Will ex-PM Get a Chance to Clear his Name in the Coal Scam? : Daily Current Affairs

Relevance: GS-2: Structure, Organization and Functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary.

Relevance: GS-4: Challenges of Corruption; Probity in Governance.

Key Phrases: Talabira-II coal block; Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; UNCAC;

Context

  • In March 2015, a trial court in Delhi summoned former PM Manmohan Singh as an accused in the case relating to the alleged irregular allotment of Talabira-II coal block in Odisha to Hindalco in 2005.
  • The Supreme Court (SC) stayed proceedings in 2015. The case has been pending since then.
  • Would the former PM get the chance to absolve his name?

Key Highlights

Why did the Supreme Court intervene?

  • The SC observed that certain important substantial questions of law as well as the constitutional validity of Section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 have been raised in the petitions.
  • These matters required examination, hence, the SC stayed the summons and admitted the appeals filed by Dr Singh and five other accused in April 2015.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

  • Provision
    • Section 13(1)(d)(iii) says that “A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest”.
  • Issue with the provision
    • MPs and MLAs have been exempted from the Act despite performing public obligations.
    • This has raised important substantial questions of law as well as the constitutional validity of the said section.
  • Amendment to the act (2018)
    • Giving bribes has been made a crime if not reported within 7 days.
    • Prior authorisation of the relevant Government or responsible body has been mandatory before starting the investigations.
    • A 2-year trial period restriction has been imposed. Any extension will require an explanation. This can’t be extended beyond 4 years.
    • The amendment has been brought in to align India’s fight against corruption to that of UNCAC (UN Convention Against Corruption).
  • Drawbacks
    • Prior permission from the relevant government will protect corrupt officials.
    • Post-retirement benefits have not been considered corrupt practices.
    • The quantum of fines on commercial companies involved in bribe-giving has not been defined.
    • No provision for whistle-blower protection.

Evolution of the case

  • Details of the case
    • Talabira-II coal mines are located in Sambalpur District, Odisha.
    • The accused in the case had been alleged to favour Hindalco.
    • After an SC-monitored investigation, Charge sheets in coal scam cases were filed by the CBI.
      • CBI had gotten the probe status report vetted by the then law minister (Ashwani Kumar) before submission to the SC.
    • Special CBI Judge Bharat Parashar had set aside the closure report of CBI on March 11, 2015.
    • He summoned the accused, including the former PM, which gave the Coal Scam case a sensational twist.
  • The delay
    • For more than 7 years, the proceedings have remained frozen, both in the trial court and the SC.
    • The order staying the trial court proceedings was passed when Justice H L Dattu was the CJI.
    • After him, 5 CJIs - Justices T S Thakur, J S Khehar, Dipak Misra, Ranjan Gogoi and S A Bobde - have completed their tenure.
    • None of the CJIs took steps to resolve the pending case.
    • None of the six accused persons nor their renowned advocates have made any attempt for early disposal of the appeals.
      • The case files and the appeals are gathering dust in the record rooms of the Patiala House courts and the SC, respectively.

Why there has been a delay?

  • This status quo suits all stakeholders - the accused, the government and the judiciary.
  • As none of them wants to embarrass the former PM, who cutting across party lines is regarded as an honest person.

Dr Singh had said that he respected the judicial process and would prove his innocence. Seven years have passed without the case coming up for hearing in the SC, without whose orders the trial cannot commence.

Conclusion

  • The SC can utilise this opportunity to bring relevant changes to the “Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988”. This would ensure proper protection of the honest officials and extend vigilance against the corrupt ones.

Source: The Economic Times

Mains Question

Q. What are the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act? What are its drawbacks and how can they be remedied?