06-29-2008, 09:14 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Suitcase culture flourishes </b>
Pioneer.com
Joginder Singh
Making hey while the sun shines is an old saying. But in the present climate of raging corruption in the country, not only the authorities make hey (or money), but are also not hesitant to distribute a part of it to stay out of trouble.
<b>Assam's Education Minister Ripon Bora was arrested, along with his two associates, by the Central Bureau of Investigation in June 2008 in Delhi while allegedly paying Rs 10 lakh as bribe to an officer of the investigating agency</b>. Mr Bora, a senior Minister, was a suspect in a murder case that was being probed by the CBI on the direction of the Gauhati High Court. The case pertained to the killing of tribal leader Daniel Topno, a candidate during the 1996 Assembly election, on September 27, 2000. Mr Bora was his rival.
"The Minister had approached the officer probing the case through a middleman for negotiating the outcome of the investigation," the CBI said. The officer to be bribed made a complaint and so a trap was laid.
Before any legal action is taken, it is the standard requirement in the CBI to get a formal complaint from the affected party or parties, even if he or she happens to be a CBI officer. This is the only way to set the law in motion.
There can be two types of corruption. One in which the bribe is demanded by a public servant; and, the other where bribe is offered to a public servant. In the case of a complaint where bribe is demanded, the complainant is asked to get the currency notes treated with a special powder and the serial number of notes is written down before the bribe is paid. Witnesses are procured in advance and they are so positioned when the transaction takes place that they can see the money being handed over and overhear their conversation between the complainant and the bribe-taker. After the transaction is over, the bribe-taker is arrested.
Where a bribe is being offered to a public servant and he has informed the CBI, even then the witnesses are called to witness the demand and passing of the money, so that when the case goes to the court, they can depose what they have seen. To maintain its credibility, the CBI gets witnesses from those Government departments that do not even have a remote connection with the people involved in corruption cases. In fact, the same witnesses are never used in other cases by the CBI. The advantage of this approach is that nobody can say that the same stock witnesses are being produced in all cases of the CBI.
<b>Unfortunately, corruption in our country is going up with each passing day. As per the latest report of 'Transparency International', India is the 72nd most corrupt country in integrity and honesty in public administration in the world</b>. It scores 35 marks out of 100. Under our laws pertaining to corruption, only a public servant can be guilty of corruption. Incidentally, MPs, MLAs and Ministers are also public servant and the same laws are applied to them as to the Government employees.
Corruption in public life has become so endemic that people have become cynical whether the Government is serious about eliminating and giving good governance to the people. <b>There have been allegations against Orissa's Education Minister (denied by him) that the State Board of Secondary Education officials manipulated his son's marksheet. It is said that his son was allegedly given extra 124 marks in the last high school certificate examinations.</b>
Another case, which was widely reported, is that of Union Transport and Shipping Minister TR Baalu, who has been charged of seeking favours for his family. Yet another case, which came up in Jharkhand High Court, is the alleged transfer of a Central Coalfields Limited to the north-eastern coalfields at the instance of a Union Minister, Mr Subodh Kant Sahay, who has been issued a notice by the High Court. The transfer has since then been stayed.
A detailed implementation review (DIR) report of the World Bank into the $ 76.4 million Orissa Health System Development Project (OHSDP), launched in 1998 and completed in 2006, said that the Health Minister and some officials had taken Rs 500,000 in bribes to give undue favours to a particular firm. The Minister has since denied the allegations. The State Government had earlier formed a three-member panel headed by the Chief Secretary to probe the corruption charges.
The system has already been ruined, with no will being shown by the Government to tackle the corrupt and dishonest. Recently, the Group of Ministers has rejected a proposal to do away with the need for Government approval to attach the property of tainted public servants to control corruption. On the contrary, it has decided that the investigating officer must take the prior Government sanction even to move the special judge for attachment of tainted property. The decision only represents one of many attempts of the Government to protect the corrupt and dishonest.
As per the CVC Act, no investigation or inquiry can be started against an officer of the level of Joint Secretary or above without the Government sanction. This was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997, but was again introduced as a law. Even after such a sanction is received, which itself is doubtful, then sanction is needed to register a regular case. Again for prosecution in the court of law, formal Government sanction is legally binding. Even after this is done, the Government can always direct the investigating agency to withdraw the case from the court, as was done in the case of Captain Satish Sharma.
The people's exasperation on corruption has been best expressed by the Supreme Court: "Everyone wants to loot this country. The only deterrent is to hang a few corrupt persons from the lamp-post... The law does not permit us to do it but otherwise we would prefer to hang people like you from the lamp-post."
