The best way to ensure failure is to employ multiple persons on the same job with overlapping yet undefined roles.
If the above was not enough, make some people with little role, superior to those who have to perform the real action.
As explained in Introduction the various legislations have been enacted only to be politically correct in the eyes of public. These are knee jerk reactions aimed at demonstrating the Government is against corruption but without any scientific or logical frame work to weed out corruption. What makes the matter worse, all these institutions, cover only Central Government employees. India is a federation consisting of 29 States. These laws (except PMLA) do not govern employees of State Government much less it's Ministers and Legislatures.
No wonder India was at 78 in the list of Transparency International which scaled it to 41 in favour of honesty. If some serious efforts are made from each Government, India could be in top 10. But it is a tall call as corruption can not exist without patronisation from political masters.
Anti Corruption Bureau or Branch
Crime is a law and order problem and in the scheme of the Constitution of India, it is a subject on which State Government has exclusive jurisdiction. The Prevention of Corruption Act, even though it is a federal legislation, it has to be administered by State Government in respect of servants of the State. For employees of Union Government the Central Government has jurisdiction.
Every police officer has power to investigate commission of a crime, irrespective of the rank. However PC Act puts some restrictions on investigation whereby only an Inspector of Police can investigate under that law. An officer of lower rank has to authorised by State Government generally and Superintendent of Police specifically to investigate. This is provided to avoid harassment of Govt. Officials at the hand of a petty police officer and also to ensure that only serious complaints are acted upon. In practice it does not make it easy for a common citizen to redress the grievance. Now a days people have resorted to social media instead of approaching the police, directly. But that only proves the cumbersome nature of provision.
The State Governments, however have also established special police stations called "Anti-Corruption Bureau or Branch". These Branches have a little coordination with each other. Each Branch is an island in itself but they are part of Police Force and Police Department of the State.
For example, in Delhi, ACB was established in 1975. Presently it is headed by a Commissioner of Police besides other officials under him viz. Additional Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and of curse the the Inspector of Police. The Delhi ACB is accessible through a helpline phone number 1031 as well. The jurisdiction of ACB extends to all over State of Delhi.
Similar ACBs have been established in other States which investigate the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act.
CBI
Central Bureau of Investigation is a Central Government Police force which can undertake investigation into any crime committed in India but with the consent of the concerned State Government.
The Central Bureau of Investigation traces its origin to the Special Police Establishment (SPE) which was set up in 1941 by the Government of India. The functions of the SPE then were to investigate cases of bribery and corruption in transactions with the War & Supply Deptt. of India during World War II. Superintendence of the S.P.E. was vested with the War Department. Even after the end of the War, the need for a Central Government agency to investigate cases of bribery and corruption by Central Government employees was felt. Accordingly CBI was statutory established by Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 with the following objective:
"An Act to make provision for the constitution of a special police force in Delhi for the investigation of certain offences in the Union territories for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas of the powers and jurisdiction of members of the said force in regard to the investigation of the said offences."
The force which started out as a special police for Delhi was extended to other Union Territories and later to other states if that state give consent. For practical purposes many states have given general consent for certain types of crimes but some states give consent on case to case basis. The CBI does not take up investigation of conventional crimes like murder, theft, robbery etc. unless directed by the Supreme Court / High Courts or referred to it by State Governments.
CBI has offices all over India, almost in every State but it's writ runs with the consent of State Government. Recently CBI was physically prevented by local police in West Bengal under direct orders of Chief Minister. Prior to that Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh had withdrawn the general consent of CBI.
Initially the CBI had no special cadre or training. They are drawn from the regular police force called 'Indian Police Service' (IPS). The entire cadre is made up of people recruited on deputation from IPS. The subordinate staff is also drawn from other Government departments including but not limited to Police. The reason lies in the history that CBI was supposed to be a special force for limited territory and limited offences but today it is asked to act as a pan India investigation agency. CBI has a training academy in Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
In 1987 it was decided to constitute two investigation divisions in the CBI, namely, Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) and Special Crimes Branch (SCB), the latter dealing with cases of conventional crime, besides economic offences. Presently it has divided itself into several territorial and (nature of) crime zones. It also has an Economic Offences Bureau (EOB). However most of it's offices in other states are ACBs dealing with the cases of corruption by Central Government employees. Some offices have all three i.e. ACB, SCB, EOB.
CBI is headed by a Director which is appointed by a selection committee comprising of the Prime Minister, Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition.
NIA
(Mumbai 26/11 attack)
On 26 November 2008, India witnessed something that had never happened before. A few armed terrorist took sea route and attacked Mumbai. They started to shoot innocent civilians without provocation. They were 10 members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, an Islamic terrorist organisation based in Pakistan. They carried out 12 coordinated shooting and bombing attacks lasting four days across Mumbai. Some of them later lay siege on Hotel Taj. By the early morning of 28 November, all sites except for the Taj Hotel had been secured by the Mumbai Police and security forces. On 29 November, India's National Security Guards (NSG) conducted Operation Black Tornado to flush out the remaining attackers; it culminated in the death of the last remaining attackers at the Taj Hotel and ended the attacks. It resulted in 166 deaths and 300 injured excluding the dead terrorists.
In the aftermath of this attack a new pan India investigation agency was created to reduce the workload of CBI. It is called National Investigation Agency which is created by National Investigation Agency Act 2008 by the Parliament of India on 31 December 2008. NIA is a central agency established by the Indian Government to combat terrorism in India. It acts as the Central Counter Terrorism Law Enforcement Agency. The agency is empowered to deal with terror related crimes across states without special permission from the states. It's jurisdiction extends to offences of waging war against state, Unlawful or Terrorist activity, Human Trafficking, Counterfeit Currency, Cyber-crime, Hijacking, Explosives, Atomic material, weapons of mass destruction etc. In 2019 an amendment authorised it to investigate a crime even if it was not committed on the soil of India.
NIA also steps in where ever there appears to be a link between the corruption or money trail and terrorism. It was the NIA which investigated the money trail and clocked the source which was financing stone pelters in support of terrorists in Kashmir. The NIA is however not directly involved with the corruption as such.
NIA is an improvement over CBI. Even though it too draws officers from other cadres, it has made special arrangements for training of its officers in collaboration with SVP Police Training Academy, Hyderabad.
NIA works in tandem with other agencies like The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which is the intelligence and investigative agency for matters relating to violation of the Customs Act. It also works with Financial Intelligence Unit which provide input for safeguarding the financial system from the abuses of money laundering, terrorism financing and other economic offences. And of course the Enforcement Directorate which as been mentioned in detail, below.
CVC
Central Vigilance Commission was created as an advisory institution in exercise of executive powers of Government. It's role was to act as the apex vigilance institution, free of control from any executive authority, monitoring all vigilance activity under the Central Government to watch out corruption. It had to advise various authorities in Central Government organizations in planning, executing, reviewing and reforming their vigilance towards the corruption.
In 1993 a petition was filed by a news editor in Supreme Court complaining inertia in CBI in investigating corruption in high places. It was alleged 'that the apprehending of certain terrorists led to the discovery of financial support to them by clandestine and illegal means, by use of tainted funds obtained through 'havala' transactions; that this also disclosed a nexus between several important politicians, bureaucrats and criminals, who are all recipients of money from unlawful sources given for unlawful considerations; that the CBI and other Government agencies have failed to fully investigate into the matter and take it to the logical end point of the trail and to prosecute all persons who have committed any crime; that this is being done with a view to protect the persons involved, who are very influential and powerful in the present set up; that the matter discloses a definite nexus between crime and corruption in public life at high places in the country which poses a serious threat to the integrity, security and economy of the nation.'
The Supreme Court took it upon itself to monitor the investigation. This continued for about 5 years and finally the petition was disposed of in 1997 with following observations:
'Investigation into accusation made against each and every person on a reasonable basis, irrespective of the position and status of that person, must be conducted and completed expeditiously. This is imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial working of the Government agencies.'
(See Vineet Narain v. UOI decided by SC on December 18, 1997)
While deciding the petition, the Supreme Court also issued following directions in respect of Central Vigilance Commission:
1. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) shall be given statutory status.
2. Selection for the post of Central Vigilance Commissioner shall be made by a Committee comprising the Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Leader of the Opposition from a panel of outstanding civil servants and others with impeccable integrity to be furnished by the Cabinet Secretary. The appointment shall be made by the President on the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee. This shall be done immediately.
3. The CVC shall be responsible for the efficient functioning of the CBI. While Government shall remain answerable for the CBI's functioning, to introduce visible objectivity in the mechanism to be established for over viewing the CBI's working, the CVC shall be entrusted with the responsibility of superintendence over the CBI's functioning. The CBI shall report to the CVC about cases taken up by it for investigation; progress of investigations; cases in which charge-sheets are filed and their progress. The CVC shall review the progress of all cases moved by the CBI for sanction of prosecution of public servants which are pending with competent authorities, specially those in which sanction has been delayed or refused.
4. The Central Government shall take all measures necessary to ensure that the CBI functions effectively and efficiently and is viewed as a non-partisan agency.
5. The CVC shall have a separate section in its Annual Report on the CBI's functioning after the supervisory function is transferred to it.
(See Vineet Narain v. UOI decided by SC on December 18, 1997)
Accordingly the Government promulgated "The Central Vigilance Commission Ordinance, 1998" which was re-promulgated several times and due to variety of reasons it was enacted by Parliament much later and became law in 2003 as the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003.
CVC is a Multi-member Commission consisting of a Central Vigilance Commissioner (Chairperson) and not more than two Vigilance Commissioners (Members).
The Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners are appointed by the President on the recommendations of a Committee consisting of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Minister of Home Affairs (Member) and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of the People (Member);.
The term of office of the Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners is four years from the date on which they enter their office or till they attain the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier;
As per this law the CVC has following powers:
1. Exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) insofar as it relates to the investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Section 8(1)(a)) But it can not interfere in investigation.
2. Give directions to the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) for superintendence insofar as it relates to the investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Section 8(1)(b))
3. To inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made on a reference by the Central Government in respect of a public servant being an employee of the Central Government and its organisations has allegedly committed an offence under the PC Act, 1988. (Section 8(1)(c))
4. To inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint alleging commission of offence under PC Act, 1988 received against any official belonging to such category of officials specified in sub-section 2 of Section 8 of the CVC Act, 2003. (Section 8(1)(d))
5. Review the progress of investigations conducted by the DSPE into offences alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Section 8(1)(e))
6. Review the progress of the applications pending with the competent authorities for sanction of prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (Section 8(1)(f))
7. Tender advice to the Central Government and its organisations on such matters as may be referred to it or otherwise. (Section 8(1)(g))
8. Exercise superintendence over the vigilance administration of the various Central Government Ministries and its organisations – section 8(1)(h);
CVC has all the powers of a Civil Court while conducting any inquiry (Section 11) and the proceedings before Commission are deemed to be judicial proceedings. (Section 12)
CVC may call for reports, returns and statements from Central Government / Organisations under its jurisdiction. (Section 18)
CVC may respond to Central Government on mandatory consultation with the Commission before making any rules or regulations governing the vigilance or disciplinary matters relating to the persons appointed to the public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or to members of the All India Services. (Section 19)
Over two decades have elapsed since the CVC has been made an administrative body over CBI. Has this improved the working of CBI or that of CVC? The answer to this question can be anything but yes.
