Clipped from: https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/combating-corruption/article69793078.ece
Investigators need more power with safeguards
Investigating officials need to be empowered to fight corruption | Photo Credit: Andrii Yalanskyi
A recent Madras High Court decision that struck down a Central government order permitting anti-corruption agencies to monitor the telephone of a bribery case suspect should cause dismay among officers of CBI and similar agencies.
In taking exception to what it considered secretive intrusion into the privacy of a citizen the HC relied heavily on a strict reading of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act which permits monitoring of an individual’s telephone after obtaining the permission of the authorised official under special circumstances impinging on the security of the State, public emergency, public safety, etc. The circumstances provided for monitoring of phones (‘tapping’) by the Act does not include investigation of routine crime or acts of corruption.
There is near consensus over the need to combat corruption in high places. But the conflict arises over the mechanics used by the government bodies in fighting corruption.
Respecting rights
Some argue that the government investigative agencies must avoid harsh methods given that these are white collar crimes.
Experienced public servants believe that aggression in tackling corruption will need to be combined with a respect for human rights as often these cases are dogged by lack of conclusive proof.
It is acknowledged widely that political corruption and civil service misconduct go hand in hand. Corrupt politicians often operate through pliant civil servants.
It is very disturbing to see young IAS and IPS officers getting corrupted early in their careers.
In recent times, dishonest government officials, acting sometimes in tandem with a few in the private sector, have acquired incredible finesse in the art of lining their pockets.
With their thorough knowledge of investigative process, they often outwit the investigative agencies.
While there are still a few unscrupulous officials who are artless and crude, a majority are shrewd in hiding their misdeeds. They operate through middlemen to disrupt the chain of illegal transactions.
Also, receipt of bribes takes place unobtrusively in the most unlikely of venues. There is further the offer and receipt of favour in imaginative forms other than cash, making the job of unravelling corrupt acts more difficult. The investigative agencies need to adopt more sophisticated methods to combat corruption.
Given the scale of corruption, hawks in the CBI and State anti-corruption agencies tend to resort sometimes to questionable methods, including telephone monitoring, without the authorisation of the Home Secretary (both in Central and State governments) and for purposes not envisaged by law. This leads us to the age old ethical question: Does the end justify the means?
The Madras High Court was right in coming down heavily on unauthorised eavesdropping. But then should it not have taken into account the travails of anti-corruption agencies in producing credible evidence before courts against individuals who were suspected for robbing the exchequer?
Empowering officials
Since the law is often unable to deal with the growing sophistication of corruption, the higher judiciary should step in and direct governments to amend the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 to give greater discretion to anti-corruption officials in securing crucial evidence for fixing the corrupt.
It must be remembered that telephonic conversations could yield a lot of information that is vital to successful investigation and which will stand rigid judicial scrutiny.
The percentage of success in corruption cases remains shockingly low and we need to equip agencies with stronger tools, after providing the needed safeguards against abuse of authority.
The writer is a former CBI Director
Published on July 10, 2025
aniltikotekar4sme.com 