Corruption is often described as the biggest obstacle to India’s development. It undermines governance, diverts resources, and erodes public trust in institutions. From petty bribery in daily services to massive scams in infrastructure, corruption touches every sector. Recognizing this, India has developed a framework of laws to prevent, detect, and punish corruption. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 remains the backbone of this framework, but subsequent reforms, including the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, have attempted to strengthen accountability. This article examines the evolution of anti-corruption law in India, key provisions, judicial interpretations, and challenges that remain.
Early Efforts Against Corruption
In colonial times, corruption was addressed through provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023). Public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration were punishable. However, these provisions were limited and proved inadequate for growing administrative complexity.
After independence, corruption scandals such as the Jeep Scandal of 1948 and the Nagarwala case of 1971 shook public confidence. In response, Parliament enacted the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), consolidating earlier laws and providing a comprehensive code for offences by public servants.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The PCA criminalizes a wide range of conduct, including:
- Accepting gratification other than legal remuneration.
- Public servants abusing official position to obtain advantage.
- Criminal misconduct by misappropriation of property.
- Habitual acceptance of bribes.
It also penalizes those who abet corruption by offering bribes. The Act shifted the burden of proof in certain cases as once acceptance of gratification is established, it is presumed to be for a corrupt motive unless proved otherwise.
Over time, however, critics pointed out that the PCA was both under-enforced and sometimes misused, leading to calls for reform.
The 2018 Amendments
In 2018, Parliament significantly amended the PCA to bring it in line with international standards under the UN Convention Against Corruption. Key changes included:
- Criminalizing the act of giving bribes, not just accepting them.
- Narrowing the definition of “criminal misconduct” to focus on misappropriation and illicit enrichment.
- Introducing prior sanction requirements for prosecuting serving public servants, including former ones, aimed at preventing frivolous cases.
- Imposing corporate liability for bribes given by commercial organizations.
While these amendments modernized the law, critics argue that requiring prior sanction before prosecution creates hurdles in genuine cases.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
Public anger over corruption reached a peak during the Anna Hazare-led movement in 2011. Responding to widespread protests, Parliament enacted the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The law established independent anti-corruption ombudsmen at the central (Lokpal) and state (Lokayukta) levels.
The Lokpal has jurisdiction over the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, and officials of the central government. It can inquire into corruption complaints and refer cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). State Lokayuktas perform a similar role for state officials.
Although hailed as a landmark, the Lokpal has struggled with implementation. It took years to appoint the first Lokpal in 2019, and vacancies continue to affect functioning. Many states have failed to set up Lokayuktas or have kept them weak.
Judicial Role in Anti-Corruption
Indian courts have often intervened in corruption matters. In C.B.I. v. Ramesh Gelli (2016), the Supreme Court clarified that chairpersons of private banks are also “public servants” under the PCA. In the 2G Spectrum Case (2012) and Coal Block Allocation Case (2014), courts oversaw investigations into massive scams, cancelling licenses and emphasizing accountability.
In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012), the Court criticized delays in granting sanction for prosecution, holding that such delays defeat the fight against corruption.
Courts have also balanced anti-corruption with due process. In P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019), the Court emphasized that corruption cases often involve complex financial transactions, requiring fair investigation without violating liberty.
The Role of Investigative Agencies
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is the primary agency investigating corruption under the PCA. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigates money laundering linked to corruption proceeds. However, both agencies face criticism for political interference. The Supreme Court once called the CBI a “caged parrot,” highlighting concerns about independence.
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), established by statute in 2003, oversees vigilance administration and supervises CBI investigations. Together with the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), these institutions form a network of accountability.
Continuing Challenges
Despite laws, corruption remains entrenched. Structural issues like delays in sanction, political interference in investigations, and judicial backlog dilute effectiveness. Transparency mechanisms like the Right to Information Act have exposed wrongdoing, but whistleblowers face risks. The Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 remains weakly implemented.
At the grassroots, citizens still face bribery in accessing basic services. At higher levels, crony capitalism and opaque political funding perpetuate systemic corruption. Electoral bonds, recently upheld by the Supreme Court, have sparked debate on whether they reduce or increase transparency.
Conclusion
India’s anti-corruption framework has grown stronger with the PCA, the Lokpal Act, and judicial activism. Yet, laws alone cannot eliminate corruption. Effective enforcement, political will, and citizen vigilance are essential.