Administration and Good Governance- Corruption-Prevention-Corruption Act
Administration and Good Governance: Corruption and Prevention
1. Administration and Good Governance
Good Governance refers to the efficient, transparent, accountable, and ethical management of public affairs and resources.
It requires rule of law, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, equity, and inclusiveness in administrative functioning.
Corruption is one of the major obstacles to good governance as it erodes trust, wastes resources, and undermines development.
2. Corruption: Meaning and Impact
Corruption involves misuse of public power for private gain.
It includes bribery, embezzlement, favoritism, nepotism, and abuse of discretion.
Corruption leads to inefficiency, injustice, and loss of public confidence in institutions.
3. Legal Framework for Corruption Prevention in India
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) is the primary law dealing with corruption by public servants.
It defines offences such as bribery, criminal misconduct, possession of disproportionate assets, and misuse of official position.
The Act provides for investigation, prosecution, and penalties including imprisonment and fines.
4. Key Provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Section 7: Taking gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward.
Section 8: Taking gratification to influence a public servant.
Section 9: Taking gratification for performing a public duty improperly.
Section 13: Criminal misconduct by public servants.
Section 14: Possession of disproportionate assets by public servants.
Section 17: Punishment for offenses.
5. Role of Administrative Law in Combating Corruption
Administrative law promotes transparency, accountability, and procedural fairness.
Tools include Right to Information (RTI), vigilance departments, ombudsman institutions, and internal audits.
Administrative agencies must act without arbitrariness and within legal limits.
Important Case Laws on Corruption and Prevention of Corruption Act
1. State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003)
Facts: The accused was charged under the PCA for taking bribes.
Held: The Supreme Court emphasized the need for strict proof of bribery and the importance of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Principle: Mere suspicion or motive is not sufficient; strong evidence is necessary to convict under PCA.
2. S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
Facts: The case dealt broadly with the need for transparency and accountability in public administration.
Held: The court recognized right to information as part of administrative accountability.
Significance: Highlighted the role of transparency in preventing corruption.
3. State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu (1998)
Facts: A public servant was charged under Section 13 for criminal misconduct.
Held: The Supreme Court clarified the scope of ‘criminal misconduct’ under Section 13, stressing the need for willful wrongdoing.
Significance: Prevents misuse of PCA by ensuring that mere errors or negligence are not punished.
4. Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Gelli (1998)
Facts: Case involving a bank official accused of corruption.
Held: The court discussed scope of investigation and procedural safeguards under the PCA.
Significance: Ensures fairness during investigation and protection of rights of accused.
5. State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal (2017)
Facts: The accused was charged for possession of disproportionate assets.
Held: The court held that disproportionate assets can form a basis for conviction under Section 14.
Significance: Strengthened legal provisions to prevent accumulation of illicit wealth by public servants.
Summary Table of Case Law Principles
| Case | Principle Established |
|---|---|
| State of Maharashtra v. Praful B. Desai (2003) | Strong evidence needed for conviction under PCA. |
| S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) | Transparency is vital for preventing corruption. |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Balu (1998) | ‘Criminal misconduct’ requires willful wrongdoing, not negligence. |
| CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (1998) | Fair investigation procedures under PCA are essential. |
| State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal J.P. Porwal (2017) | Possession of disproportionate assets is punishable. |
Conclusion
Good governance requires proactive measures against corruption, including legal, institutional, and administrative reforms.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 plays a pivotal role in criminalizing corrupt practices by public servants.
Administrative law principles ensure that actions under this Act are conducted with fairness, transparency, and accountability.
The judiciary has consistently emphasized balance between protecting honest officials and punishing corrupt ones, ensuring due process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments