Slow but steady blocks to justice in India
Summary: Our judicial trials progress at a snail’s pace, as we have seen in the case of former telecom minister Sukh Ram. Given the scenario, are we, as a nation, prepared to tackle corruption effectively?
The telecommunications ministry has been in the limelight for the wrong reasons. A Raja made headlines in 2010 for his alleged role in the 2G spectrum scam. Telecom minister during the Nineties, Sukh Ram now occupies centre stage as a Delhi court recently convicted him on charges of financial embezzlement. Government officials in our country have time and again been accused of indulging in corrupt practices. But what is worrying is, once these scams are exposed, the interminable delay in bringing those found guilty to book. A case in point is the recent conviction of former telecom minister, Sukh Ram. It took 12 years for the judiciary to prosecute Sukh Ram. He was recently pronounced guilty for a bribe he took in 1996.
What are the challenges and roadblocks that not only delay indictment but also deny justice in many cases?
A close analysis of the challenges facing our system highlights various factors that act as a catalyst in fuelling corruption and reducing the momentum of the numerous trials and prosecutions.
The first reason is inherent delay in the criminal justice system. Section 19 of the Corruption Act requires prior permission of the authority competent to remove a public servant from his or her post before launching prosecution against him or her in court. This means without prior sanctions from the central and state governments, no action can be initiated against public servants and government officials charged for corruption. Lack of adequate autonomy and prosecution powers for nodal agencies like CVC are major roadblocks in majority of the corruption trials.
Secondly, an ineffective asset recovery mechanism is a major challenge as public servants often acquire properties with the proceeds of crime in the names of their friends, relatives, family members and other acquaintances. Therefore, confiscation and proving them illegal is a prime problem for our investigating officers.
The third reason is the lack of an efficient witness protection scheme. Intimidation, allurement or influence often result in witnesses turning hostile and delay the course of corruption trials.
Recently, PRS Legislative Research undertook a survey to understand the extent to which our government is serious in tackling the corruption menace. Key jobs and posts across various investigating agencies including the CBI remain unfilled and vacant throughout the year, as highlighted by the survey. Further, dearth of judges, frequent transfers, change of power -- all of these contribute towards lowering the momentum and causing a hindrance to the investigation at various levels. Given this scenario, the sayings of the great jurist Ehrlich, "There is no guarantee of justice except the personality of the judge", holds true as change of power often results in change of judges who refuse to co-operate with the trial and further delay the process of justice.
These challenges and roadblocks have been deliberated and discussed by policy makers and concerned stakeholders but no significant action to improve the situation has seen the light of day. It is obvious that despite laws and provisions, the presence of loopholes and ambiguous clauses expose the trials to numerous grey areas that facilitate our government officials and public servants to roam around scot-free.
The need of the hour is perhaps an autonomous anti-corruption institution that is independent of the judiciary, executive and legislature. It may not be the panacea but could definitely be a pre-requisite to set the fight against corruption rolling.