The accompanying article explains just what is wrong with the mechanism we currently have to deal with corruption. Lest you think that is just a theoretical argument, take a look at the official data on the subject and your doubts should be settled. The rapidly diminishing circles depicted alongside show how just a fraction of those accused of corruption actually end up getting nailed.
The data presented here is all from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). The first set of circles pertains to the status of investigations by the state anti-corruption or vigilance wings under the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant section of the IPC.
In 2008, the latest year for which data is available, there were 8,554 cases for investigation across all states and Union territories. Of these, 7,292 were actually investigated during the year, while 2,543 resulted in chargesheets. In other words, only about a third of the cases investigated resulted in chargesheets as a proportion of the cases available for investigation, the figure drops even further to about 30%.
But chargesheeting is only the first stage in the tortuous road to nailing the accused. The next set of circles depicts what happens to those being tried for corruption. In 2008, there were 29,783 people facing such trials.
Of these, trials were completed only for 2,985 people. Of those, 977 were convicted. That translates again to about a third of all those whose trials were completed being convicted, but when compared to those facing trial, the proportion drops to a mere 3%.
Is this reading too much into one year's figures? After all cases tried in one year might lead to conviction in a subsequent year. True, but the fact is that we looked at figures for the last few years and found that in each case these proportions are roughly the same.
Now, let's look at happens when cases are reported for departmental action against the accused. That's the third set of circles. In 2008, there w! ere 736 such people, of whom 268 were punished in some form or the other by their respective departments. But only 65 of them lost their jobs. That means less than one in eleven reported for action actually were sacked.
Put all these figures together and the picture you get makes it clear why public servants can indulge in corrupt practices with such impunity in our country. The chances of the investigation leading to chargesheeting are slim, even if they do get chargesheeted the chances of the trial concluding any time soon are even slimmer and finally when the trial does conclude the odds are on being let off.
A final thought. We are dealing here with a few thousand people being investigated or tried in any given year. Now consider the fact that there are about 10 million central and state government employees. Assuming conservatively that just 1% of them are corrupt, that would mean about a lakh of people indulging in corruption.
With less than 1,000 getting convicted, the corrupt can be 99% sure they'll get off. That's the problem.
The data presented here is all from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). The first set of circles pertains to the status of investigations by the state anti-corruption or vigilance wings under the Prevention of Corruption Act and relevant section of the IPC.
In 2008, the latest year for which data is available, there were 8,554 cases for investigation across all states and Union territories. Of these, 7,292 were actually investigated during the year, while 2,543 resulted in chargesheets. In other words, only about a third of the cases investigated resulted in chargesheets as a proportion of the cases available for investigation, the figure drops even further to about 30%.
But chargesheeting is only the first stage in the tortuous road to nailing the accused. The next set of circles depicts what happens to those being tried for corruption. In 2008, there were 29,783 people facing such trials.
Of these, trials were completed only for 2,985 people. Of those, 977 were convicted. That translates again to about a third of all those whose trials were completed being convicted, but when compared to those facing trial, the proportion drops to a mere 3%.
Is this reading too much into one year's figures? After all cases tried in one year might lead to conviction in a subsequent year. True, but the fact is that we looked at figures for the last few years and found that in each case these proportions are roughly the same.
Now, let's look at happens when cases are reported for departmental action against the accused. That's the third set of circles. In 2008, there w! ere 736 such people, of whom 268 were punished in some form or the other by their respective departments. But only 65 of them lost their jobs. That means less than one in eleven reported for action actually were sacked.
Put all these figures together and the picture you get makes it clear why public servants can indulge in corrupt practices with such impunity in our country. The chances of the investigation leading to chargesheeting are slim, even if they do get chargesheeted the chances of the trial concluding any time soon are even slimmer and finally when the trial does conclude the odds are on being let off.
A final thought. We are dealing here with a few thousand people being investigated or tried in any given year. Now consider the fact that there are about 10 million central and state government employees. Assuming conservatively that just 1% of them are corrupt, that would mean about a lakh of people indulging in corruption.
With less than 1,000 getting convicted, the corrupt can be 99% sure they'll get off. That's the problem.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment