1. Response of Indian Legal Oder to Eliminate such Deviances of Privileged ClassesBy
Dhupdale V. Y.

2. Steps taken by the Govt. of India

3. Steps taken by the Govt. of india
Permissible limit of discretionary power of officials.
Structure of Legal restraint on police power in India.
Commission of Enquiry, 1952.
Santhanam Commission, 1962.
Central Vigilance Commission.
Ombudsman
Prevention of Corruption Act
A. R. Antulay Case
The Chagla Commission Report on LIC – Mundhra Affair.
The Chambal Valley dacoit Vinoba Bhave Mission and Jai Prakash Narayan Mission, 1959 and 1971.

4. Steps taken by Indian Govt.
Permissible Limit of discretionary power of Officials:
Control of power of administration:
By seeking writ from SC under Article 32
From HC under Articles
Filing suit against the Govt. Or public authority.
Famous cases:
Nargis Mirza v. Airport Authority: Air Hostess Case.
Services of Air Hostess were terminated arbitrarily because of her pregnancy.
Court held that termination was unreasonable and arbitrary and violated Art. 14 of the Const.

5. R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979):
Cases:
R. D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979):
Facts: tenders were invited from registered IInd Class Hotel, for running a IInd Class Restaurant. The tenderer whose tender was accepted did not follow the essential conditions of the tender. A Writ petition was filed against the Airport Authority.
SC held that essential conditions were ignored by officials of Airport Authority under the pretext of Discretionary power and such action is arbitrary and therefore, constituting denial of equality.

6. Police power

7. Structure of Legal restraint on police power in India.
Our Constitution of India and the Criminal Procedure strictly impose conditions on Police Power:
During the Arrest: Police has to follow rules laid down by Cr.P.C., 1973 and the Indian Constition (Article 22: rights of the arrested person).
At collecting evidence: Sec. 169 of Cr.P.C. empower police to release accused when there are no sufficient evidence and not to use force to extract confession. Sec. 163 of Cr.P.C. and Sec. 24 of Evidence Act. Lay down strict restrictions in this regard.
At the stage of investigation: Not to use third degree method. Right against self-incrimination. Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. provides that witnesses has neither to give answer in writing nor sign the statement recorded by police.
Sec. 52 of Cr.P.C. - Police power to frisk the suspects. But this power is subject to restrictions contained in Sect. 156 of Cr.P.C.

8. Contd…
Inquest Register – Police to keep Inquest Register to record if any person dies under unnatural or suspicious circumstances as per Sec. 173 of Cr.P.C.
Search and Seizure: Police as per Sec. 100(4) of Cr.P.C. requires to to enter the premises only with atleast two respectable inhabitants of the locality.
Preventive action: as per Sec. 71 and 73 of Cr.P.C., the arrested person must be produced before nearest magistrate within 24 hrs. and he must by communicated the grounds for arrest. Opportunity to engage lawyer for defence as per Art. 22(1) to (7) of Indian Constitution.

9. Corrupt politicians

10. Powers of the Commissio:
Commission of Enquiry, 1952.
To conduct judicial enquiries against Ministers, Govt. enacted the Commission of Enquiry Act, 1952.
Primary purpose of the Commission is to take appropriate legislative, administrative measures to maintain the purity and integrity of political administration.
Powers of the Commissio:
Sec. 4: Civil Court while trying a suit under C.P.C.

11. Imp. Cases
State of J.K. v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad (1987): Bakshi was the Ex-Chief Minister of J & K. allegations of corruption were – State Govt. appointed Commission of Inquiry. He challenged the validity of the appointment of the Commission. The S.C. held that as it pertains to public matters, the Commission can be appointed.
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India ( 1979): M. Karunanidhi was the president of DMK party and also the Chief Minister of TN. AIDMK and Congress I were opposite parties. They agitated against him on Political issues. President of India dismissed him and imposed President’s Rule in the State. The Central Govt. also appointed a Commission of Inquiry. He challenged the Constitutional validity of the appointment saying that the Central Govt. cannot appoint Commission against State affairs. Central Govt. contended that as the State was under the administration of the President Rule it has power to appoint the Commission. The SC upheld the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry.

