Hail move to make corruption heinous crime: Ex-Cabinet Secy

I also fully agree with the concept that prior approval is to be obtained particularly in respect of those who take policy decisions. I think overall it sounds very good but one will reserve judgement till one looks at the whole picture.

Nayantara: I wanted to ask you what did you make of this non-monetary gratification definition which has been included into this (interrupted..)

A: It is an excellent idea. Till now we have been confined our service only to one to one bilateral monetary gratification. The kind of satisfaction that is received in the complex deals becomes multilateral, it becomes I scratch your back, you will scratch his back, he will scratch his back, he will scratch your back kind of a situation. This is excellent and the kind of gratification that comes – comes in different ways in different forms including being staying in office, allow to continue to function in certain positions, all these are there, these are welcome.

The only small nagging worry I have is with regards to 13D(I) of the old PC Act. I don’t know if it still remains or not where deliberate cause of loss to the exchequer was cognisable. I hope it has not been tampered with, I hope it continues because one had the hint that that may go down because if that goes away 13D(III) earlier goes away it will very severely impact huge coal scam cases, 2G cases, so many cases pending in court. It will affect adversely. I sincerely hope that in this mass of new decision making that thing is not dropped, I sincerely hope so.

Nayantara: How should we read these amendments that have been brought about today in light of what the Supreme Court had to say on April 19 when it held that a public servant cannot by default claim legal protection of prior sanction against prosecution. How should we read these two together and also the thought that it is a good move, they are trying to reduce trial time but two years, isn’t that still quit long?

A: Two years in India is not too long. The standard is twenty years. In America you would say two years is too long, in Indian conditions two years is not too long. I also like the concept of a special court in each district or areas especially the corruption court but the overall thrust is correct. I think particularly decision makers, joint secretary and above who deal with unknown sectors, policy decisions turn out to be totally wrong years later need protection not just while in service but also when they are out of service. Today’s rule is that they are protected only while in service, I hope they will be protected later also. I have not seen the rules as yet finally. Finally as I said my nagging worry is only this; 13D(iii) I hope is not been tampered with, I hope it is not being diluted, that will have a very major implication if it has been done. Otherwise I like whatever I hear.

Surabhi: From what we understand there is no explicit mention of diluting the provision that you referred to but I want to just expand on this point of making sure that corruption within bureaucracy is checked to the extent possible. On one hand there is certain protection that is being now offered to public servants even beyond their period of duty even after retirement. On the other hand and I am quoting from the provisions now, it say that “Obligations of public servant has been explicitly delineate such as the public servants deters from violating a salutatory duty or any set of rules, government policies, executive instructions and procedures.” I am just trying to understand if these amendments will make conditions stringent enough to deter public servants from-we have had the corporate espionage case, we have a number of such instances, does it tighten up the law enough?

A: I am not able to comment on accurately for want of detail etc which probably in a day or two one will be able to do that but important thing is if you are focusing purely on the civil servant we are barking up the wrong tree because corruption includes political corruption and usually when there are massive corruption cases, the civil servant is involved along with the minister who is the senior partner and I hope this addresses that issue. Also I hope it addresses also some way the election system where unauthorized money goes there because that is the root of all this so actually it is all mixed up. Political reforms, corruption reforms, civil service reform, election reform therefore one hopes that this is a first of a comprehensive package which will address the totality of the problem. As I said, I like what is there but if it is a cover for dropping 13 d (3), I am very worried.