Joginder Singh,
IPS (Retd.) Former Director CBI
THE OTHER INDIAN AN OUT AND OUT SELL OUT
Joginder Singh,
IPS (Retd.) Former Director CBI
Making hey, while the sun shines, is an old saying. But in the present climate of raging corruption in the country, not only the powers that be make a lot of hey ( or money), but are not hesitant to distribute a part of it, to stay out of trouble. Assam 's Education Minister Ripon Bora has been arrested, along with his two associates by the Central Bureau of Investigation, in June 2008 , in Delhi , while allegedly paying Rs. 10 lakhs as bribe to an officer of the investigating agency.
Mr. Bora, a senior Minister, was a suspect in a murder case, that was being probed, by the CBI on the direction of the Gauhati High Court. The case pertained, to the killing of tribal leader Daniel Topno on September 27, 2000 , who, was a candidate during the 1996 Assembly elections. Bora was his rival.
”The Minister had approached the officer, probing the case, through a middleman for negotiating the outcome of the investigation,” according to the CBI . The officer, to be bribed made a complaint, and so a trap was laid.
Before any legal action is taken, it is the standard requirement, in CBI to get a formal complaint from the affected party or parties, even if he or she happens to be a CBI Officer. This is, the only way, to set the law in motion.
There can be two types of cases of corruption. One where the bribe is demanded by a public servant and the other where bribe is offered to a public servant. In the case of a complaint where bribe is demanded, the complainant is asked to get the currency notes treated, with a special powder and the serial number of notes are written down, before the bribe is paid. Witnesses are procured in advance and they are so positioned when the transaction takes place, that they can see the money being handed over and overhear their conversation between the complainant and the bribe taker. After the transaction is over, the bribe taker is arrested.
Where a bribe is being offered to a public servant and he has informed the CBI, even then the witnesses are called to witness, the demand and passing of the money, so that when the case goes to the court, they can depose what they have seen. To maintain its credibility, CBI gets witnesses from those Government departments, which do not even have, a remote connection with the people involved in corruption cases. Infact, the same witnesses are never used in other cases, by the CBI. The advantage, of this approach is that no body can say, that the same stock witnesses are being produced in all cases of CBI.
Unfortunately, corruption in our country is going up, instead of coming down. it is going up. As per the latest report of Transparency International, India is the 72nd ( Integrity Index) most corrupt country, in integrity and honesty in public administration in the world. It scores 35 marks out of 100. Under our laws pertaining to corruption, only a public servants can be guilty of corruption. Incidentally, MP's and MLA's, and Ministers are also public servants and the same laws, are applied to them, as to the Government employees.
Ministerial corruption normally has been taking the form of misuse of their position, for getting favours for themselves or their family members or doing things for others, for solid reasons and considerations. This is probably, the first case, where instead of taking bribe, the Minister has been at the other end of offering bribes. Infact corruption in Public Life has become so endemic, that people have become cynical whether the government is serious about eliminating and giving good governance to the people. There have been allegations against an Orissa Education Minister, (denied by him) that the s tate Board of Secondary Education officials, manipulated his son's marksheet. It is said that his son was allegedly given extra 124 marks in the last h igh s chool c ertificate examinations. Another case which was widely reported and discussed is that of the Union Transport and Shipping Minister, about whose family's companies the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) wrote not one, but eight letters, between November 2007 and February 2008, to the Ministry of p etroleum and n atural g as to expedite gas allocations to these companies. According to Mr Baalu, the Minister “kings c hemicals has been allotted about 10,000 cubic metre of gas by gas authority of india (GAIL). To rehabilitate the k ings c hemicals company, k ings high power has approached GAIL; they have provided 4.5 lakh cubic metre gas to see that power is produced out of gas.”
Another case which came up in Jharkhand High Court was the alleged transfer of a Central Coal f ields limited to the northeastern coalfields, at the instance of a Union Minister, Subodh Kant Sahay, who has been issued a notice by the High Court. The transfer has since then been stayed.
A detailed implementation review (DIR) report of the world bank into the $76.4 million Orissa h ealth s ystem d evelopment p roject (OHSDP), launched in 1998 and completed in 2006, said that a h ealth m inister and some officials had taken Rs. 500,000 in bribes to give undue favours to a particular firm. The Minister has since denied the allegations. The State Government had earlier formed a three-member panel headed by the Chief Secretary, to probe the corruption charges after the report, which gives details with documentary evidence about substandard construction works and fraud in procurement of instruments and fittings for hospitals covered under the project, was published.
In his book, a former Chief of the Revenue Intelligence. “One (Minister) of them served in the early eighties. The other two Ministers of State, served in the late nineties. An effective tool of administration and preventive vigilance was thus converted by them into a money-making device.” He adds that the message, which was on many occasions “conveyed” through their personal staff, byway of justification was, that such postings or transfers were being pressed by them to either discharge their duty as a “representative of the people” or as an “obligation” to their constituency or party. On other occasions it was conveyed that the money demanded and collected was meant for party funds... Senior bureaucrats, including some at the highest levels, had no qualms...so long as it helped them to secure their position or get a particular post or some post- retirement assignment or even a couple of months extension. They are as guilty of destroying the system as the politicians.”
Infact, the system has already been ruined, with no will, being shown, by the Government, to tackle the corrupt and dishonest. Recently, Group of Ministers, has rejected a proposal, to do away with the need for government approval to attach the property of tainted public servants, to control corruption.
On the contrary, it has decided, that the Investigating Officer must take the prior Government sanction even to move the special judge for attachment of tainted property. The decision, only represents one of many attempts by the g overnment to protect the corrupt and dishonest. Even otherwise, there are lot of sanctions required to be taken. As per the CVC Act, no investigation, or any inquiry can be started against an officer of the level of Joint Secretary or above, without the Government sanction. This was struck down by the Supreme Court, in 1997 but was again introduced as a law.. Even after such a sanction has been received, which itself is doubtful, then sanction is required, to register a regular case. Again for prosecution in the court of law, formal Government sanction is legally binding. Even after it is done, the Government can always direct the Investigating Agency to with- draw the case from the court, as was done in the case of Captain Satish Sharma. The exasperation of the Nation on corruption has been best expressed by a bench of Supreme Court who said; “Everyone wants to loot this country. The only deterrent is to hang a few corrupt persons from the lamp post…The law does not permit us to do it but otherwise we would prefer to hang people like you from the lamp post”. It is time to remind our leaders, what Theodore Roosevelt said; We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity”.