets?

The Act considers possession of disproportionate assets by a public servant as criminal misconduct. If a public servant cannot satisfactorily account for assets disproportionate to their known sources of income, they can be charged under the Act.

25. What role does the Lokpal play in India’s anti-corruption framework?

The Lokpal is a national-level authority that investigates complaints against high-ranking public officials, including the Prime Minister, former Prime Ministers, Union Ministers, and Members of Parliament. It has powers to order investigations and prosecutions against accused officials, forming a crucial part of India’s anti-corruption mechanism.

Also Read:

Consumer Protection Act in India: Your Rights, Remedies, and How to File Complaints

Hindu vs Muslim Law: Comprehensive Guide to Marriage, Divorce, Adoption and Succession in India

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 in India: Reformation and Rehabilitation