INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court of India is to decide whether the giving of a bribe voluntarily and without any demand from a public servant constitutes, as one of the offences covered under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), or otherwise, before the 2018 amendment to it. The matter has arisen because of conflicting views expressed by various High Courts and raises critical concerns pertaining to the liability of bribe-giver in corruption cases.
BACKGROUND
This challenge to an order of Orissa High Court finds its roots in the plea for discharge moved by a petitioner accused of offering a ₹2 lakh bribe to a police officer in a case involving the illegal manufacture of Gutkha.
It is Section 12 of the PCA that criminalizes abetment under this Act. However, there is no clarity provided on whether this section applies to crimes committed before the amendment came into force on July 26, 2018, and clarified the scope under this very section.
In support of this argument, the petitioner pointed out that a bribe given voluntarily and absent demand for it by the public servant is not an offence under the PCA. The argument was rejected by both the trial court and the High Court, which said that there was sufficient prima facie evidence to prosecute.
KEY POINTS
- Influence on Society: This case has far-reaching implications, as it delves into the liability of people who voluntarily provide bribes. It might give shape to a larger anti-corruption framework in the country. By considering the role of bribe-givers in corruption, a case such as this may well inhibit unethical conduct and check public accountability. A final decision would mean that bribe-givers and public servants would now be made to answer for their transgressions in upholding these two sacred principles of justice and equality.
- Value of the Case: The determination of this case will bring much-needed clarification to the law, especially regarding offences under the PCA that occurred before 2018. The High Court interpretations conflict, rendering no uniform application of the law. As such, it will also act as a bulwark for the future legal and legislative developments to eradicate corruption, making India’s anti-corruption machinery much more effective.
- Developments in Similar Cases: This is an evolving situation, with diverging opinions pronounced on liability for bribe-givers by judicial precedents. The Bombay High Court found that the offer of a bribe by a bribe-giver was not an offence as per Section 12 of the PCA before the amendment of 2018, whereas the Madras High Court chose to align itself with, now-repealed, Section 165A of the IPC. This case can, therefore, provide another opening for the Supreme Court to examine such differences and seek congruence between judicial reasoning and legislative intent.
- Legislative and Juridical Evolution: The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was amended in 2018, making a big leap toward the curtailing of corruption. The evolution of anti-corruption law in India becomes an important point of understanding in this case. Also, this depicts the significance of the role of the judiciary in interpreting the statutory provisions in such cases where the amendment for facilitation carried a new standard, but not accompanied by the applicability of earlier provisions.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The Supreme Court has taken notice of the contrasting views as to the liability of bribe-givers under the PCA prior to the amendment in 2018, pronounced by the Bombay and Madras High Courts. The bench comprised Justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra. In the interest of anti-corruption laws and public accountability, the bench has issued notice in the matter. It took cognizance of the manner in which Section 165A of the IPC then ruled on convictions for abetting bribery, even before the PCA was brought into force. They draw special attention to this, contending that courts must adopt a unified approach toward settling the matter for continuity and fairness in the law’s application.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court decision in this case will be an important land marker in the battle against corruption in India. It is expected that the judgment clarifies the liability of bribe-givers, as well as reforms the anti-corruption jurisprudence and fills the cracks in the law. It will also work as a guiding precedent for live and future cases: issuing an affirmation of people’s faith in an impartial judiciary and accountability at all levels. This case reiterates India’s commitment to a corruption-free governance system while upholding the very ideals of transparency and integrity.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: MADHAV SAXENA
