Last Updated on February 6, 2020 by Legalseva.net
In 1988 the Legislature enacted the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (No. 49 of 1988) to fight corruption in the government agencies/offices and public sector businesses in India. Corruption has been a part of the governance system since a long time and many attempts have been made to curb illegal and immoral attempts of gaining undue advantages. Though in a realist society it is impossible to achieve the object of this act, yet this law may prove significant in controlling corruption. Corruption under this act has been defined under section 7 to 11. Under these sections it has been clearly stated that-
- Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, any public servant who obtains/accepts/attempts to obtain any kind of undue advantage, favor or bribe from any person or induces any other public servant to perform his public duty improperly shall be held liable under this act.
- Under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, any person who gives undue advantage to a public servant to induce him to perform his duty improperly shall be liable under this act.
- Under Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, any commercial organization which is found committing any of the above offence shall be liable under this act.
- Under Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, whenever a director, manager etc. is found involved in any of the above mentioned offences, they shall be held liable for any of the above mentioned offences.
- Under Section 11 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, any public servant who obtains any valuable objective without consideration from a person involved in a transaction/proceeding with the public servant shall be held liable under this act.
This definition under the act though covers most of the facets of the fight against corruptions, yet there are certain shortcomings. Due to these shortcomings often the corrupt people get saved from the hook of the law. Some of these shortcomings are:
- Insufficient punishment;
- The applicability of the act only upon the public servants;
- Private bodies and the widespread corruptions don’t come under the ambit of this law;
- The Act is not applicable on the public officials from other nations;
- Extra-territorial binding/application is not present;
The United Nation Convention Against Corruption (UNAC) is a universal legally binding instrument against corruption. It was adopted by the United Nation’s General Assembly in October 2003 and was entered into force on December 2005. The object of this treaty is to curb the high rising corruption by various preventive and punitive measures. It aims at stopping corruption taking place at country borders such as illegal trading, abuse of power as well as the corruption in the private sector. Its goal is to strengthen the international law enforcement in its fight against corruption.
The new amendment in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an attempt to bring the anti-corruption laws of our country in line with the Convention Against Corruption. Citizens who offer to bribe a public servant have been made liable under the new Act, thus following the guidelines setup by UNAC. Though there is an exception to this rule when the citizens are forced to bribe they are not held liable. This exception only works when someone who was forced to bribe reports to the law enforcement within seven days. Still there are various areas which are left uncovered in the new Act and are part of the UNAC.
Corruption in private sector such as money laundering and embezzlement comes under the ambit of UNAC and there are various guidelines given by the convention to stop such corruption. Yet there is no mention of corruption in private sector in the new Act. The act completely ignores this huge area of administration and no policies are framed to keep such corruption in check. As per the provisions[1] of the UNAC it is important for a signatory state to make rules to in relation of bribery of foreign officials within their law. No such law has been created by the legislature to comply with the UNAC.
With the accelerating technology race and rise of the capitalist industries, there is a very high probability of corruption and bribery in the private sector. No rules are framed in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against such corruption and the act consensually ignores the private sector. There is a categorical list been given in the section 2 of the Act which defines the people who are public servant. Judiciary has played a pro-active role and on 23rd February 2016 the Apex Court extended the meaning of “public servant” in a judgment to every chairman who is appointed on a whole-time basis, managing director, director, auditor, liquidator, manager and any other employee of a banking company and held that he/she shall be deemed to be a public servant for the purposes of the Indian Penal Code[2].
Yet this judgment is only applicable when an “office” dealing with “public duties” exists and thus has a very narrow application. It is not the job of the judiciary to create laws and thus the legislature should take notice of these developments and should try to create laws to deal with the evil of corruption and more entities should be brought within the ambit of the legislation. Corporate bribery is an evil we need to prevent from spreading and thus private sector should also be brought under the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
For case specific advice, one can contact Top/Best/Expert Lawyer Advocate of Prevention of Corruption Act Practicing in CBI Criminal Trial Courts of Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi District.
This post is written by Abhay Tripathi. For more, dial 99888-17966.
[1] The United Nations Convention against Corruption, 2003 (UNCAC), art. 16.
[2] Hemant K. Batra, ―The Private Bankers are deemed Public Servants‖, Available at:
http://speakingthreads.org/2016/02/26/the-private-bankers-are-deemed-public-servants/
