India continues to have a strong economic growth rate with an annual GDP growth of 8-9%, and it has a relatively strong financial position after the global financial crisis has made it a preferred destination for foreign investment. According to the US Department of State 2011, the country remains among the most attractive locations for foreign direct investment (FDI). Nevertheless, local investment conditions may vary from state to state and, in some cases, within a state, due to varying levels of corruption and quality of government operations. Recent changes in FDI policy have tended towards greater liberalisation, while industrial policy reforms have substantially reduced industrial licensing requirements.

According to a press release by Value Notes, in January 2011, JPMorgan Asset Management India announced its findings of the Investment Confidence Index (ICI) in India. According to the report, corruption has now emerged as the new confidence killer among retail investors, corporate investors and financial advisors, ranking as the second most negative economic indicator after inflation. According to KPMG India Fraud Survey Report 2010, 75% of corporate respondents state that corporate fraud is increasing in India, while 81% of respondents perceive financial statement fraud as a major problem. The same survey also indicates that 38% of respondents perceive that bribery is an integral feature of industry practices, and 37% state that most bribes are paid to obtain routine administrative approvals from the Government. In March 2011, KPMG released another survey on bribery and corruption in India, which shows that the responding business executives perceive real estate and construction as the most corrupt sector in India, followed by the telecom sector. The survey also shows that 68% of respondents agree that in many instances corruption stems from the private sector. All respondents in the survey agree that corruption distorts the playing field and tends to attract companies with lesser capability to execute projects, while 99% of respondents agree that corruption creates inefficiency and hence increases costs. Furthermore, business executives surveyed by the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 confirm that corruption is a continuing obstacle to private sector development, ranking corruption among the most problematic factors for doing business in India. This perception is also highlighted by the US Department of State 2010, according to which, foreign companies report that corruption is among the obstacles to foreign direct investment, while local businessmen state that red tape and wide-ranging administrative discretion serve as a pretext to extort money. India ranks 19th out of 28 economies in the Transparency International Bribe Payers Index 2011, indicating that the perceived likelihood of Indian companies engage in bribery abroad is relatively high.

Companies experience corruption in every sector of the Indian economy, but studies show that the experience and perception differs depending on where they operate. India has a decentralised federal government system where regulatory requirements and corruption vary widely from area to area (see this profile's special page on regional differences in corruption and the regulatory environment). According to Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010, a majority of the surveyed households perceive the business and private sector as corrupt. The government tried to bring these malpractices to an end by making it compulsory for all companies to have their books and accounts audited annually, and for external auditors to report fraud committed by the companies they audit. Notwithstanding the government efforts, a huge scandal by the end of 2008 involving India's fourth largest IT company, Satyam Computers, has highlighted serious flaws in this system, which allowed the company to 'cook the books' for USD 1.5 billion, as reported by a 2009 news article by IPS. In addition, Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009 states that there have been cases of stock market fraud by brokers in collusion with corporations that aim to cheat investors and circumvent regulations. The Harshad Mehta securities fraud and the Ketan Mehta scam are two well-known scams in this regard. In both instances, brokers pushed up the prices of selected shares through artificial trade to attract retail investors and then suddenly withdrew from the trade, causing huge losses to the investors. In order to mitigate the risks of corruption when operating in India, companies are recommended to develop, implement and strengthen integrity systems and conduct extensive due diligence.

India's regulatory environment has been significantly simplified in most sectors and, according to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, its investment regime is now among the most liberal in Asia. However, the efforts to further liberalise the economy have reportedly been limited by the pressures of coalition politics. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government has struggled to implement some of its economic policies because of tensions among its distinct coalition partners on issues such as the privatisation of public sector assets and labour law reform. Privatisation has significantly slowed since the new government took office in 2004 (see the Ministry of Finance Department of Disinvestment for more information on privatisation tenders). The Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 reports that coalition politics have led to a weakened federal control of states, and several sources indicate that the resulting variance in regional regulatory environments corresponds with varying levels and types of corruption. For more information concerning these regional variations, see this profile's special page on regional differences in corruption and the regulatory environment. According to the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012, the regulatory burden imposed on companies operating in India remains cumbersome, costly and time-consuming. However, major reforms have improved the regulatory environment, such as the computerisation of certain business-relevant administrative procedures. The National Portal includes useful tools for companies seeking information on market entry and necessary licences and permits. Companies should also consult the website of the Investment and Trade Promotion Division of the Ministry of External Affairs for useful information and contacts for foreign investors.

Private local and foreign companies are allowed in nearly every sector of the economy. There are no requirements to employ Indian nationals and restrictions on employing foreign technicians and managers have been removed. However, the economy is still constrained by complex rules and a bureaucracy with broad discretionary powers. Business clearance by the authorities is therefore time-consuming and costly. According to the World Bank & IFC Doing Business 2012, setting up a company in India requires an average of 12 administrative steps, which may take as long as 29 days at a cost of 46.8% of GNI per capita. The World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2006 reports that senior management can expect to spend close to 7% of its time dealing with the requirements of government regulation.

