Why in the News?
Recently, in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India 2026 judgment, the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988.
More on the News
- Section 17A, inserted by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, mandates that there should be a prior sanction from the Government to launch an investigation against a public servant under the Act.
- Split verdict:
- Justice Viswanathan: Section 17A is constitutionally valid subject to the condition that the sanction must be decided by the Lokpal or the Lokayukta of the State.
- Justice BV Nagarathna: Section 17A is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution as it seeks to protect only a class of public servants.
- In earlier judgments of Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1997 and Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Director, CBI, 2014, Court had invalidated executive and statutory provisions requiring prior sanction before investigation against senior public servants.
About Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988
- It was enacted to prevent corruption in public offices and was amended by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.
- It defines public servant as -
- any person in service or pay of Government/local authority or remunerated by Government by fees or commission for performance of any public duty.
- 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.
- Corruption is defined as acceptance or solicitation of gratification (other than legal remuneration) by a public servant for performing or not performing an official act.
Other Key provisions of PCA, 1988
Aspect | Detail |
Punishment for offence relating to public servant being bribed | Any public servant who obtains an undue advantage for dishonest performance of a public duty shall be punishable, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years but which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine. |
Punishment for habitual offender | Punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 5 years but which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine |
Persons authorised to investigate | No police officer below the following rank shall investigate any offence punishable without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant.
|
Reasons for prevailing Corruption in India
- Centralised control: In post-independence period, excessive state control and bureaucratic regulation entrenched corrupt practices in governance, as evident from License Raj system that encouraged bribery for licenses and permits.
- High-profile cases such as Bofors scandal of 1980s exposed corruption at the highest political levels, highlighting systemic governance weaknesses.
- Political–Bureaucratic Nexus: Close links between political leadership and bureaucracy foster patronage, nepotism, and protection of corrupt networks. E.g., Adarsh Housing Scam (2010, Maharashtra).
- Socio-Economic: Corruption in Indian politics is closely linked to socio-economic disparities, as poverty and economic distress increase vulnerability to bribery and exploitation, forcing disadvantaged sections to rely on corrupt practices to access basic services.
- 'Sanskritization of Corruption': Concept coined by Prof. Kaushik Basu (former Chief Economic Advisor to the GoI), it implies that instead of being hidden, corrupt behavior is displayed to gain respect and social prestige, often leading to a normalization of unethical behavior to achieve upward mobility.
- Lack of Independent Investigative Agencies: Agencies such as the CBI function under executive control, limiting their autonomy and reducing their effectiveness in independently investigating corruption cases.
- Further, overburdened judicial system contributes to delays in prosecuting corruption cases, diluting deterrent effect.
- E.g., According to CVC annual report, 7,072 corruption cases investigated by CBI remain pending in courts, including 379 cases that have been unresolved for over 20 years.
- Lack of Transparency: Secrecy in administration, weak public oversight, and inadequate implementation of laws like Whistle-blower Protection, Right to Information etc., enabling misuse of power and corrupt practices.
- Despite improving to rank 91 in Corruption Perception Index 2025, Transparency International still categorizes India among countries that are "dangerous for journalists" reporting on corruption, specifically citing risks from local mining and sand mafias.
- Election Funding: High election costs and lack of transparency in political funding encourage quid-pro-quo arrangements between politicians, officials, and businesses.
- As per Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) report, approximately 60% (₹19,083 crore), of contributions to six political parties in India from 2004-05 to 2022-23 came from undisclosed sources.
Other steps to curb Corruption in India
|
Way Forward
- ARC-II Recommendations:
- Anti-Corruption Bureaus should be brought under the control of the State Vigilance Commission.
- Strengthen Economic offences unit of states to effectively investigate cases and improve coordination amongst existing agencies.
- Development of a code of ethics for public officials and employees to promote ethical behaviour.
- Transparent public procurement: Digital e-procurement, public bid disclosures, and independent real-time audits, possibly using blockchain, can track funds, cut waste, and enhance trust in contracts to tackle overpricing and favouritism.
- Judicial reforms: Special courts, time-bound hearings, Trained judges and tech-based case tracking can speed up justice.
- Whistle-blower Protection: Strengthening the Whistle Blowers Protection Act with anonymity, legal safeguards, and secure reporting channels can boost disclosures and promote accountability.
- Political funding: Mandatory disclosure of donations, caps on spending, banning large anonymous contributions, and state-funded campaigns can curb the politicians, officials, and businesses nexus.
- Institutional Measures: Strengthen law-enforcement and vigilance agencies such as CBI, CVC, and ED by ensuring adequate resources, greater functional autonomy, and continuous capacity building to enhance their effectiveness in combating corruption.
Conclusion
Judicial clarity on provisions like Section 17A of the PCA, 1988, alongside sustained reforms in political funding, investigative autonomy, and ethical governance, can reinforce accountability. Only through coordinated institutional action and societal commitment can India move towards a corruption-free, transparent, and inclusive public administration.