It is time to remind our leaders, what Theodore Roosevelt once observed:<b> "We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity." </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
Joginder Singh
Making hey while the sun shines is an old saying. But in the present climate of raging corruption in the country, not only the authorities make hey (or money), but are also not hesitant to distribute a part of it to stay out of trouble.
<b>Assam's Education Minister Ripon Bora was arrested, along with his two associates, by the Central Bureau of Investigation in June 2008 in Delhi while allegedly paying Rs 10 lakh as bribe to an officer of the investigating agency</b>. Mr Bora, a senior Minister, was a suspect in a murder case that was being probed by the CBI on the direction of the Gauhati High Court. The case pertained to the killing of tribal leader Daniel Topno, a candidate during the 1996 Assembly election, on September 27, 2000. Mr Bora was his rival.
"The Minister had approached the officer probing the case through a middleman for negotiating the outcome of the investigation," the CBI said. The officer to be bribed made a complaint and so a trap was laid.
Before any legal action is taken, it is the standard requirement in the CBI to get a formal complaint from the affected party or parties, even if he or she happens to be a CBI officer. This is the only way to set the law in motion.
There can be two types of corruption. One in which the bribe is demanded by a public servant; and, the other where bribe is offered to a public servant. In the case of a complaint where bribe is demanded, the complainant is asked to get the currency notes treated with a special powder and the serial number of notes is written down before the bribe is paid. Witnesses are procured in advance and they are so positioned when the transaction takes place that they can see the money being handed over and overhear their conversation between the complainant and the bribe-taker. After the transaction is over, the bribe-taker is arrested.
Where a bribe is being offered to a public servant and he has informed the CBI, even then the witnesses are called to witness the demand and passing of the money, so that when the case goes to the court, they can depose what they have seen. To maintain its credibility, the CBI gets witnesses from those Government departments that do not even have a remote connection with the people involved in corruption cases. In fact, the same witnesses are never used in other cases by the CBI. The advantage of this approach is that nobody can say that the same stock witnesses are being produced in all cases of the CBI.
<b>Unfortunately, corruption in our country is going up with each passing day. As per the latest report of 'Transparency International', India is the 72nd most corrupt country in integrity and honesty in public administration in the world</b>. It scores 35 marks out of 100. Under our laws pertaining to corruption, only a public servant can be guilty of corruption. Incidentally, MPs, MLAs and Ministers are also public servant and the same laws are applied to them as to the Government employees.
Corruption in public life has become so endemic that people have become cynical whether the Government is serious about eliminating and giving good governance to the people. <b>There have been allegations against Orissa's Education Minister (denied by him) that the State Board of Secondary Education officials manipulated his son's marksheet. It is said that his son was allegedly given extra 124 marks in the last high school certificate examinations.</b>
Another case, which was widely reported, is that of Union Transport and Shipping Minister TR Baalu, who has been charged of seeking favours for his family. Yet another case, which came up in Jharkhand High Court, is the alleged transfer of a Central Coalfields Limited to the north-eastern coalfields at the instance of a Union Minister, Mr Subodh Kant Sahay, who has been issued a notice by the High Court. The transfer has since then been stayed.
A detailed implementation review (DIR) report of the World Bank into the $ 76.4 million Orissa Health System Development Project (OHSDP), launched in 1998 and completed in 2006, said that the Health Minister and some officials had taken Rs 500,000 in bribes to give undue favours to a particular firm. The Minister has since denied the allegations. The State Government had earlier formed a three-member panel headed by the Chief Secretary to probe the corruption charges.
The system has already been ruined, with no will being shown by the Government to tackle the corrupt and dishonest. Recently, the Group of Ministers has rejected a proposal to do away with the need for Government approval to attach the property of tainted public servants to control corruption. On the contrary, it has decided that the investigating officer must take the prior Government sanction even to move the special judge for attachment of tainted property. The decision only represents one of many attempts of the Government to protect the corrupt and dishonest.
As per the CVC Act, no investigation or inquiry can be started against an officer of the level of Joint Secretary or above without the Government sanction. This was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997, but was again introduced as a law. Even after such a sanction is received, which itself is doubtful, then sanction is needed to register a regular case. Again for prosecution in the court of law, formal Government sanction is legally binding. Even after this is done, the Government can always direct the investigating agency to withdraw the case from the court, as was done in the case of Captain Satish Sharma.
The people's exasperation on corruption has been best expressed by the Supreme Court: "Everyone wants to loot this country. The only deterrent is to hang a few corrupt persons from the lamp-post... The law does not permit us to do it but otherwise we would prefer to hang people like you from the lamp-post."
It is time to remind our leaders, what Theodore Roosevelt once observed:<b> "We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity." </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->