According to the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, property rights are adequately defined, although the acquisition of new land for use by companies is reportedly very difficult, costly and heavily contested politically. Companies should also note that dispute settlement in India is time-consuming due to the massively backlogged and understaffed courts. India is ranked 132nd out of 183 countries by Doing Business 2012, with respect to the ease and cost of enforcing contracts. Moreover, foreign investors often complain about a lack of sanctity of contracts, as reported by the US Department of State 2011. According to the Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2007, judicial delays are coupled with the cumbersome bureaucracy in the judicial system and fuel the use of bribes in relation to dispute settlement. In addition, business executives surveyed in the World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 report that the judiciary is not fully independent from political influences of members of government, citizens or companies. In an attempt to speed up the settlement of commercial disputes, the Government of India has set up the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR) as an autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Law and Justice and Company Affairs. In an effort to unify its adjudication of disputes over commercial contracts with the rest of the world, India enacted the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). India is the only country in the South Asian region that is not a member of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), but is a member of the New York Convention of 1958. Companies are recommended to include provisions for international arbitration in their contracts. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection of legislation in India.

India exhibits great regional variations in the level and impact of corruption. India is a union of 28 states (plus 6 union territories and the capital, New Delhi). Each of the local governments holds wide legislative powers, including areas such as public procurement (see the Corruption Levels and Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives for more information) and anti-corruption bureaus. The CMI’s India Corruption Study 2010 covers four key public sectors in 12 different states. The covered sectors are the public distribution system (PDS, one of the largest distribution networks providing food grains at lower than market price), school education, water supply and hospital services. The illustrative findings of the study are as follows:

• Bihar and Chhattisgarh were the two states where they had the most household respondents perceiving corruption in public services as having increased in 2008 (66% respectively), while Tripura (19%) had the least respondents perceiving corruption in public services as having increased.
• Bihar (62%), Chhattisgarh (58%), and Uttar Pradesh (50%) had the most rural household respondents who believed that there was an increase in the level of the corruption in the public distribution system (PDS).
• Andhra Pradesh (55%), Bihar (43%) and Uttar Pradesh (49%) had the most rural households that believed that the level of corruption had increased in school education services, while Kerala (15%) had the least respondents who perceived that corruption in school education services had increased.
• Bihar (73%), Uttar Pradesh (54%) and Haryana (46%) had the most rural households that believed that the level of corruption in water supply services had increased in 2008, while states with the least households that perceived the level of corruption had increased in water supply services were Karnataka (21.8%) and Himachal Pradesh (21.3%).
• The states where a high percentage of rural households reported an increase in the level of corruption in hospital services in 2008 were Bihar (67.2%), Chhattisgarh (47.8%) and Uttar Pradesh (46%), while the states with the least households that perceived the level of corruption had increased were Himachal Pradesh (21%) and Tripura (23.8%). 

Overall, 45% of the rural household respondents in the 2010 study perceived corruption in public services to have increased, a decline from 70% in the 2005 study. It is important to note that the study ranks the states on petty corruption using information from a household survey rather than from a business survey, which would indicate how companies are affected by corruption in different states. Transparency International India & CMS 2007 indicate that households below the poverty line are disproportionately affected by corruption both in urban and rural areas.

Similarly, companies will find great sub-national variations in the regulatory environment. India has a decentralised federal system of government, where state governments hold broad regulatory powers. This means that important regulatory issues such as land-use and environmental regulations may vary from one state to another. A study by the World Bank & IFC, Doing Business in India 2011, includes a comparative study of the business environment in 17 major Indian cities. Some of the findings of the study are presented below:

• Starting a company takes longest in Kochi (41 days) and in Bengaluru (40 days), whereas the same procedure in Noida is considerably less time-consuming (30 days). However, it is also pointed out that starting a company in Patna is less costly than in Bengaluru (38.5% of income per capita, versus 64.7%).
• Hyderabad requires the lowest number of days to fulfil all regulatory requirements to build a warehouse (80 days) compared to Kolkata (258 days), which performs worst in this category among the cities studied. The cost of obtaining licences for building a warehouse is lowest in Patna (204.4% of income per capita) and highest in Mumbai (2,717.7% of income per capita).
• Registering property is faster in Jaipur (24 days) than in Kolkata (107 days) and Bhubaneswar (126 days). However, the cost of property registration is lowest in Ranchi (5.4% of property value) and highest in Noida (25.4% of property value).
• Trading across borders in India is characterised by a cumbersome bureaucracy, but again, regional differences are substantial. Importing and exporting operations run most smoothly from Bhubabeswar's port (16 days to import, 17 days to export) closely followed by Ahmedabad (18 days to import, 17 days to export). Import-export operations take longest time in Ranchi (36 days to import, 21 days to export).
• Commercial disputes before courts in India are among the lengthiest in South Asia. Again, Indian cities perform differently in the area of contract enforcement, with the shortest durations found in Guwahati (600 days) and Kochi (705 days) and the longest in Ahmedabad (1,295 days) and in Mumbai (1,420 days).

