In the present wave of anti-corruption movements and politics in the country comes another scholarly book on the theme. C Raj Kumar, the author of Corruption and Human Rights in India, is a well-known scholar of law. His basic argument in this book is that corruption severely impacts implementation of various rights of citizens. Hence, any analysis of corruption, and any solutions to address the same in India, must be viewed in the framework of human rights. He goes on to argue that the fundamental right to corruption-free services in the country should be made a part of the constitution itself.
The author brings a comparative analytical perspective to the study of corruption in Asia, and demonstrates the necessity of linking corruption to human rights violation. The analysis of Asian experiences suggests that successful combating of corruption in countries like Singapore and Hong Kong requires a strong anti-corruption legislation and a single independent agency responsible for its implementation. The argument for such a measure is largely based on the conflicts of jurisdiction in case of multiple institutions, as in India and the Philippines. The experience of setting up a constitutionally-empowered Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has been positive in some of these countries.
A critical analysis of Indian legislations and institutional arrangements suggests several weaknesses, both in law and in institutional design. Most significantly, the laws to prosecute corrupt public officials require various levels of approvals, which may take years to obtain. On its own, even Central Vigilance Commission cannot prosecute those against whom it finds prima facie evidence of corruption. The corruption in judiciary doesn?t even get investigated, let alone prosecuted, given the weaknesses in the current legislations.
In recommending changes in India, the author suggests a revised and stronger mandate for Human Rights Commission and setting up of an independent and empowered independent commission. While bulk of the book was written before the Anna Hazare-led anti-corruption movement, its recommendations seem to support the line of arguments presented by Hazare: setting up of an independent agency with autonomy and power to investigate and prosecute all cases of corruptions in official organs of the government at all tiers. In doing so, the author also presents legal arguments to support the sovereignty of people as opposed to sovereignty of the state. In this sense, Hazare?s argument that citizens of India are supreme, and not the parliament?an instrument created under constitution, which citizens of India have adopted?gains support from this legal analysis.
However, it is important to note the caveat introduced by the author successful cases of fighting systemic corruption in some Asian countries had a strong and sustained presence of political will. Lack of political will?largely arising out of the deep involvement of kith and kin of political classes in corruption in India?has been a bane in efforts to implement existing legislations, and creation of new, stronger ones. So, absence of political will not lead to a satisfactory answer to India?s malaise.
In addition, Singapore and Hong Kong are small territories with small populations. Hong Kong implemented these measures when it was under the British rule. Singapore did the same during the authoritarian regime of Prime Minister Lee. Neither of these conditions exist in India today?it is too large and diverse, and its democratic mechanism for enforcing ?rule of law? is in deep disarray. The recommendations of the author, therefore, may only be feasible once Hazare?s mobilisation has intensified nationwide!
Rajesh Tandon is president, PRIA