12. Santhanam Committee

13. Santhanam committee
The Committee on Prevention of Corruption was set by Govt. of Indian in 1962, under the Chairmanship of Shri. K. Santhanam to recview the existing instruments for checking corruption in Govt. services and recommend steps to make the nation corruption free.
The Report was submitted in The Report gave rise to the concept of vigilance.
Important developments of the Report:
Establishment of Central Vigilance Commission with power to investigate any complaint regarding corruption.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was amended providing for disclosure of wealth by public servants.
Commission has listed 6 reasons for corruption:
Unhealthy climate for integrity due to War.
Weakening of old system due to advancement in economy.
Recruitment and promotions of some unproven and inexperienced men to the offices.
Increase in administrative and discretionary powers officials.
Tedious and dilatory procedure and practices.
Greater protection is available to the Govt. sevice in our Country.

14. Central Vigilance Commission.
Established on the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee in 1964.
It is the highest Authority of the existing anti-corruption organisation.
It is a non-statutory body – its jurisdiction and function can be amended not by Parliament, but by the Govt. order.
It deals with cases of corruption against the gazetted officers of:-
Central Government
Union Territory and
Nationalised Banks, etc.
It is an independent body and works as an autonomous body like the UPSC.
It is a one man commission, headed by the Central Vigilance Commissioner, assisted by secretary and 5 branch officers and 11 Commissioners for Departmental enquiries.

15. ombudsman

16. ombudsman
In order to cope up with the growing problems in administration, the office of Ombudsman (Lokpal and Lokayukta) were established in India.
Ombudsman means: a delegation or agent who is an officer of the Parliament.
The job is to investigate complaints against the administration and tries to find out a remedy for misadministration.
Ombudsman enjoy vast powers in countries such as Sweden, Newzealand, Finland and the UK.

17. Lokpal and lokayukta
First attempt was made to introduce the office of the Ombusdman in 1968.
Appointment and removal of Lokpal and Lokayukta, Lokpal is appointed by the President of India after consultation with Chief Justice of India and the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha.
The Lokayukta is appointed by the President after consultation with Lokpal.
Term of the office is 5 years unless resigned or removed by the President on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity.

18. Functions of lokpal and lokayukta
Investigation.
Attend public grievances lodged against public servants.
A complaint can be filed to the L.L. by person aggrieved or his representative.
Procedure:
Complaint – Notice to concerned officer – opportunity to be heard – if sufficient grounds found – He can submit the written Report to the concerned public servant and the competant authority.

19. criticism Lokpal has no Constitutional status. Limited jurisdiction.
If complaint has alternative remedy, Ombudsmen has no role to play.
No role if case is pending before the the Public Servants Inquiries Act or Commission of Inquiry.
No role if grievance is older than 12 months.
No investigation is allegation is older than 5 years.
No uniformity throughout India in regard to service conditions.
There is no separate investigation agency under the direct control of Ombudsmen. Investigation is done by the Govt. agency and so people lose their confidence in the Ombudsmen.
The Investigating agency may manipulate the situation.
Political influence and interference affects the working of the LL.

20. Prevention of corruption act, 1947

21. Prevention of corruption act, 1988 (Please refer bare act):
Earlier Act was P C A, 1947, amended and repealed based upon Santhanam Committee Report and now known as PCA, 1988.
Objectives: to prevent the growing rate of corruption.

