Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Saturday, November 23, 2024

The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2018

Posted in: Legislation
Tue, Apr 23, 19, 13:54, 6 Years ago
star star star star star
5 out of 5 with 1 ratings
comments: 1 - hits: 15170
The Prevention of Corruption Act. the ratification by India of the UN Convention Against Corruption. the international practice on treatment of the offence of bribery and corruption and judicial pronouncements had necessitated a review of the existing provisions to the Act

The Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 provided for prevention of corruption and tor matters connected therewith. The ratification by India of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. the international practice on treatment of the offence of bribery and corruption and judicial pronouncements had necessitated a review of the existing provisions to the Act and the need to amend it so as to till in gaps in description and coverage of the offence of bribery so as to bring it in line with the current international practice and also to meet more effectively, the country’s obligations under the aforesaid Convention. The Government, therefore, brought forward the Amending Bill.
 

Highlights of the The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2018:

# Section 7 of the Principal Act at present covered the offence of public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act. The definition of offence has been substituted by a new comprehensive definition which covers all aspects ot passive bribery. including the solicitation and acceptance of bribe through intermediaries and also acts of public servants acting outside their competence.

# The Principal Act did not contain any provisions directly dealing with active domestic bribery. that is. the offence of giving bribe. Section 12 of the Principal Act which provides for punishment for abetment of offences defined in section 7 or section 11.covers the offence indirectly Section 24 provides that a statement made by a bribe giver in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under sections 7 to 11. 13 and 15 of the Act shall not subject him to prosecution under section 12 Experience had shown that in a vast majority of cases. the bribe- giver goes scot free by taking resort to the provisions of sect 24 and it becomes increasingly difficult to tackle consensual bribery. The aforesaid Convention enjoins that the promise. offering or giving, to a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue advantage, for the official himself or hersef or another person or entity, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties be made a criminal offence. Accordingly, a new section 8 to meet the said obligation had been proposed to be inserted.

# As the proposed new definitions of bribery. both as regards the solicitation and acceptance of undue advantage and as regards the promise, offering or giving, to a public official, directly or indirectly. of an undue advantage, are found to be comprehensive enough to cover all offences presently provided in section 8 which covers taking gratification, in order. by corrupt or illegal means to influence public servant; section 9 which covers taking gratification. for exercise of personal influence with public servant section 10 which provides for punishment for abetment by public servant of offences defined in section 8 or section 9: and section 11 which provides for public servant obtaining valuable thing without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transaction by such public servant; and also the offences presently defined in clauses (a), (b) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 13 of the Act which covers criminal misconduct by a public servant. these sections had been proposed to be omitted.

# It had been proposed to substitute 9 to provide punishment for the offence relating to bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation. A commercial organisation would be guilty of this offence if any person associated with it offers, promises or gives a financial or other advantage to a public servant intending to obtain or retain business or some advantage in the conduct of business for the commercial organisation. The proposed section 10 provides for punishment ot persons in charge of a commercial organisation which had been guilty of the offence under the proposed section 9.

# Section 12 provides for punishment of abetment of offences defined in section 7 or section 11, it has been proposed to substitute section 12 of the Act to provide punishment for abetment of all offences under the Act.

# It had also been proposed to substitute sub—section (1) of section 13 with a new sub-section so as to omit the existing clauses (a), (b) and (d) of sub—section (1) as mentioned above; to incorporate the element of intentional enrichment in the existing clause (e) relating to possession of disproportionate assets by a public servant: and to modify the definition of ‘known sources of income’ as contained in Explanation. to mean income received from any lawful source, that is, by doing away with the requirement of intimation in accordance with any law, rules or orders applicable to a public servant.

# Section 14 in Principal Act provided for habitual commission of offences under sections 8, 9 and 12. The Amending Bill proposed to substitute section 14 of the Act to provide punishment for habitual commission of all offences under the Act.}

# The Prevention of Corruption Act, did not specifically provide for the confiscation of bribe and the proceeds of bribery. A Bill, namely, the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2018, to amend the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. providing, inter alia, for insertion of a new Chapter IVA in the Prevention of Corruption Act for the attachment and forfeiture of property of corrupt public servants on the lines of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 19 December 2008 and was passed by the Lok Sabha on 23 December 2008. However, the said Brit lapsed due tc dissolution of the Fourteenth Lox Sabha. lt had accordingly been proposed to insect similar provisions on the lines of the 2008 Bill in the Prevention of Corruption Act.

# The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill. 2008 had proposed an amendment section 19 of the Act on the lines of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for extending protection of prior sanction of the Government or competent authority after retirement or demittance of office by a public servant so as to provide a safeguard to a public servant from vexatious prosecution for any bona tide omission or commission in the discharge of his official duties. The said Bill having lapsed. this protection was, not available for a person who had ceased to be a public servant. lt had, therefore, been proposed to amend section 19 to provide the said protection to the persons who ceased to be public servants on the lines of the said Bill. Further, in the light of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, the question of amending section 19 of the Act to lay down clear criteria and procedure for sanction of prosecution, including the stage at which sanction can be sought, timelines within which order had to be passed, was also examined by the Central Government and it had accordingly been proposed to incorporate appropriate provisions in section 19 of the Act.

