Dropping the proposed ACC Act

The proposed Anti-Corruption Commission (Amendment) Act which has been approved by the cabinet has come under severe criticism and for valid reasons from various quarters, most significantly from the civil society. All have strongly demanded dropping the proposed amendments, particularly those articles and clauses manifestly having the purport of clipping its wings. This amendment proposal has been placed in the parliament on February 28. The parliamentary committee on law, justice and parliamentary affairs has been given two weeks time for scrutiny, verification and appraisal. Seeking prior permission from the government for lodging cases against the civil servants is the most objectionable side of the proposed amendment. Firstly, this amendment proposal is discriminatory. Secondly, the ACC will lose its independence by the proposed Act. The ACC will cease to perform its due role in curbing corruption, if it needs to seek permission from the government for filing graft cases against the government officials starting from a member of the Union Parishad (UP) to the head of the government. The ACC chairman has admitted himself that the amendment proposal is inconsistent with the main purpose of the ACC, as there will hardly be any effective deterrent to corruption in public offices. Those who wield power and perform important government duties and responsibilities are vulnerable to corruption. The ACC will be able to file cases against any citizen, but not against government servants. Such a policy will be considered corruption-friendly. The proposed changes in the policy are not acceptable as the AL-led grand alliance government has come to power on the commitment of eradicating corruption from the country. The government appears to have taken this initiative unilaterally. The government not only failed to consult with the ACC, but also it did not take public opinion on this initiative. The government, as though, has done it spontaneously in a bid to protect corrupt government officials and for encouraging them to continue with their nefarious activities. There is a good case to be made out of the fact that the ACC was responsible for some excesses during the caretaker regime, but that should not be a reason for making it a scapegoat. In a democratic polity, the overriding concern is to establish the rights of the people where offences like corruption involving public servants should be a thing of the past. In a country like ours, misuse of public funds and bribery for service delivery are major causes for concern and if a law is made to shield them from direct ACC action, corruption will in effect be encouraged. So, if the independence of the ACC is curtailed, it will be meaningless to have an ACC at all. In the interest of democracy and the nation, instead of taking away the ACC's power, there is rather a need to strengthen it as much as possible. The independence of institutions like the Supreme Court and the ACC enhances the image of a country. The sanctity of such institutions has to be upheld by all means, so that the process of institutionalisation always gets the most consideration over individual interest. We hope that the members of the parliamentary committee entrusted with the responsibility of scrutinising the amendments will display their patriotism by recommending its cancellation. (The writer can be reached at e-mail: mlutforr@ovi.com)