There is an old saying, "Make hay while the sun shines." But in the present climate of corruption in the country, not only do the "powers that be" make a lot of hay (or money), but are also willing to distribute the same to stay out of trouble.

The Central Bureau of Investigation arrested Assam's education minister Ripon Bora, along with his two associates, in New Delhi in June 2008 while allegedly paying Rs 10 lakhs as a bribe to an officer of the investigating agency. Bora is a suspect in a murder case that is being probed by the CBI on the direction of the Guwahati high court. The case pertains to the murder of Daniel Topno, a candidate in the 1996 Assembly elections. Topno was Bora's rival.

Before any legal action is taken, it is the standard requirement in the CBI to get a formal complaint from the affected party or parties even if he or she happens to be a CBI officer. This is the only way to set the law in motion.

There are two kinds of corruption cases. One, where the bribe is demanded by a public servant; and other, where bribe is offered to a public servant.

In the case of a complaint where bribe is demanded, the complainant is asked to get the currency notes treated with a special powder. The serial number of notes are written down before the bribe is paid. Witnesses are then procured in advance. They are so positioned, that when the transaction takes place they can see the money being handed over and overhear the conversation between the complainant and the bribe-taker. To maintain its credibility, the CBI gets witnesses from those government departments which do not have even a remote connection with the people involved in the corruption case. In fact, the CBI never uses the same set of witnesses twice. The advantage of this approach is that nobody can claim that the CBI produces the same "stock witnesses" in every case.

Unfortunately, corruption is on the rise in India. According to a Transparency International report based on the "Integrity Index", India is the 73rd most corrupt country in terms of integrity and honesty in public administration.

Incidentally, all MPs, MLAs as well as ministers are public servants. The same set of laws are applied to them as to other government employees.

Ministerial corruption is normally in the form of misuse of position to procure favours for themselves or family members or doing things for others for solid reasons and considerations. Bora's is probably the first case where, instead of demanding a bribe, the minister has been offering bribes.

There have also been allegations against an Orissa education minister (denied by him, of course), that the state board of secondary education officials manipulated his son's marksheet. It is alleged that the minister's son was given as much as 124 marks extra in the high school certificate examinations.

Another case, which has been widely reported and discussed, involves Union transport and shipping minister T.R. Baalu. It is said that the Prime Minister's Office wrote not one, but eight letters, between November 2007 and February 2008, to the ministry of petroleum and natural gas to expedite gas allocations to companies belonging to Mr Baalu's family members.

One more case, which came up in the Jharkhand high court, was the alleged transfer of a Central Coalfields Ltd executive to Northeastern Coalfields at the insistence of Union minister Subodh Kant Sahay. Mr Sahay was issued a notice by the high court and the transfer has since been stayed.

In his book, a former chief of revenue intelligence writes: "One (minister) of them served in the early 1980s. The other two ministers of state served in the late 1990s. An effective tool of administration and preventive vigilance was thus converted by them into a money-making device." He adds that the message, which was on many occasions "conveyed" through their personal staff, by way of justification was that such postings or transfers were being pressed by them to either discharge their duty as a "representative of the people" or as an "obligation" to their constituency or party... "Senior bureaucrats, including some at the highest levels, had no qualms... so long as it helped them secure their position or get a particular post or some post-retirement assignment or even a couple of months of extension. They are as guilty of destroying the system as the politicians."

As per the CVC Act, no investigation or inquiry can be initiated against an officer of the level of joint secretary or above without a government sanction. This was struck down by the Supreme Court in 1997, but was again introduced as a law. Even after such a sanction has been received, which itself is doubtful, a sanction is required to register a regular case. Again, for prosecution in a court of law, a formal government sanction is legally binding. Even after this is done, the government can always direct the investigating agency to withdraw the case from the court.

The exasperation of the nation on corruption has been best expressed by a Supreme Court bench: "Everyone wants to loot this country. The only deterrent is to hang a few corrupt persons from the lamppost... The law does not permit us to do it but otherwise we would prefer to hang people like you from the lamppost."

It is time to remind our leaders what Theodore Roosevelt said: "We cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic to permanently endure. Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a person is honest, we have no right to keep him or her in public life. It matters not how brilliant his capacity."

© Copyrights 2006 Asian Age.