Another 2011 study jointly conducted by Indicus Analytics, Cato Institut & Friedrich Naumann Stiftung compared the 20 Indian states’ relative levels of economic freedom and opportunity in 2009. The study is based on three parameters that are: the size of the state government, legal structure and security of property rights, and regulations of business and labour.

• With regards to legal structure and security of property rights, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh rank the highest in this regard, while Bihar, West Bengal and Assam are ranked as the bottom three states.
• Regarding business and labour regulation, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu are ranked as the top three states while Chhattisgarh, Bihar and Punjab are ranked as the bottom three.
• Overall, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat illustrate the biggest improvement in economic freedom between 2005 and 2009, while Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Uttarakhand, Punjab and Himachal Pradesh show large declines in economic freedom in the same period.
• Furthermore, the report also lists some positive developments carried out by Andhra Pradesh’s state government during the observed timeframe, amongst others, the reduction of waste and corruption.

Individual Corruption

According to Freedom House 2011, the judiciary, particularly at the lower levels, is reportedly rife with corruption, and most citizens have great difficulty securing effective and fair case resolution through the courts. Citizens report that court procedures are very slow and complicated and that the court system fuels the use of bribes and other kinds of influence-peddling. People give bribes to obtain a favourable judgment, but bribes are also used to influence public prosecutors. This is illustrated by the Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010, in which a substantial number of household respondents reported having paid a bribe to the judiciary in 2009. According to the US Department of State 2010, bribes are reportedly paid to move a case more rapidly through the system.

Business Corruption

There are indications that when interacting with the judiciary, companies are faced with the same problems of cumbersome bureaucracy and corruption as ordinary citizens. The court system is severely backlogged and understaffed and, according to Freedom House 2011, there are currently millions pending civil and criminal cases - many of these being disputes involving companies. Although computerisation has enhanced the efficiency of the courts, enforcing contracts is still so time-consuming that the World Bank & IFC Doing Business 2012 reports that India is among the worst economies in the world in terms of time taken to enforce commercial contracts. Despite government efforts to the contrary, companies continue to deal with a cumbersome judicial bureaucracy.

Political Corruption

The higher judiciary in India is usually considered to be more clean and transparent than the lower levels of the judiciary. According to Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2008, the Supreme Court is taking both political and general corruption seriously and bringing the issues of corruption into its judgments. However, there are only a few recent examples of corruption and political protection of High Court and Supreme Court judges involved in problematic cases of judicial favours. According to Freedom House 2011, judges have, in recent years, initiated several contempt-of-court cases against activists and journalists, raising questions about their misuse of the laws to intimidate those who expose the behaviour of corrupt judges or question verdicts. According to Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, the courts remain institutionally autonomous, in spite of pressures by the executive, which interferes with judicial nominations and transfers politically unpopular judges. As for public prosecutors, there are reports of vacancies being filled by a sort of 'auction process' whereby the person paying the highest bribe is hired.

According to a February 2011 news article by Rediff News, the upper house of parliament in India was scheduled to take up the impeachment motion against Justice Soumitra Sen, a High Court judge for allegedly receiving INR 4.2 million as a court-appointed receiver and depositing the amount in his personal account. According to a September 2011 article by BBC News, the upper house of parliament had voted to impeach Sen, and the lower house of parliament was scheduled to vote on the impeachment. However, Sen resigned from his position before the impeachment vote. According to the same article, if the lower house had voted against Sen, he would have become the first senior judge to be impeached in India. 

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- Enforcing a commercial contract through Indian courts requires a company to go through an average of 46 administrative procedures, takes an average of 1,420 days and costs more than 39% of the claim.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the independence of the judiciary from influences of members of government, citizens, or companies a score of 4.3 on a 7-point scale (1 'heavily influenced' and 7 'entirely independent').

- Business executives give the efficiency of the legal system for private companies to settle disputes and to challenge the legality of government actions and/or regulations a score of 3.7 and 3.9 respectively on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'highly efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Citizens give the judiciary a score of 3.1 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

- 45% of households who had contact with the judiciary in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008:
- Business executives give the judiciary a score of 2.9 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

Individual Corruption

According to Transparency International India & CMS 2007, the most common services for which households pay bribes, is filing complaint and FIR (First Information Report: a record of an alleged crime), to remove name as witness, to obtain a passport, for verification for a job, for a character certificate, or when in violation of traffic laws. Furthermore, the US Department of State 2010 also reports that corruption in the police force is pervasive, a fact acknowledged by several government officials. According to the report, police officers at all levels act with impunity and they are rarely held accountable for illegal actions. Allegedly, when a court found an officer guilty of a crime, the punishment was often a transfer. The report also reveals that citizens often had to pay bribes to receive police services.

According to the Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010, a significant amount of household respondents perceive the police to be ‘extremely corrupt’, and more than three out of five respondents reported having paid a bribe when interacting with police officers in 2009. Furthermore, Freedom House 2011 also reports that it is not uncommon for suspects to be subjected to torture or abuse by police officers, in order to extract confessions or bribes.