# It had, therefore, been proposed to amend section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 contains a protection of prior approval of the Central Government in respect of officers working at policy making levels in the Central Government before any inquiry or investigation is conducted against them by the Delhi Special Police Establishment. The basic principle behind the protection under section 19 of the Prevention of‘ Corruption Act, 7988 and section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946. being the same. namely, protection of honest civil servants from harassment oi of investigation or prosecution for things done in bona fide performance of public duty. it was felt that the protection under both these provisions should be available to public servants even after they cease to be public servants or after they cease to hold sensitive policy level positions. as the case may be. Accordingly. it was proposed to amend section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 for extending the protection of prior approval of the Central Government before conducting any inquiry or investigation in respect of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. to civil servants holding such senior policy level positions after they cease to hold such positions due to reversion or retirement or other reasons.

Debate
The Amending legislation underwent detailed deliberations during debate thereon in both Houses of Parliament.

The Minister-in-charge of the Bill while replying to the debate inter alia summed as follows:
The Minister observed that all the Members had expressed their concerns as to how to curb corruption in the country. This legislation was enacted way back in 1988. Since then 30 years had elapsed and the dimension and style of corruption had also changed in all these years. So, the Government had also decided to change their stand as per the need of the hour to deal with it. The Government would be laying guidelines for the decision to be given within two years. The commercial organisations offering bribes would also be included whereas the charitable institutions are kept outside. Strict measures against corruption had been put in place in the Bill and at the same time Government would also ensure provision of a work friendly environment to a Government officer or public servant so that he can perform to the best of his ability.

The Bill was passed by Paiya Sabha on 19 July 2018 and by Lok Sabha on 24 July 201 8. The Bill as passed by both Houses of Parliament was assented to by the President of India on 26 July 2018.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
admin
Member since Feb 20, 2018
Location: India
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
It must be said with utmost regret that due to guns being easily available in various countries we see that the most ghastly, dastardly and cowardly attack on innocent people as we saw just recently in the New Zealand city of Christchurch on a mosque in which at least 50 people were killed and 50 injured in a mass shooting on March 15, 2019.
Somnath Chatterjee, the Speaker of the 14th Lok Sabha (2004-2009), the House of the People, India, who was born on 25 July 1929, passed away on 9 May 2018 at the age of 89.
I have introduced the Bill to further amend the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation Act, 2004 and the Jammu and Kashmir Reservation (Second Amendment) Bill, 2019. I have come up with the proposal of the Government of India
Jammu and Kashmir has been abrogated, Article 35A and Article 370 would become a thing of the past and Jammu and Kashmir would be made a Union Territory.
The J&K gamble by the Central government has received popular national support and seems to be consistent with the national mood although history and future alone can attest to its wisdom. He also clarified that he can't work by diktat.
PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah decided to take the bull by the horns and carry out the most daring step since independence to protect our supreme national interests
R Miller v/s The Prime Minister v/s Advocate General for Scotland United Kingdom Supreme Court has unanimously declared the prorogation of UK Parliament by Boris Johnson to be unlawful and void.
no Indian would be allowed to settle in Jammu and Kashmir nor be allowed to buy any property there or apply for any job there under the garb of protecting people from Jammu and Kashmir.
PM Modi On The Role Of Rajya Sabha In Indian Polity And Need For Reforms on the occasion of 250th Session of Rajya Sabha
Sanjay Kumar Sharda v/s Jharkhand the Chief Minister Public Hearing Cell does not have jurisdiction to direct the police to register an FIR. While deprecating the usurpation of power, the Jharkhand High Court
Opposition blocked roads, opposition blocked rails, opposition members screamed to the hilt in Parliament as never seen before, opposition MPs like learned Derek O' Brien attempted to himself tear the Rule Book in Rajya Sabha,
Arun and Shailendra vs Maharashtra State Government of Maharashtra to pay Rs. 50,000/- each towards compensation to two men who were illegally detained in Beed District of Aurangabad Division for six days in 2013.
Article puts some light on the glaring defects in the three farming laws recently passed by the Indian Parliament. Although, the whole debate has been focused around MSP but rather the acts have serious shortcomings which can prove disastrous for already struggling farmers.
How long will politicians be given long rope and allowed to contest elections from jail itself? How long will MP and MLAs be allowed to misbehave in Parliament and State Assemblies
Member of Parliaments (MPs) are disrupting Parliament time and again and not allowing Parliament to function smoothly. This under no circumstances can ever be justified.
Anavir A Aravind vs Ministry of Home Affairs has restrained the Government of India and National Informatics Centre (NIC) from sharing the response data of users of Aarogya Setu app
Haryana has also now joined the distinguished club of states who have their own exclusive law for recovering damages from protesters.
Law Commission Recommends Disqualification Of Politicians On Framing Of Charges It merits immense significance that the Law Commission
intolerant and violent while dealing with the common man. As if this is not enough, they have just stopped caring whether the person
Vasaya Yunusali Alarakhabhai v/s Gujarat that the State government take initiatives to implement the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the landmark case of DK Basu v. State of West Bengal and to install CCTV cameras
Siddharth Rao vs The Govt of NCT of Delhi that: After having analyzed the constitutional provisions, it is concluded that appointments to the position of Secretary, DLA fall outside the purview of the office of Speaker, DLA
It is definitely most disappointing to see that even after more than 77 years of independence we still see that no party ruling in Centre has ever cared for the endless woes of the litigants of West UP
Speaker to reconvene a sitting of Vidhan Sabha which pertains to the Punjab Government’s plea challenging the Governor’s inaction on four Bills
We must definitely also acknowledge now most candidly in all fairness that as compared to the other fields
Top