Role of Judiciary in the Battle against Corruption
The article “Role of Judiciary in the Battle against Corruption” has been written by Mr. Tapan Kumar Das, Skill development officer of MIES R M Law College, Kolkata, and modified by Prof Soumik Ash, Assistant Prof MIES R M Law College, Kolkata. In recent years, Corruption has undermined the rule of law, eroded public trust, and hampers social and economic development. In this context, the judiciary plays a pivotal role in preventing, controlling, and punishing corruption. Its effectiveness largely determines the success of anti-corruption efforts in any democratic society. At MIES R M Law College, Sonarpur, South Kolkata, one of the best law colleges in West Bengal, students receive a strong foundation in law while being exposed to the latest global developments. The college offers 3-year law college programs as well as comprehensive legal education courses designed to prepare students for diverse careers in the legal profession.
Being a Bar Council of India-approved law college under Vidyasagar University, MIES R M Law College has established itself as a leading provider of legal education in India. The institution not only focuses on academics but also on career-oriented training, internship opportunities, and placements in law firms. Many graduates have gone on to build successful careers as law officers, practicing lawyers, and legal consultants.
Role of Judiciary in the Battle against Corruption
The Indian Constitution has established a democratic republic along with a triad of institutions to uphold its supreme provisions impartially, without bias or prejudice. The executive branches, if they overstep their authority as defined and limited by the supreme law, are liable to examination, review, and rectification by the higher judiciary. The legislature possesses extensive law-making authority and is functionally equipped to investigate the administration. However, should it exceed its constitutional limits, the court has the power to annul its actions through writs or to mandate new proceedings via suitable directives.
The unethical behaviours exhibited by public officials and bureaucrats have already been deemed criminal. Efforts to address the shortcomings in the Indian Penal Code regarding offenses related to bribery and the acceptance of illegal benefits by public servants have led to the enactment of a specific law, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Additionally, state legislatures have initiated measures to enhance corruption control initiatives.
The National Police Commission
The National Police Commission has also recognized issues of bias, corruption, and the failure to register cognizable offenses. A significant number of corruption cases remain unprosecuted. Currently, the Judiciary is the only entity attempting to intervene in this area. Indeed, the higher judiciary, through its judicial activism, has sought to address the deficiencies left by the executive, including prosecuting and investigating agencies, as well as competent higher sanctioning authorities. It has also attempted to rectify some of the gaps created by the legislature due to its passive or sluggish response to the corruption issue.
The role of the judiciary is to fight corruption as the final arbiter to hold corrupt individuals accountable through PIL and suo motu proceedings, as well as ensuring that Government actions and laws are constitutional and not corrupt. This involves using powers like judicial activism, creating guidelines to curb corruption through public interest litigation, and, at the same time, acting as a guardian of the constitution to uphold the rule of law. The judiciary reviews the actions of public bodies, including those conducted electronically, to ensure that they adhere to legal and ethical standards and to nullify illegal or corrupt actions.
Role of Judicial Activism and PIL in combating corruption: –
The three branches of the State, as established by the constitution, namely the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary, work in harmony with one another to manage the country’s affairs. The framers of the Constitution anticipated a distinct allocation of powers and responsibilities among these three branches. The exclusive authority to enact laws resides with the Legislature at both the State and Union levels, whereas the Executive, being the most significant and powerful branch, is tasked with the implementation of these laws. The Judiciary’s function is to dispense justice in accordance with the prevailing laws and to assess the constitutional validity of the legislation passed by the Legislature.
“Judicial Activism” denotes the encroachment by the Judiciary into the Executive and Legislative domains. Let us see the present position of the Legislature and the Executive, and then juxtapose the comparatively holy status the judiciary holds. The harsh reality is that the masses in the country have been let down by the Executive and the elected representatives.
Primary responsibilities of the Executive
One of the primary responsibilities of the Executive is to detect and prevent crime. In cases such as Hawala, the fodder scam, and other instances of corruption, the individuals involved are often high-ranking politicians and ministers who exert control over the Executive. The Police, investigative agencies, and even prosecutors are under their influence. Given this scenario, can we anticipate that these corruption cases will be addressed by the Executive at all? It is under these circumstances that judicial activism has evolved in a new direction. The judiciary remains the only institution that has not been overtaken by politicians. This public perception has fueled the momentum for judicial activism. The ‘hands off’ doctrine embraced by the Judiciary in 1980 experienced a significant transformation in the 1990s, as the Judiciary recognized the necessity of safeguarding constitutional guarantees and democratic principles.
The following are some cases in which the Judiciary took steps to combat corruption
a) J.A.C. Saldana Case
In the case of State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldana 1980 AIR 326, which was adjudicated in 1980 during a period characterized by judicial activism, the Supreme Court adopted a non-interventionist stance.