In an actual case involving alleged corruption (2g scam), the petitioner/complainant had to wait for 3 years without any progress in the office of Prime Minister of India. Supreme Court of India had to step in again to direct sanction on the complaint. This was in 2012.
Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Dr. Manmohan Singh, decided by SC on 31 January, 2012.
The question which also arise is as what is the meaning of 'supervision'? Let's test it in a real situation which arose in 2018.
A complaint dated 24th August, 2018 was forwarded to the CVC by the Cabinet Secretary by letter dated 31st August, 2018 which, prima facie, revealed charges of corruption against the Director, CBI, Shri Alok Kumar Verma. The CVC considered it worthwhile to take note of the contents thereof and had sought the explanation/comments of the Director, CBI along with the relevant record(s). According to the CVC, instead of cooperating in the matter, the Director, CBI had sought information as to the identity of the person who had complained to the Cabinet Secretary in that regard and had gone to the extent of bringing specific allegations against the Special Director, CBI Shri Rakesh Asthana.
In these circumstances the CVC thought it proper to invoke its powers under Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d) and 11 of the CVC Act to pass the impugned order dated 23 rd October, 2018 divesting the Director, CBI of his powers, functions, duties, etc. The matter went to court and the court held that such an order was beyond the powers of the CVC.
See Common Cause vs Union Of India decided by SC on 8 January, 2019.
Now after this judgement only one act is left for CVC to supervise i.e. to tabulate the statistics of cases with CBI and note it's status as pending/convicted/acquitted etc. in it's annual report. The question that begs the answer is:
Why this paper tiger was created by Supreme Court, in the first place?
Let me quote following observations of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi , (1997) 4 SCC 770:
"...The agencies concerned must bear in mind and, if needed, be reminded of the caution administered by Lord Denning in this behalf in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commr. [(1968) 1 All ER 763 : (1968) 2 WLR 893 : (1968) 2 QB 118] Indicating the duty of the Commissioner of Police, Lord Denning stated thus: (All ER p. 769) "I have no hesitation, however, in holding that, like every constable in the land, he should be, and is, independent of the executive. He is not subject to the orders of the Secretary of State, …. I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police, as it is of every chief constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so to post his men that crimes may be detected; and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or not suspected persons are to be prosecuted; and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought; but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must, or must not, keep observation on this place or that; or that he must, or must not, prosecute this man or that one. Nor can any police authority tell him so. The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is answerable to the law and to the law alone." ...There can hardly be any doubt that the obligation of the police in our constitutional scheme is no less."
If the legal presumption is in favour of independence of Police, why it can not be extended to CBI and why it need be saddled with superintendence of CVC?
If a particular CBI director does not work independently, sack him and set an example for others. Why this distrust?
For the record, in above cited 2018 case of Director Alok Kumar Verma, the Appointment Committee consisting of Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and a nominee of Chief Justice, did sack him, later.
Lokpal and Lokayukta
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill was passed by Parliament in 2013 and it received the assent of the President on 1st January, 2014 and came on the statute book as the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014).
As with CVC, passing of this law had been motivated by politics of the day. A crafty politician with the help of other gullible public figures of repute started an agitation in Delhi against rising corruption in the Government of the day. Alongside this anti-corruption agitation a demand was made for Lokpal or Ombudsman to enquire into the allegations of corruption. Eventually the Government hurriedly passed the above Act in January 2014, with an eye on soon to be held elections. The Lokpal Act created offices of Lokpal in the Central Government and Lokayukta for the State Governments. It was an Act to provide for the establishment of a body of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for States to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The Lokpal consist of a Chairperson and 8 or less number of members. Half of members of Lokpal have to be retired judges of Supreme Court or at least an ex Chief Justice of High Court. Thus emphasis is on seniority of judges. The appointment of Lokpal is to be made by a Selection Committee consisting of—
(a) the Prime Minister—Chairperson;
(b) the Speaker of the House of the People—Member;
(c) the Leader of Opposition in the House of the People—Member;
(d) the Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him—Member;
(e) one eminent jurist—Member.
The Lokpal Chairperson and members shall hold office for a term of five years or until he attains the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier. After the expiry of the term, the appointee becomes ineligible for any public office in India including a diplomatic mission of India and elected legislature.
The broad spectrum of functions, powers, duties and responsibilities of the Upa-Lokayukta, as statutorily prescribed, clearly bring out that not only does he performs quasi-judicial functions, as contrasted with purely administrative or executive functions, but that the Upa-Lokayukta is more than an investigator or an enquiry officer. At the same time, notwithstanding his status, he is not placed on the pedestal of a judicial authority rendering a binding decision. He is placed somewhere in between an investigator and a judicial authority, having the elements of both. For want of a better expression, the office of an Upa-Lokayukta can only be described as a sui generis quasi-judicial authority.
JusticeChandrashekaraiah(Retd.)Vs. JanekereC.Krishna (2013) 3 SCC 117 followed in Ram Kishan Fauji vs State Of Haryana decided by SC on 21 March, 2017.
Preliminary Enquiry
Criminal Procedure Code of India enjoins the police to investigate into commission of a crime if it is 'cognizable' offence. In case of 'non-cognizable' offence police has to inform the Magistrate and act as per the orders of the Magistrate. There was no such thing as 'Preliminary Enquiry'. However Supreme Court created this phenomenon for cases of corruption. It was observed:
"...Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts, of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary enquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person, specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general..."