Business Corruption

Police extortion from companies is not uncommon. This is supported by business executives surveyed in the Transparency International Bribe Payers Index 2008, who perceive the police as the most corrupt institution in India. Furthermore, business executives surveyed in World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012 state that the Indian police cannot be consistently relied upon to enforce law and order.

According to a 2009 survey released by Trace International, between July and October 2008, a total 96 anonymous reports about bribery demands were filed on Trace’s Business Registry for International Bribery and Extortion (BRIBEline). Police officers accounted for nearly one-third of all the bribe demands reported.

Political Corruption

According to Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, Indian police forces are politically dependent, prone to corruption, and misuse their power. Partly due to high levels of politicisation, police recruitment across India is rife with corruption, and political supporters are sometimes granted positions in the police force. However, according to the same source, some changes for the better have nonetheless been observed. For example, the Supreme Court has mandated that a police commission be established to investigate police corruption, and it has ruled that corrupt officers can be prosecuted without government consent.

According to a 2008 article by The Times of India, 15 officials including police officers were arrested in New Delhi for alleged bribery and extortion in October 2008. These officers allegedly extorted shop owners, forcing them to pay sums ranging from INR 500 to INR 30,000 as 'protection money' on a monthly basis.

Frequency

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the reliability of India's police services to enforce law and order a score of 4.1 on a 7-point scale (1 'cannot be relied upon at all' and 7 'can always be relied upon').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- Citizens give the police a score of 4.1 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

- 40% of households surveyed consider the police to be 'extremely corrupt'.

- 64% of households who had contact with the police in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

Trace International: Business Registry for International Bribery and Extortion – India Report 2009:
- Of the 96 passive bribery reports filed between July 2007 and October 2008, police officers accounted for 30% of bribe demands.

Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008:
- Business executives give the police a score of 4.2 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt'), thus indicating the police as the most corrupt institution in India.

Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007:
- 48% of households availing the services of the police in the last one year report having paid bribes - the highest figure among the institutions surveyed (16% used a contact and 4.5% did not take the service because asked for a bribe).

- 78% of households surveyed perceived the police to be corrupt.

- 92% of bribes are reported by households to be paid directly to police officials and 8% through a middleman.

- It is estimated that a total of INR 2.15 billion is paid bribes per year to the police.

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006:
- Around 12% of companies surveyed identify crime, theft and disorder as a major constraint on doing business.

Individual Corruption

Transparency International Global Corruption Report 2008 reveals that citizens are often exposed to corruption when interacting with public agencies responsible for the provision of water. More than half of the responding households stated that the water supply department is corrupt, and a majority felt that corruption had increased within the water department. Moreover, one out of five respondents has gotten work done through ‘alternative means’ such as bribery or via influence. Another survey conducted by Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010 also illustrates that a majority of the responding households reported having paid a bribe to obtain utility services and registry and permit services.

Moreover, according to a 2010 news article by Bloomberg Businessweek, in India, people can get a driver’s licence ‘as easily as [getting] a chai [tea]’. The same article also reports that driver licence applicants pay USD 65 in bribes to ‘agents’, who in return, spend USD 1 to bribe licensing officials to ensure that applicants get their driver’s licence without waiting for paperwork, and without having to go through driving tests.

Business Corruption

Companies report that the administrative procedures surrounding the provision of public supplies, such as water and electricity, are generally cumbersome. Companies should prepare themselves for these administrative procedures that are often followed by demands for facilitation payments. This is confirmed by the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2006, in which a high number of companies report that they expect to give gifts in return for access to a range of public utilities, licences and permits.

Another site for corrupt practices is the business inspections conducted by government officials. Thus, Global Integrity 2009 reports that, in practice, business inspections by government officials to ensure public health and safety standards are usually carried out in an arbitrary and ad-hoc manner, and that bribes are paid by companies in return for favourable treatment or expedited processing.

Political Corruption

Corruption in infrastructure and construction projects, often involving high-level officials, is considered as a major problem in India. According to Bertelsmann Foundation 2010, licences are frequently awarded to the highest bidder.

In September 2009, a former Delhi municipality engineer was sentenced by a Delhi court to four years' imprisonment for taking a bribe of USD 530 for allowing construction of a building in an industrial area, according to the US Department of State 2009.

In 2009, officials from the Tamil Nadu Directorate for Vigilance and Anti-corruption (DVAC) raided the homes and offices of the vice chancellor of Coimbatore Anna University. According to the US Department of State 2009, the raids stemmed from a petition in the Madras High Court alleging that the vice chancellor amassed wealth far beyond his legitimate sources of income. Charges against the vice chancellor included accepting bribes to grant affiliation between the university and more than 100 private colleges and for awarding university contracts, according to the report.