D.A. Desai J. opined:
“There is a clear cut and well demarcated sphere of activity in the field of crime detection and crime punishment. Investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the Executive through the police department, the superintendence over which vests in the State Government. The Executive, which is charged with added duty to keep vigilance over law and order situation, is obliged to prevent crime and if, an offence is alleged to have been committed, it is its bounden duty to investigate into the offence and bring the offender to book. Once it investigates, and finds, an offence has been committed, it is its duty to collect evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. Once that is completed and the investigating officer submits report to the court to take cognizance of the offence, under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, its duty comes to an end
It is evident from this that the judiciary was hesitant to assume any responsibility in investigative matters, although it had begun overseeing the administration of prisons. A thorough examination of this action taken by the judiciary indicates that, unless the investigating officer presents a report to acknowledge the offence, the court will not concern itself with ensuring that the perpetrators are prosecuted. The police and other investigative bodies, being part of the Executive, cannot be relied upon to ‘investigate the offence and hold the offender accountable’ when the offender is the Prime Minister, Chief Minister, other Ministers, or influential politicians. If an investigation does occur, it would likely target politicians from the opposition.
b) Jain Hawala Case
The narrative surrounding post-independence cases indicates that Ministers and influential politicians typically benefit from immunity against prosecution, even when instances of corruption are thoroughly documented in the media or confirmed by investigative commissions. Notably, in the Jain Hawala case, the recipients of the illicit payments could have similarly enjoyed this immunity were it not for three unforeseen events. The first event involves the leak of sensitive information from investigative agencies regarding the Jain diaries and the interrogations, as well as attempts to conceal this information. The second event is the emergence of the cover-up and obstruction of justice issue, raised by a journalist committed to public interest. The third event is the unprecedented level of activism demonstrated by the Supreme Court in overseeing, critiquing, and directing the CBI during its investigation.
The entire proceedings are overseen by the highest court. In fact, as early as 1970, the Supreme Court had allowed for the possibility of proactive judges to implement innovative measures, as seen in the case of S.N. Sharma v. Bipin Kumar Tiwari.
c) The Fodder Scam Case
In the case of Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ VIII v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 613 (Fodder Scam Case), a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court noted in a Public Interest Litigation writ petition submitted by two Members of Parliament that the purpose of a PIL is to assist those who are socially disadvantaged and lack access to the Court. It is not intended to further the political ambitions of individuals or to resolve personal grievances under the pretense of a PIL in order to engage in a legal dispute.
The Supreme Court noted that in cases concerning Economic Scams, whether related to security transactions, Fodder Scams, or the Taj Corridor, the economic interests of the nation are at risk. Given the complexity of these cases, the appointment of a Judge is crucial, and the selection of the candidate must adhere to specific criteria.
It can be concluded that the judiciary is taking a protective role to fill gaps left by the legislature or executive, issuing guidelines and using mechanisms like public interest litigation to address corruption and social issues.
Exemplary Damages Awarded by the Judiciary
A significant action was undertaken by the apex Court in two instances, where the Central Ministers egregiously misused their authority. Recognizing that in the context of investigations into political corruption, the typical scenario involves mere theatrics of arrest (and in some instances, not even that) followed by release through the creation of tension-filled situations, the judiciary rendered the Ministers tortuously liable. This ruling strips away all the benefits that the ‘Delinquent Politician’ would typically enjoy as part of the executive, including control over the Police, investigative bodies, and bureaucrats. The details of these two cases are elaborated upon below.
i) Common Cause (a Registered society) v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 530
In this case, the then Petroleum Minister Captain Satish Sharma allocated retail outlets for petroleum products (petrol pumps) from his discretionary quota to individuals connected to politicians, members of Oil Selection Boards, and officials within the Ministry in a secretive and uniform manner, lacking any established guidelines or criteria. The division bench, which included Justice Kuldip Singh and Faizan Uddin, determined that the orders for the allotment of petrol pumps should be annulled, and that the Government of India or Oil Corporation must reclaim the petrol pump premises from those individuals within 10 days thereafter.
Captain Satish Sharma was also required to provide justification within two weeks as to why a directive should not be issued to the appropriate police authority to file a case against him. Additionally, he was to explain why he should not be held accountable for damages resulting from his wrongful actions. The court further mandated Captain Satish Sharma to pay a sum of Rupees Fifty Lakhs as exemplary damages to the government treasury. Moreover, the Court instructed the CBI to remain impartial and to finalize the investigation within a period of 3 months.
ii) Shivsagar Tiwari vs. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 558.
In this case also, the Minister of Urban Development, Mrs. Sheela Kaul, allocated shops and stalls to her own relatives, employees, and domestic servants without adhering to any established policy or norm. The Court not only annulled these allotments but also ordered Smt. Sheela Kaul to pay Rs.60 lakhs as exemplary damages to the government exchequer. The division bench, comprising Justice Kuldip Singh and B.L. Hansaria, noted: “Misfeasance in public office constitutes a form of tortious liability.
A violation of statutory duty indeed leads to liability in public law, recognized as ‘misfeasance in public office,’ which encompasses the malicious abuse of power. Consequently, the misuse of authority by a public official is actionable in tort. The Court correctly noted that the absence of injury to a third party in this case does not suffice to render the aforementioned principles inapplicable, given that there is a violation of the significant principle in public law which mandates that a public official must exercise their authority solely for bona fide purposes and in a transparent fashion.
Conclusion at Role of Judiciary in the Battle against Corruption
In conclusion, it can be said that the judiciary is a crucial and independent pillar of democracy, responsible for upholding the rule of law, protecting citizens’ rights and serving as a check on the executive and legislative branches. While the judiciary is essential for ensuring justice and fairness, it is facing challenges such as case backlogs and infrastructure issues that need to be addressed to maintain its effectiveness and public trust. The credibility of the judiciary is directly related to the judicial responsibility, accountability, impartiality, and objectivity exhibited by judges.
MIES R M Law College
MIES R M Law College is also known for providing internship opportunities with law firms and organizations, helping students gain hands-on experience in law practice. This practical exposure ensures that graduates are well-prepared for both courtroom practice and corporate legal roles.
Recognized as one of the top law schools in Kolkata and West Bengal, the college continues its glorious journey in shaping future-ready lawyers. By combining traditional legal values with modern technology, MIES R M Law College ensures its students are equipped to thrive in the era of Artificial Intelligence.