P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, AIR 1971 SC 520: 1970 SCR (3) 931: (1970) 1 SCC 595: 1970 SCC (Cri) 240.
The reasoning of Supreme Court, to say the least is hardly any special. It is difficult to fathom as to why the reputation of any person on earth would not be harmed with the registration of a criminal case against him or her. If that be the case, the preliminary enquiry must be conducted in all the cases. Why only corruption cases?
However the above view being in conflict with some other decisions of the Supreme Court itself, the matter was referred to a larger bench. The term preliminary enquiry was reiterated by the larger bench of 5 judges of Supreme Court in respect of complaints made in respect of old and stale matters as well. It was concluded as under:
i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
b) Commercial offences
c) Medical negligence cases
d) Corruption cases
e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.
Lalitha Kumari vs. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1.
(Read more about it in my book on Criminal Law of India)
Thus under ordinary law the information of a crime cast a duty on police to act. But under Lokpal Act this position has been reversed. Section 11 of the Act provide that the Lokpal shall constitute an Inquiry Wing headed by the Director of Inquiry for the purpose of conducting preliminary inquiry into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
JusticeChandrashekaraiah(Retd.)vs. JanekereC.Krishna (2013) 3 SCC 117 followed in Ram Kishan Fauji vs State Of Haryana decided by SC on 21 March, 2017.
In view of the exception to the normal rule of mandatory registration of an FIR in case of a cognizable complaint, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted in cases of corruption. The scope of such an inquiry is not to verify the veracity of the information received, but to ascertain whether it reveals any cognizable offence.
Brajesh Jha vs Union Of India, decided by Calcutta HC (DB) on 17 March, 2017.
Lokayukta in States
In addition to the above Central Act of 2013, many states in India too have its own legislation creating Lokayukta and Up-lokayukta but some of these have no independence to prosecute a delinquent Govt. Servants. These Acts neither binds the Governor nor the State Legislature to accept the recommendations or findings of the incumbent, thereby ensuring no civil consequences follow from the direct action of the Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta. Such Lokayukta can only report the alleged misconduct to the competent authority. Let's briefly see the legal position of it's report.
Report of Lokayukta
The final decision rendered by the Upa-Lokayukta, called a report, may not bear the stamp of a judicial decision, as would that of a court or, to a lesser extent, a tribunal, but in formulating the report, he is required to consider the point of view of the person complained against and ensure that the investigation reaches its logical conclusion, one way or the other, without any interference and without any fear. Notwithstanding this, the report of the Upa-Lokayukta does not determine the rights of the complainant or the person complained against. Consequently, the Upa- Lokayukta is neither a court nor a tribunal. Therefore, the Upa-Lokayukta can best be described as a sui generis quasi-judicial authority.
JusticeChandrashekaraiah(Retd.)Vs. JanekereC.Krishna (2013) 3 SCC 117.
Thus, howsoever high may the findings against a public functionary in the reports of the Lokayukta or the CAG or the Commission of Inquiry set the hopes and expectations of the people/citizens of the country that the erring public functionary will now be brought to book, the legal position is that the said findings are literally for the eyes and ears of the Parliament / Legislature / Government only and do not enable or empower a citizen to demand action against the erring public functionary and do not permit the Court, on the basis thereof, to direct any action.
Common Cause v. Subhash Jain decided by Delhi HC(DB) in W.P.(C) No.2992/2013 on 19 Feb. 2015.
While the inquiry is to be conducted by the Lokayukta, the decision is to be taken by the competent authority. There is no doubt that the entire process of inquiry and decision making is quasi-judicial in nature. While the Lokayukta has to act quasi-judicially and has to observe the principles of natural justice as specifically enjoined by Section 10 of the said Act, the principles of natural justice would also be applicable to the decision making process of the competent authority. However, the scenario before the competent authority is different. While before the Lokayukta, the complainant and the public functionary are, in a sense, pitted against each other because of the rival stands that they take, before the competent authority, it is only the report of the Lokayukta along-with the ancillary documents and the public functionary against whom action is to be taken by the competent authority.
Sunita Bhardwaj Vs. Smt. Shiela Dixit, 203 (2013) DLT 743.
In respect of another State law arising from Andhra Pradesh, it was observed by Supreme Court:
"… once report is forwarded by the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta recommending the imposition of penalty of removal from the office of a public servant, all that is provided is that it should be lawful for the Government without any further inquiry to take action on the basis of the said recommendation for the removal of such servant from his office and for making him ineligible for being elected to any office etc. Even if it may be lawful for the Government to act on such recommendation, it is nowhere provided that the Government will be bound to comply with the recommendation of the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta. The question may arise in a properly instituted public interest litigation as to whether the provision of Section 12(2) of the Act implies a power coupled with duty which can be enforced by writ of mandamus by the High Court or by writ of any other competent court but apart from such litigations and uncertainty underlying the results thereof, it would be more appropriate for the legislature itself to make a clear provision for due compliance with the report of Lokayukta or Up-lokayukta system does not get eroded and these institutions can effectively justify their creation under the statute..."
Institution of A.P. Lokayukta / Upa-Lokayukta v. T. Rama Subha Reddy: 1997 (9) SCC 42.
The report of Lokayukta, even though it is a consequence of a quasi judicial process, it is a criminal matter and a single judge of the High Court quashing such report exercises criminal jurisdiction of the court which is not subject to intra-court letters patent appeal to division bench.
Ram Kishan Fauji vs State of Haryana decided by SC on 21 March, 2017.