Several sources, such as Reuters and Time, have in 2010 and 2011 been running a series of articles about the 2G telecom scandal that took place in 2007-2008. The scandal has been dubbed one of India’s biggest corruption scandals in decades. The former Telecommunications Minister, Andimuthu Raja, was arrested in February 2011 on charges of massive graft that may have caused the Indian government a loss of USD 39 billion in revenues. Raja was accused of selling telecom licences to companies, some of which were ineligible, at below-market prices in 2007-2008. Several telecom companies, such as Swan Telecom, allegedly benefited from the government sale by re-selling the licence at a high premium. Several high level officials, including MP Kanimozhi and Dayanidhi Maran, of which the latter served as a telecom minister from 2004-2007, were also implicated in the scandal, as reported in 2011 articles by The Wall Street Journal and BBC News. In November 2011, a trial for India's biggest corruption scandal has begun with the questioning of the first witnesses. According to a November 2011 article by BBC News, the trial is expected to be long and complex.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- Dealing with construction permits in India requires a company to go through 34 administrative steps, which take an average of 227 days at a cost of over 1631% of income per capita.

- Starting a company requires the entrepreneur to go through 12 procedures, taking 29 days and costing nearly 47% of income per capita.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give government administrative requirements (permits, regulations, reporting) in India a score of 3 on a 7-point scale (1 'extremely burdensome' and 7 'not burdensome at all').

KPMG: Survey on Bribery and Corruption 2011:
- 17% of the surveyed business respondents perceive the telecommunications sector to be the most corrupt sector in India.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 61% of households who had contact with registry and permit services in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

- 47% of households who had contact with the utilities services in 2009 report to having paid a bribe.

- 26% of households who had contact with medical services in 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

Trace International: Business Registry for International Bribery and Extortion – India Report 2009:
- Of the total reported bribe demands at the national level between July 2007 and October 2008, 9% originated from the national office of water.

Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008:
- Business executives give the registry and permit services a score of 3.7 on a 5-point scale (1 being 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006:
- 67% of the surveyed companies report that they expect to give gifts in order to obtain a construction permit.

- 52.5% of the surveyed companies report that they expect to give gifts in order to obtain an operating licence.

- 20% of the surveyed companies report that they expect to give gifts in order to get a phone connection.

- 39.5% of the surveyed companies report that they expect to give gifts to obtain an electrical connection.

- 26.5% of the surveyed companies report that they expect to give gifts in order to arrange a water connection.

Individual Corruption

According to Transparency International India & CMS 2007, the Land Records and Registration Department is one of the most corrupt public services in India. Obtaining an income certificate, obtaining land record, sale/purchase deed, mutation, land survey, caste certificate and property tax are services that are frequently accompanied by demands for bribes. Furthermore, Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010 reveals that more than three out of five responding households reported to have paid a bribe to land services in 2009.

Business Corruption

Companies should note that it is the lack of flexibility in the Indian system of land transfer and the many encounters with public officials that opens the way for them to demand bribes. According to the US Department of State 2011, the legal system places a number of restrictions on transfer of land with unclear titles, which complicates any land transaction. Critics point to the absence of a reliable system for recording secured interest in property, which makes it difficult to use property as collateral. This lack of transparent and consistent regulation creates wide discretionary powers for public officials.

According to KPMG’s Survey on Bribery and Corruption 2011, the real estate and construction sector is viewed by the surveyed business respondents as most prone to corruption. The report also lists some key factors contributing to corruption in the real estate and construction industry, amongst others, paying bribes to obtain routine administrative approvals and to cover up inconsistencies in quality of work and documentation.

Political Corruption

According to several 2008 and 2009 articles by Express India and Thaindian News, in 2003, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) opened a case against former Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati, the environment minister and four other senior officials for diverting a river and reclaiming land for the construction of shopping malls, shops and amusement facilities near the Taj Mahal complex. The state government had granted land to Jaypee Industries free of cost to construct an eight-lane expressway linking Agra to New Delhi. The state government waived a stamp duty worth around INR 500 million and also gave the contractor exclusive rights to construct commercial hubs and five-star hotels along the expressway. The ministers and senior officials indicted had not obtained planning consent. Moreover, they had released more than INR 17 million without sanction and had ignored other procedures. It was reported that some INR 175 million disappeared during the so-called Taj Heritage Corridor scam. After investigation, the case was recommended for prosecution.

After the election of May 2007, Mayawati returned to office as Chief Minister in Uttar Pradesh. On 3 June 2007, the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, the competent authority in this situation, refused to grant sanction to the CBI to prosecute her in the Taj case, claiming that there was a lack of evidence, which subsequently sparked public interest litigation (PIL). Thereafter, Mayawati appealed to the Supreme Court against the PIL, pleading to have the corruption case against her scrapped on the charge that the case is politically motivated and illegal. However, The Hindu reports that the Supreme Court had rejected her plea against the PIL in November 2009, thus paving the way for the CBI to prosecute her. The case was still ongoing, as of October 2011, according to Hindustan Times.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- Registering property in India requires a company to go through an average of 5 administrative procedures, which takes an average of 44 days and costs 7.3% of the property value.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the protection of property rights in India, including financial assets, a score of 4.3 on a 7-point scale (1 'very weak' and 7 'very strong').

KPMG: Survey on Bribery and Corruption 2011:
- 32% of the surveyed business respondents perceive the real estate and construction to be the most corrupt sector in India.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 62.5% of the households surveyed reported to have paid a bribe to land services in 2009.

Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007:
- 36% of the households availing the services of the land records/registration during the previous year report having paid bribes - the second highest figure among the institutions surveyed (9.7% used a contact and 4% did not take the service because they were asked for a bribe).

- 69% of the households surveyed perceived the land records/registration to be corrupt.

- 82% of the bribes are paid directly to the land records/registration officials, while 17% of the bribes are paid through a middleman, as reported by the surveyed households.

- It is estimated that a total of INR 1.24 billion is paid bribes per year to the land records/registration.

Individual Corruption

Citizens report that corruption thrives within the Income Tax Department. According to Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010, more than half of the surveyed households who had contact with tax revenue departments in 2009 reported having paid a bribe.

Business Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2009, companies frequently interact with tax officials, who visit plants to carry out inspections. These officials enforce the complex tax rules and regulations relevant for business operations and enjoy considerable discretion in deciding which rules to enforce, to whom these rules should apply, and when and how they should be used. Moreover, companies report that inspection visits are often arbitrary and excessive, at times serving as avenues for demanding bribes. Many companies choose to pay off tax officials in order to avoid disruptions in production schedules and staff time. Consequently, the majority of companies surveyed in the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2006 report that they give gifts in their meetings with tax inspectors.

Moreover, according to Global Integrity 2009, some groups, such as well-connected individuals or companies, may consistently avoid paying taxes due to their connections.

Political Corruption

Tax evasion by politicians, bureaucrats and businesspeople in India is common. According to a 2008 article by Merinews, a sum of more than USD 1.4 trillion has been deposited in Swiss banks into personal accounts belonging to Indians. Allegedly, most of this wealth is misappropriated public money and has been acquired through corrupt means, leading to demands for the money to be returned to India for debt and poverty relief. According to a January 2011 news article by Global Post, in 2008, the Government of Germany offered its help to share information with India concerning some wealthy Indians who hold secret accounts in the tax haven of Liechtenstein, however, the Indian government was initially reluctant to accept the offer, and only finally accepted the offer after public pressure. According to the article, the Supreme Court and the opposition parties have been heavily criticising the government for keeping the list of the tax evaders’ names secret from the public and failing to launch actions against them. A Supreme Court lawyer alleged that the government is either ‘protecting their own party members or the corporations who have bribed them’, according to the same article.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- A medium-size company operating in India must make an average of 33 payments to the tax authorities each year, taking an average of 254 hours.

- The total tax rate as percentage of profit is nearly 62%.

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 51% of households who had contact with tax revenue services throughout 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

Trace International: Business Registry for International Bribery and Extortion – India Report 2009:
 - Of the total reported bribe demands at the national level between July 2007 and October 2008,  13% originated from the national office of taxation.

Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008:
- Business executives give the tax revenue authorities a score of 3.1 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006:
- 52% of companies report that they expect to give gifts in meetings with tax inspectors.

- Over 21% of companies identify tax administration as a major constraint to doing business.

- Over 59% of companies report that a typical company reports less than 100% of its sales for tax purposes.

Individual Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2006, the customs department is generally viewed as rife with corruption, favouritism and nepotism. Corruption within the department affects ordinary citizens and, consequently, the department enjoys little credibility among the general public. Furthermore, a substantial number of responding households from the Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010 state that they have paid a bribe to the customs department in 2009.

Business Corruption

Companies can expect routine visits from customs inspectors and, as in many other government sectors, customs inspectors hold considerable discretion in deciding which rules to enforce and to whom these should be applied. Thus, Global Integrity 2009 reports that customs and excise laws are seldom enforced uniformly or without discrimination in practice, and some groups are likely to evade customs and excise laws due to their connections.

Time-consuming bureaucracy related to trade across borders also opens the way for public officials to demand bribes. A significant number of companies in the World Bank & IFC Enterprise Surveys 2006 report that they expect to give gifts to obtain import licences. Similarly, according to the World Economic Forum Global Enabling Trade Report 2010, trade in India is impeded by customs procedures, which remain largely inefficient. In addition, according to the report, exporting and importing require much time and paperwork to clear goods at the border, and the process is plagued by corruption and bribery.

Frequency

The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012:
- A standard export shipment of goods requires 8 documents and takes an average of 16 days at a cost of USD 1,095 per container.

- A standard import shipment of goods requires 9 documents and takes an average of 20 days at a cost of USD 1,070 per container.

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012:
- Business executives give the efficiency of customs procedures (formalities regulating the entry and exit of merchandise) in India a score of 3.8 on a 7-point scale (1 being 'extremely inefficient' and 7 'extremely efficient').

Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010:
- 39% of households who had contact with the customs administration throughout 2009 report to have paid a bribe.

World Economic Forum: The Global Enabling Trade Report 2010:
- Business executives give the transparency of border administration (pervasiveness of undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with imports and exports) in India a score of 3.4 on a 7-point scale (1 'non-transparent' and 7 'transparent').

Trace International: Business Registry for International Bribery and Extortion – India Report 2009:
- Of the total reported bribe demands at the national level, 13% was from the national office of customs.

Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008:
- Business executives give the customs a score of 3.3 on a 5-point scale (1 'not at all corrupt' and 5 'extremely corrupt').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006:
- 46% of companies report that they expect to give gifts to obtain an import licence.

Business Corruption

According to the US Department of State 2010, public procurement regarding telecommunications and power has been particularly subjected to allegations of corruption over the past few years, and several government employees and public figures have been indicted or convicted. Foreign companies should take note that the Indian government permits a price preference for local suppliers over foreign suppliers in government contracts, as reported by the US Commercial Service 2011.

According to Global Integrity 2009, there are cases where companies that violated procurement regulations have managed to circumvent the law through connections and thereby continue to participate in biddings. There are also cases where companies have succeeded in returning to the procurement system after having been barred from bidding in the past and well recorded proof of their prior involvement in bribery. Furthermore, according to KPMG India Fraud Survey Report 2010, half of the surveyed corporate respondents perceive procurement and sales and distribution to be the most vulnerable areas for fraud.

Companies are recommended to use a specialised public procurement due diligence tool in order to mitigate corruption risks related to public procurement in India. See more on public procurement under 'Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives' in the Initiatives section.

Political Corruption

Public procurement and contracting in India has been marred by major corruption scandals involving high-level politicians. For example, in 2009, the chairman of the state-controlled Ordinance Factory Board was arrested for taking bribes in exchange for military contracts. The scandal has resulted in the blacklisting of 7 major Indian and international arms dealers, according to a 2009 article by Asia Sentinel.

In August 2009, the director of Medical and Rural Health Services, was arrested by the Tamil Nadu Directorate for Vigilance and Anti-corruption (DVAC) on charges of corruption. According to the US Department of State 2010, the director, responsible for the procurement of medicines for a large number of hospitals, had allegedly received a USD 17,700 bribe in exchange for a drug supply contract worth USD 3.1 million.

In October 2010, offices of the companies providing sports surfaces and training equipment for the Delhi Commonwealth Games, were raided by tax inspectors, probing allegations of corruption linked to this event. In the course of these raids, tender and contract documents have reportedly been seized, according to a 2010 article by The Sydney Morning Herald. According to the article, complaints have been received by the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) alleging that up to USD 1.8 billion of Games money has been embezzled. Claims include payments to non-existent parties, wilful delays in executing contracts and over-inflated prices for many items including toilet rolls and treadmills. According to an August 2011 article by BBC News, the head of the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee is already serving his prison sentence on corruption charges. Click here to read the 2011 report on performance audit of the Commonwealth Games, prepared by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.

In February 2011, the former Kerala Minister, R Balakrishna Pillai and two other officials, were all sentenced to one year in prison for corruption in the rewarding of a contract for a hydropower project. According to Times of India, the prosecution asserted that Pillai had played a key role in the plot, which caused a loss of over INR 20 million to the Kerala State Electricity Board.

See more on public procurement under 'Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives' in the Initiatives section.

Frequency

World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011:
- Business executives give the diversion of public funds to companies, individuals, or groups due to corruption a score of 2.9 on a 7-point scale (1 'very common' and 7 'never occurs').

- Business executives give the favouritism of government officials towards well-connected companies and individuals when deciding upon policies and contracts a score of 2.7 on a 7-point scale (1 'always show favouritism' and 7 'never show favouritism').

The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006:
- 24% of the companies surveyed expect to give gifts to secure a government contract.

- In order to secure a government contract, companies expect to give a gift worth 1% of the contract.

Business Corruption

According to Global Integrity 2009, business inspections by government officials to ensure public environmental standards are often carried out in an arbitrary and ad-hoc manner, and bribes are sometimes extracted from companies in return for favourable treatment or expedited processing.

Corruption, looting, fixed bidding and kickbacks in India's mining sector are reportedly common. According to a 2008 article by Asia Times, mining companies, such as Jammu Kashmir Minerals Ltd (JKML) operating in the corrupt and unstable Kashmir state, have been accused of undervaluing gems and other resources in auction processes to benefit certain traders and high level officials. JKML, despite the potential of massive profits from its holdings, including vast sums of sapphire, remains dependent on government aid and is unable to pay its employees for months on end. Suspicion has also been raised over JKML employees accused of being involved in profitable smuggling rings in Kashmir. Corruption in the sector and the absence of accountability have taken their toll on the mining industry and in some cases prevented what could be valuable development.

Political Corruption

According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2008, corruption is estimated to add at least 25% to irrigation contracts. The rise of cost induced by corruption has made the irrigation system inefficient and small farmers are the group that has suffered most.

Frequency

Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007:
- Approximately 36% of households below the poverty line (BPL) believe that corruption exist in the forest service.

- Approximately 13% of BPL households that interacted with forest related service either paid bribe or used contact to avail the service during the previous year.