22. Main Provisions: CHAPTER II: APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL JUDGES
CHAPTER III: OFFENCES AND PENALTIE
Sec. 7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act . Punishment : shall, be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec. 8. Taking gratification, in order, by corrupt or illegal means, to influence public servant . Punishment: shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec. 9. Taking gratification for exercise of personal influence with public servant . Punishment: shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec. 10. Punishment for abetment by public servant of offences defined in Section 8 or 9. Punishment: shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

23. Contd…
Sec. 11. Public servant obtaining valuable thing, without consideration from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant. Punishment: shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
Sec. 12. Punishment for abetment of offences defined in Section 7 or 11. Punishment: shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. .
Etc.
CHAPTER IV: INVESTIGATION INTO CASES UNDER THE ACT
CHAPTER V: SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

24. A. R. Antulay

25. a. r. antulay case, 1984
This is important case as it was the first formal criminal trial on private complaint of a public man on charges of corruption.
Case in Brief:
In Maharashtra v. R.S. Nayak 1982) Nayak filed a complaint against the Chief Minister Antulay, charging him with offences under Section 161 and 185 of the IPC and Sec. 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The SC ruled that the complaint was not maintainable without sanction of Govt. under Sec. 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
In Nayak v. A.R.Antulay (1984): Antulay was the CM of Maharashtra. He resigned in 1982 but continued to be a member of legislature. On being moved by Nayak, the Governor granted sanction to prosecute Antulay under Sec.6 of PCA. Nayak filed a complaint against Antulay as CM who obtained funds from the public by setting up certain trusts under his control. He contended that since he was MLA and a public servant, a sanction of State Legislature is necessary to prosecute him. The SC rejected his contention saying that Antuay the office of the CM ceases to be public servant and a MLA cannot be regarded as Public Servant for the purpose of Sec. 21 of IPC which defines a public servant.

26. M. C. Chagla

27. The chagla commission report on lic mundra affair
The Government of India appointed Mr. M.C. Chagla as the Chairman of Commission of Inquiry, to look into the affairs of the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
The object was to inquire and report on the transaction of LIC relating to the purchase of shares of Companies manned by a person Mr. Mundra.
The main points of issues were:
Whether the purpose were in accordance with normal business practice.
The proprietary of purchase.
The person responsible for purchase.
Any other important matter which found relevant to commission.

28. History and legal background of the lic
LIC was set in 1956.
A separate enactment was passed for the constitution, working and function of the corporation.
It is made autonomous independent of the Govt.
It is not dependent on Govt.
The only control the Govt. had is under Sec. 21 is relating to matters of policy involving public interest.

29. Inquiry report
Mr. Chagla found that the sound principle laid down in Sec. 21 was not adhered to in the working of LIC.
There was a tendency on the part of the Finance Ministry to look upon the corporation as branch of the ministry and to issue order to it in the belief that the corporation was bound to follow those orders.
The statutory principle of autonomy was also completely overlooked by appointing Mr. Patel, the Principal Secretary to the Finance Ministry as the 1st Chairman of LIC.
And for the personal gains corporation found to dealing with Havidas Mundra.

30. Contd…
Mr. Mundra wanted the corporation to help him in his financial crisis, which he was experiencing in 1957.
He requested Mr. Patel to help him.
Corporation agreed to help Mr. Mundra by agreeing to purchase the bulk of shares of his companies.
The total amount towards price of shares was Rs. 1,26,65,750 it was paid through the Central Bank of India, the banker of LIC.

31. Opinion of Mr. Chagla
It was clearly wrong on the point of Corporation to utilise the funds of LIC which are collected from policy holders as premiums to help an individual.
It was also wrong to deal with a person who was suspected to be of a dubious character and having doubtful financial reputation.
This fact was already known by the Finance Ministry as it was informed by the Deputy Governor of RBI.

32. Responsibility for transaction
According to Mr. Chagla, Legally and technically the responsibility was that of the Corporation and its executive officers.
Even the Finance Ministry was responsible as it knew very well about the dubious character of Mundra.

33. Principles established from the inquiry
Person with business and financial experience and familiar with the working of the stock-exchange should be appointed as the Chairman of LIC.
The funds of LIC should be used for the benefits of the policy holders only.
While taking any big decision the Ministry must take parliament into confidence.
Govt. should avoid interference within working of autonomous statutory corporations.

34. The chambal valley

35. The chambal valley dacoit, vinoba mission and jai prakash narayan mission – in 1959 and 1971
Dacoit in valley is a part of the larger social system.
It has its own networks, norms, procedure and system of control.
It is called deviance by various gangs of dacoits.
Criminals combined together to act as gangs and get engaged in murder, loot, kidnapping and rape.
They not only raid dwelling houses but also loot travelers convoys and passengers buses, etc.
Chambal Valley was known as the bad land due to their merciless murders.
For several centuries the Chambal Valley has been famous for its lawlessness, looting and pillaging (raiding) accompanied by killing continued from the days of Mughal Empire to British Raj and still continues today.

36. Contd…
Dacoity dates from the latter part of the 12th Century when Anang Pal Tomar sought shelter in the Chambal basin after having being driven out by his cousin Prithviraj Chauhan.
The local Rajputs of Valley who were associated with them lived life of violence and performed illegal activities.
Chambal Valley lies about one hundred and fifty miles south of Delhi, the Capital of India.
The total area of Chambal is about 15,000 square miles.
This valley is divided into several district and forms part of Uttar Pradesh, madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
Therefore, there is a steady trafficking of smuggled goods, which flows from valley into Rajput States.

37. Contd… The gangs that operate in the Valley has their own laws.
They have extended their sway over the entire rural area of Chambal including the Urban Hinterland.
These dacoits treat their victims very brutally by chopping their noses, ears, killing for ransom.
Due to these reasons Chambal Valley decoits creates havoc in the entire surrounding areas and therefore there is a constant fear in the minds of the people.
Various Govts. Have tried to crush them but were not successful.
In 1959/60 a novel and interesting method was tried to settle this problem by converting these dacoits into law abiding citizens by changing their hearts.

38. Contd…
The Govt. though had a doubt in this matter, but they were sure that they would be successful because it was evident that the noted dacoit ‘Valya’ who later became Maharishi Valmiki, the great poet of epic Ramayana was converted to goodness by the sage Narada.
and Angulimal a Notorious dacoit repudiated his was of life and turned into a saint at the touch of Lord Budha and so Government of India planned for surrender of dacoits.
Surrender in modern times assumed important owing to its use as a means to control the ancient menace of dacoity and convert a large no. of dacoits and for this purpose Govt. invited Acharya Vinobha Bhave, a disciple of Mahatma Gandhi to convert the dacoits.

39. Acharya Vinobha Bhave

40. Vinoba bhave mission (1959-60)
He went to valley an met various bandits and addressed public meetings and requested:
Bandits to repudiate the evil path and pursue a decent life.
He visited most of the entire region of Chambal and appealed the dacoits to lay down their arms and adopt peaceful life.
He argued “No one is a born dacoit, this is a natural outcome of exploitation, mercilessness, cruelty and callousness.
The mission was successful.
Govt also agreed to implement all rehabilaltive schemes if dacoits voluntarily surrender.
In 1960 some 20 dacoits surrendered.

41. Contd…
But after that there were no surrenders.
Vinoba Bhave’s experiments proved to be failure.
Police withdrew their coo-operation.
This also led to a controversy over the matter between the mission and the Govt. due to political reasons.
Failure in this mission resulted in the increase in the illegal activities in the valley.

42. Contd…
But in 1971 through Protected Negotiation Mission the dacoits and the Govt. finally agreed to take effective steps as a solution of the problem.
On this occasion the work of Jay Prakash Narayan is a landmark.
Jay Prakash Nartayan made way for the mass surrender as a result of which 503 dacoits out of which 393 from Chambal area surrenderd along with their arms and property.
Jay Prakash Narayan then worked for their rehabilation and upliftment in industries and factories.
The surrendered dacoits were kept in open prison especially constituted for the purpose of self-reformation and treatment.
They were kept in open prison at Mungoli (District Guma) and Laxmipur (District Panna).

43. Jai prakash narayan