Enforcement Directorate
On 1st May, 1956, an 'Enforcement Unit' was formed, in Department of Economic Affairs, for handling Exchange Control Laws violations under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (FERA '47). This Unit was headed by a Legal Service Officer, as Director of Enforcement, assisted by an Officer drawn on deputation from RBI, besides 03 Inspectors of Special Police Establishment (CBI); besides Delhi Hqrs.
In the beginning, there were only two branches – at Bombay and Calcutta. In the year 1957, this Unit was renamed as 'Enforcement Directorate', and another branch was opened at Madras. The administrative control of the Directorate was transferred from Department of Economic Affairs to Department of Revenue in 1960. With the passage of time, FERA, 1947 was repealed and replaced by FERA, 1973 and then by FEMA, 1999.
The Central Government appoints the Director of Enforcement in the Directorate of Enforcement on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the Central Vigilance Commissioner as Chairperson and Vigilance Commissioners and Secretaries of Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel & Training and Department of Revenue as Members. Further, the Central Government also appoints, extends or curtails the tenure of officers above the level of Deputy Director in the Enforcement Directorate on the recommendations of the aforesaid Committee (See section 25 of CVC Act)
India is a signatory to the following UN Conventions, which deal with Anti Money Laundering / Countering the Financing of Terrorism :
1. International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (1999)
2. UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000)
3. UN Convention against Corruption (2003)
In pursuance to the political Declaration adopted by the special session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGASS) held on 8 to 10 June 1998 (of which India is one of the signatories) calling upon member states to adopt Anti Money Laundering Legislation & Programme, the Parliament enacted a special law called the `Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002′ (PMLA 2002).
This Act has been substantially amended, by way of enlarging its scope, in 2009 (w.e.f. 1.6.2009), by Amending Act No 21 of 2009, Act 2 of 2013 (w.e.f. 15-2-2013), by Act 20 of 2015 (w.e.f. 14-5-2015), by Act 13 of 2018 (w.e.f. 19-4-2018) respectively. Powers under PMLA 2002 was also entrusted toED in 2002 to detect and prevent money laundering activities.
Thus the Directorate of Enforcement is a specialized financial investigation agency under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, which enforces the following laws:
Foreign Exchange Management Act,1999 (FEMA) - A Civil Law, with officers empowered to conduct investigations into suspected contraventions of the Foreign Exchange Laws and Regulations, adjudicate, contraventions, and impose penalties on those adjudged to have contravened the law. The Act of 1999 replaces an earlier draconian law called Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1976.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) - A Criminal Law, with the officers empowered to conduct investigations to trace assets derived out of the proceeds of crime, to provisionally attach/ confiscate the same, and to arrest and prosecute the offenders found to be involved in Money Laundering. (More about this law is discussed in Chapter 10)
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974(COFEPOSA) – A law which authorises detention of people without trial to prevent them from indulging in certain activities. ED can sponsor and recommend such detention to the competent authority.
Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 - A Criminal Law, with the officers empowered to conduct investigations to trace absconding economic offenders who have fled from the jurisdiction.
Foreign currency and money laundering is often accompanied or shielded as import and export activity but in true Indian spirit of complicating the matters, there are two different departments which deal with those transactions. These are Customs Department and Department of Revenue Intelligence. If they overlook, some aspects in their investigation, the matter does not reach Enforcement Directorate.
Commission of Enquiry
Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952 envisage to provide for the appointment of Commissions of Inquiry and for vesting such Commissions with certain powers.
As per it's section 3 the Government may, if it is of opinion that it is necessary so to do, and shall, if a resolution in this behalf is passed by each House of Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint a Commission of Inquiry for the purpose of making an inquiry into any definite matter of public importance and performing such functions and within such time as may be specified in the notification.
A Commission is vested with the same powers as with any civil court in respect of following matters:
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person from any part of India and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;(
e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) any other matter which may be prescribed by Rules.
The Government may vest with any commission additional powers to authorises it's officer to conduct search of any premises and seizure of books or other documents. (Section 5(3))
The Commission is also entitled to use any Government agency like police etc. for the purpose of investigation. (Section 5-A)
The statement made to Commission can not be used against the maker of the statement to prosecute him if it is in answer to a specific question raised by Commission and relates to the enquiry. However such person can be prosecuted for lying on oath. ( Section 6)
This provision makes the Commission one of the most powerful institution in the world, as it can extract truth without any consequence for the speaker. The automatic immunity to the speaker is limited only to the answers given to the questions of Commission not to every statement made before it. Notice this observation:
"The averments made in the plaint quoted above clearly reveal that the cause of action is being claimed by the plaintiff against the defendant on the basis of the written submissions filed by the defendant before the Commission and not on the basis of the statement made by the defendant during the course of his evidence before the Commission. There is nothing on record to show that the written submissions were filed by the defendant in reply to any question by the Commission which the defendant was bound to answer and that the offending portion of the written submission against the plaintiff was in any way relevant to the inquiry before the Commission. Therefore, the basic ingredients for the applicability of Section 6 of the Act are not fulfilled."
Ram Jethamalani vs. Subramanyam Swamy, AIR 2006 Delhi 300, 126 (2006) DLT 535.
In the fifty years of rule of Congress Party, from 1947 to 1996 umpteen numbers of Commissions were appointed to investigate affairs of Ministers but only to act as any eye wash without any purpose. It was Das Commission against Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon, Chief Minister of Punjab (1963), Ayyangar Commission against Bakshi Gulam Mohmad, Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir (1965), Khanna Commission against Biju Patnaik, Chief Minister of Orissa (1967), Kapur Commission against Dayanand Bandodkar, Chief Minister of Goa (1968), Mudhokar Commission against V.K. Mahtab, Chief Minister of Assam (1968), Sarkaria Commission against M. Karunanidhi, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu (1976), Grover Commission against Dev Raj Urs, Chief Minister of Karnataka (1977), Vimada Lai Commission against Vengala Rao, Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh (1977), and Gurdev Singh Commission against Zail Singh, Chief Minister of Punjab (1979).
Five commissions were appointed against the various ministers. These were the Chagla Commission (1956) against Union Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari (and also Finance Secretary and Chairman of Life Insurance Corporation), Aiyer Commission (1967) against five ministers of Bihar, Madholkar Commission (1968) against thirteen ministers of Bihar, Justice Khanna Commission (1968) against Biju Patnaik Chief Minister of Odisha & others, a Commission (1969) against R.K. Kunju, minister in Kerala, and Reddy Commission (1977) against contracts entered by Union Defence Minister, Bansilal.
There were five other commissions on alleged scandals of corruption by politicians not in Congress Party. These were: Vaidyalingam Commission (1979) on charges of corruption and wielding extra-constitutional authority to interfere in government affairs against Kanti Desai, son of Morarji Desai, and Gayatri Devi, wife of Charan Singh, Prime Minister of India. Kailasam Sadasivan and Ray Commissions (1981) against spirit scandals in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, Shankeranand Committee (1990) on corruption charges in Bofors deal, Kuldeep Singh J. (1990) on R.K. Hegde, the Chief Minister of Karnataka and Jankiraman Committee (1992) on Security Scam.
Each Commission had worked for years, scanned and recorded evidence and make recommendations but most of these reports are lying some where waiting or termites.
Let's examine one case. At the time of independence Raam Kishan Dalmia was stalwart of Dalmia group. In 1946 a newspaper group owned by Bennett & Colman Co. Ltd. Was on sale and Dalmia purchased it. In 1954-55 it was exposed by parliamentarian Feroze Gandhi, that Dalmia had misappropriated the funds from different company in one way or the other and funnelled the money to make the Bennett & Colman deal.
The matter was raised by Feroze Gandhi in Parliament. Prime Minister ordered appointment of an Enquiry Commission under JusticeS.R. Tandolkar who after some time resigned due to ill health. He was replaced by Vivian Bose J. who concluded the hearing. However he could not complete commission and ultimately Justice V.R. Sen delivered final report with it's recommendations on 31 October 1962. The Tandolkar-Bose-Sen Commission after recording the entire proceedings, evidence, inferences etc. and concluded that Dalmia had committed various acts of impropriety and illegality. As regards the recommendations of Commission it opined as under:
"The Companies' Act of 1956, and the Amendment Act of 1960, has certainly brought about far reaching changes to the provisions existing under the Indian Companies' Act, 1913 as amended in 1936. Various deficiencies and malpractices disclosed and discovered in the administration of companies have been lessened and the loopholes plugged to a large extent.
For example, one of the malpractices which came to our notice, namely, the premature and deliberate termination of managing agencies and ' payment of compensation for termination, has been effectively dealt with in the Companies' Act as well as in the Taxing Statute. We are, therefore left with not many recommendations to make, and in making these, our endeavour has been not to impose any unnecessary burden on the corporate sector, its directors and executives-such restrictions as would not .yield any useful results."
(The full report of Tandolkar-Bose-Sen Commission (824 pages) can be accessed here)
The Commission after working for six years found that most of the problems were already taken care by Act of 1956. Isn't that amazing reflection of working of commissions?
To make the Commission even more superfluous, Dalmia was prosecuted for misappropriation of funds, convicted and even served the sentence much before this report came out. Dalmia himself challenged the notification appointing the Commission before Bombay High Court and then in 1958 before Supreme Court which rejected the contention in these words:
"It is pointed out that in March, 1946, one Shri Tricumdas Dwarkadas, a solicitor of Bombay, had been appointed an officer on Special Duty to indicate the lines on which the Indian Companies Act was to be revised. He made a report which was, however, incomplete in certain particulars. Thereupon the Government appointed Shri Thiruvenkatachari, the Advocate-General of Madras, to make further inquiry. The last mentioned gentleman submitted his report and on the basis of that report, it is said, a memorandum containing tentative proposals was prepared and circulated to elicit the opinions of various organisations. On October 28, 1950, a Committee called the Indian Company Law Committee-popularly known as the Bhaba Committee-was appointed. That Committee went round and collected materials and made its comprehensive report on the basis of which the new Indian Companies Act has recently been remodelled. As nothing new has since then happened why, it is asked', should any further inquiry be made ? The conclusion is pressed upon us that there can, in the circumstances, be no definite matter of public importance which can possibly call for an inquiry. We find no force in this argument. In the first place the Bhaba Committee atp. 29 of its Report recommended that further inquiries may, in future, have to be made regarding some matters relating to Companies and, therefore, the necessity for fresh inquiry cannot be ruled out. In the next place the appropriate Government is empowered to appoint a Commission of Inquiry if, in its opinion, it is necessary so to do…."
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri JusticeS. R. Tendolkar decided by SC on 28 March, 1958 reported at: AIR 1958 SC 538: 1959 SCR 279.
(To learn more about scandals of that era, raised by Firoze Gandhi read "The Forgotten Political Avatar By Dr. MAHINDER N. GULATI")
A war can not be won if we do not use our resources carefully. However the war of corruption is not treated as a war by any one at all. Institutions fighting like Jaun Quixote fighting with evil windmills with his sword. Successive use of Commission to gain time till the scandal is forgotten and removed from public memory, has denuded it's credibility.
In the aforesaid case of R.K.Dalmia, the appointment of Commission was challenged on the ground that it's scope inquiry being related to an individual, it was not an exercise in public good. Supreme Court repelled the argument in these words:
"We see no warrant for the proposition that a definite matter of public importance must necessarily mean only some matter involving the public benefit or advantage in the abstract, e.g., public health, sanitation or the like or some public evil or prejudice, e.g., floods, famine or pestilence or the like. Quite conceivably the conduct of an individual person or company or a group of individual persons or companies may assume such a dangerous proportion and may so prejudicially affect or threaten to affect the public well-being as to make such conduct a definite matter of public importance urgently calling for a full inquiry. Besides, S. 3 itself authorises the appropriate Government to appoint a Commission of Inquiry not only for the purpose of making an inquiry into a definite matter of public importance but also for the purpose of performing such functions as may be specified in the notification. Therefore, the notification is well within the powers conferred on the appropriate Government by S.3 of the Act and it cannot be questioned on the ground of its going beyond the provisions of the Act."
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri JusticeS. R. Tendolkar (ibid); reiterated again in P.V.Jagannath Rao vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 215; see also Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray vs. Justice B. Lentin, 1988 (4) SCC 419; State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Arjun Singh, 1993 (1) SCC 51; P.Janardhana Reddy vs State Of A.P. decided by SC on 13 July, 2001.
Commission is not a court
A Commission appointed under the 1952 Act is in the nature of a statutory Commission and merely because a Commission of Inquiry is headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court, it does not become an extended arm of Supreme Court. The Commission constituted under the 1952 Act is a fact finding body to enable the appropriate Government to decide as to the course of action to be followed. Such Commission is not required to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties and has no adjudicatory functions. The Government is not bound to accept its recommendations or act upon its findings. The mere fact that the procedure adopted by the Commission is of a legal character and it has the power to administer oath will not clothe it with the status of Court. That being so, the Commission appointed under the 1952 Act is not a Court for the purposes of Contempt of Courts Act even though it is headed by a sitting Supreme Court Judge.
Dr. Subramanyam Swamy v. Arun Shourie, decided by SC on 23 July 2014.
However if any commission or it's member is brought into disrepute by words either spoken or intended to be read, makes or publishes any statement or does any other act, any member of the the Commission or an officer authorised by it can, within 6 months, complaint to High Court which shall be obligated to try the matter as warrant case and may impose a sentence to imprisonment of 6 months or fine or with both. Appeal from conviction lies to Supreme Court within one month from conviction. (Section 10-A)
For more scandals and political ambivalence read this research paper:
"Political Leadership and Corruption: Major Political Scandals and Commissions in Post-Independent India"
Court Commissioner
As if the above watchdogs were insufficient, in a number of cases the Supreme Court has appointed retired judges or lawyers as court commissioners to investigate the allegations of corruptions. See
NOIDA Entrepreneurs Association v. NOIDA, (2007) 10 SCC 395.
It is however not clear as the court has not indicated as to how the above so many institutional watch dogs were insufficient to appoint court commissioners for the purpose of investigation. But who can judge the judges?
Single Directive
The Single Directive was a consolidated set of instructions issued to the CBI by the various Ministries/Departments in this behalf. It was first issued in 1969 and thereafter amended on many occasions. The Single Directive contained certain instructions to the CBI regarding modalities of initiating an inquiry or registering a case against certain categories of civil servants. Directive No. 4.7(3)is as under :-
"4.7(3)(i) In regard to any person who is or has been a decision making level officer (Joint Secretary or equivalent of above in the Central government or such officers as are or have been on deputation to a Public Sector Undertaking; officers of the Reserve Bank of India of the level equivalent to Joint Secretary of above in the Central Government, Executive Directors and above of the SEBI and Chairman & Managing Director and Executive Directors and such of the Bank officers who are one level below the Board of Nationalised Banks), there should be prior sanction of the Secretary of the Ministry/Department concerned before SPE takes up any enquiry (PE or RC), including ordering search in respect of them. Without such sanction, no enquiry shall be initiated by the SPE.
(ii) All cases referred to the administrative Ministries/Departments by CBI for obtaining necessary prior sanction as aforesaid, except those pertaining to any officer of the rank of Secretary or Principal Secretary, should be disposed of by them preferably within a period of two months of the receipt of such a reference. In respect of the officers of the rank of Secretary or Principal Secretary to Government, such references should be made by the Director, CBI to the Cabinet Secretary for consideration of a Committee consisting of the Cabinet Secretary as its Chairman and the Law Secretary and the Secretary (Personnel) as its members. The Committee should dispose of all such references preferably within two months from the date of receipt of such a reference by the Cabinet Secretary.
(iii) When there is any difference of opinion between the Director, CBI and the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry/Department in respect of an officer up to the rank of Additional Secretary or equivalent, the matters shall be referred by CBI to Secretary (Personnel) for placement before the Committee referred to in Clause
(ii) above. Such a matter should be considered and disposed of by the Committee preferably within two months from the date of receipt of such a reference by Secretary (Personnel).
(iv) In regard to any person who is or has been Cabinet Secretary, before SPE takes any step of the king mentioned in (i) above the case should be submitted to the Prime Minister for orders."
It was stated that the above Directive, in its application, is limited to officials at decision making levels in the Government and certain other public institutions like the RBI,SEBI, nationalised banks, etc. and its scope is limited to official acts. The stated objective of the Directive was to protect decision making level officers from the threat and ignominy of malicious and vexatious inquiries/investigations. It is said that such protection to officers at the decision making level is essential ton protect them and to relieve them of the anxiety from the likelihood of harassment for taking honest decisions.
The aforesaid directive was challenged as arbitrary and beyond the powers of superintendence conferred upon the Government. The Supreme Court accepted the contention and while giving various directives, struck down the aforesaid single directive. It was observed:
"….It is trite that the holders of public offices are entrusted with certain powers to be exercised in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender against whom a prima facie case is made out should be prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is duty of the judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard against erosion of the rule of law."
Vineet Narain vs Union of India decided by SC on 18 December, 1997.
In 2013, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was amended and Section 6-A was inserted in the said Act w.e.f. 12-9-2003 which tried to restore the aforesaid Single Directive. This provision too came up for challenge before supreme Court which formulated the question "Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status?" And it answered in negative with these observations:
"….Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupter of public power. The corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988."
Dr.Subramanian Swamy vs Director, CBI decided by SC on 6 May, 2014.
Thus the special protection of high and mighty in the bureaucracy under the single directive was finally put to rest.
Whistle blowers
The Whistle Blowers Protection Act was enacted in 2014 with following object:
"An Act to establish a mechanism to receive complaints relating to disclosure on any allegation of corruption or wilful misuse of power or wilful misuse of discretion against any public servant and to inquire or cause an inquiry into such disclosure and to provide adequate safeguards against victimisation of the person making such complaint and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto."
But this Act has not been enforced till date. In other wards there is no law for protection of whistle blowers.
However there are guideline framed by CVC for protection of Whistle blowers. The problem is that such guidelines shall have limited advisory application and would not bind anybody not working in CVC or CBI.
Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers' Resolution (PIDPI) – 2004
After Shri Satyendra Dubey, a whistle blower/complainant was murdered, Supreme Court in a Writ Petition (Civil) No. 539/2003 directed that a machinery be put in place for acting on complaints from whistle-blowers till a law is enacted. In pursuance of that direction, the Government of India vide Gazette Notification No.371/12/2002-AVD- III dated 21/04/2004 r/w Corrigendum dated 29.04.2004 notified the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers Resolution (PIDPI), 2004 which gave the powers to the Commission to act on complaints from whistle-blowers. This Resolution is popularly known as "Whistle Blowers" Resolution and it designated the Central Vigilance Commission as the agency to receive and act on complaints or disclosure on any allegation of corruption or misuse of office from whistle blowers. The Commission has been entrusted with the responsibility of keeping the identity of the complainant secret while lodging a complaint under PIDPI Resolution, in order to provide protection to whistle blowers from victimisation.
The limitation of jurisdiction of the CVC under the CVC Act, 2003 to inquire or cause inquiry or investigation into the complaints against Group 'A' officers and equivalent level of officers, is not applicable in case of Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers' Resolution 2004.
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) vide Notification No. 371/4/2013-AVD.III dated 14.08.2013 authorised the Chief Vigilance Officers in the Ministries/Departments as the designated authorities to receive written complaint or disclosure of corruption or misuse of office by any employee of that Ministry or Department or of any corporation established by or under any Central Act, Government companies, societies or local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government and falling under the jurisdiction of that Ministry or the Department.
Thus a very limited protection is offered to whistle blowers to approach departmental Vigilance Officers for complaint against the officer of the Central Government. The scope of this protection is limited to following:
1. The Commission or the designated authorities will ascertain the identity of the complainant; if the complaint is anonymous, it shall not take any action in the matter.
2. The identity of the complainant will not be revealed unless the complainant himself has made either the details of the complaint public or disclosed his identity to any other office or authority.
3. While calling for further report / investigation, the Commission and the designated authorities shall not disclose the identity of the informant and shall also request the head of the organisation concerned to keep the identity of the informant a secret, if for any reason the identity is revealed.
4. The Commission and the designated authorities are authorised to call upon the CBI or the police authorities, as considered necessary, to render all assistance to complete the investigation pursuant to the complaint received.
5. If any person is aggrieved by any action on the ground that he is being victimized due to the fact that he had filed a complaint or disclosure, he may file an application before the Commission or the designated authority seeking redressal in the matter;•
6. If the Commission is of the opinion that either the complainant or the witnesses need protection, it shall issue appropriate directions to the government authorities concerned
7. In case the Commission or the designated authority finds the complaint to be motivated or vexatious, it shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps; and
8. In the event of the identity of the informant being disclosed in spite of the Commission's or designated authority's directions to the contrary, the Commission or the designated authority is authorised to initiate appropriate action in accordance with the regulations against the person or agency making such a disclosure.
Is it enough? Is it a serious protection for a possible whistle blower? Further Is the CVC, even technically and resourcefully equipped to provide any real protection to whistle blowers.
It may be noted that Special Courts created under NIA Act for terror related offences do have powers to protect the identity of witnesses. It provides:
"On an application made by a witness in any proceeding before it or by the Public Prosecutor in relation to such witness or on its own motion, if the Special Court is satisfied that the life of such witness is in danger, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, take such measures as it deems fit for keeping the identity and address of such witness secret."
The measures which a Special Court may take under that sub-section may include:
(a) the holding of the proceedings at a place to be decided by the Special Court;
(b) the avoiding of the mention of the names and addresses of the witnesses in its orders or judgments or in any records of the case accessible to public;
(c) the issuing of any directions for securing that the identity and address of the witnesses are not disclosed; and
(d) a decision that it is in the public interest to order that all or any of the proceedings pending before such a Court shall not be published in any manner.
Absence of such provision in anti-corruption laws only means that corruption stands at a much lower pedestal than the terrorism, even if the former provide a fertile ground for the latter to flourish.
Leave a Response