• Legislation: The Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and its 2008 amendment is a specialised law aimed at curbing corruption in India. It criminalises corruption in the form of attempted corruption, active and passive bribery, extortion, abuse of office, and money laundering. Public servants' involvement in private sector activities is also restricted by law. Moreover, a Prevention of Money Laundering Act has been in force since 2002. Companies operating in India should familiarise themselves with relevant federal level laws, but should bear in mind that laws in key areas may differ from state to state (see this profile's special page on regional differences in corruption and the regulatory environment). Consult the homepages of the state governments to obtain information on specific state laws. Currently, the bribery of foreign officials is not criminalised under the domestic laws. However, in March 2011, the government introduced a new bill which states that any person ‘holding a legislative, executive, administrative or judicial office of a foreign country’ and accepts or gives bribes to secure a contract in India can be punished with up to seven years imprisonment. At present, the bill is under the review of the Legislature, as reported in a September 2011 article by MSN News. Furthermore, according to an October 2011 article by Hindustan Times, private-to-private sector bribery will soon be criminalised, as the union home ministry is set to add a chapter in the Indian Penal Code to address corruption in the private sector. So far the domestic laws have been only focusing on public sector corruption. The Right to Information Act (RTI Act), which took effect in October 2005, has played a central role in the fight against corruption in India. According to the RTI Act, citizens have the right to access government documents within 30 days from the filing of the request. Thereby, a mechanism of control of public spending has been granted to ordinary citizens. Some commentators are enthusiastic about the effects of the RTI Act, while others point at the difficulty citizens from rural areas have to make full use of the law and to the need of making citizens and public servants more aware of the RTI Act. For example, among others, Reuters has pointed out in a July 2010 article that the RTI Act measure has largely failed to reach the country's poor. Read more about the RTI Act and different views about its implementation on the Transparency Reviews regularly published by the Centre for Media Studies. India signed the UN Convention against Corruption in 2003, and after continuous delays it was finally ratified May 2011. Access the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection legislation in India.

• Government Strategies: In September 2010, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) unveiled the long-awaited long-term governmental anti-corruption initiative, the Draft National Anti-Corruption Strategy. The Draft Strategy aims at creating a legal and regulatory anti-corruption framework and strengthening the existing institutions to effectively combat corruption. This draft piece of legislation is expected to increase the role of institutions such as the CVC, Central Bureau of Investigation, Comptroller and Auditor General, as well as the various anti-corruption agencies. It is also expected to address political and administrative corruption, as well as corruption within the private sector, according to a September 2010 article by Legal Perspectives. Among other governmental measures, a 'Vigilance Awareness Week' is held every year by public authorities to make people and stakeholders aware of the new anti-corruption measures/systems, which have been put in place within the organisation. Independence of civil servants is sought by various initiatives, such as, among others, the rotation of senior officials in sensitive positions every two to three years and the prohibition for civil servants to accept gifts/lavish hospitality by companies with which they are having official dealings unless the government has given its approval.

• Anti-Corruption Agencies: India has a number of institutions at the federal and state level with authority to deal with allegations of corruption. Each state is responsible for setting up local anti-corruption agencies that have powers to investigate cases of corruption involving public officials at state level. Links to the local anti-corruption bureaus can be found at state government websites. An example of such a bureau is the Anti-Corruption Bureau of Maharashtra. The most important federal anti-corruption institutions are discussed below.

• Office of the Ombudsman: There is no national ombudsman in India. According to Global Integrity 2009, the Lokpal Bill (People’s Ombudsman Bill) was introduced to the Parliament eight times but all failed to become law. According to a February 2011 news article by Rediff, the draft Lokpal Bill 2010 was sent to Prime Minsiter Manmohan Singh and all chief ministers in December 2010, however, no answer has been received. According to several 2011 news articles such as The Times of India, in April 2011, a social activist, Anna Hazare began his hunger strike demanding a stronger Lokpal Bill. After months of protests as well as debates on the content of the bill, on 4 August 2011, the government’s version of the Lokpal Bill was tabled in the Parliament. However, Hazare and other activists objected to the draft on the grounds that the Ombudsman should have the power to investigate the prime minister and the judges. On 27 August 2011, the government finally agreed to the three key conditions set by Hazare, which were the creation of a Citizen's charter, inclusion of lower bureaucracy under the Lokpal through appropriate mechanism and the creation of Lokayuktas (Ombudsmen at state level). As of October 2011, it remains unknown when the bill will get approved and passed into law.

• Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): The CBI functions under the Ministry of Personnel, Pension & Public Grievances. The CBI consists of three divisions: the Anti-Corruption Division, the Special Crimes Division, and the Economic Offences Division. These units have the power to investigate cases of alleged corruption in all branches of the central government, ministries, public sector entities and the Union Territories. The CBI does not have the power to investigate cases in the states without the permission of the respective state government. However, the Supreme and High Courts can instruct the CBI to conduct investigations. In 2008, the CBI launched a successful corruption awareness campaign via text message in collaboration with telecom service providers in Delhi and Mumbai. The CBI has a whistleblower/complaint mechanism on its website, where corruption can be reported. Nevertheless, as cited in a 2011 article by BBC News, about one-fifth of key jobs within the CBI remained vacant as of the end of 2010, seriously undermining its’ ability to carrying out its tasks.  

• Central Vigilance Commission (CVC): The CVC is an independent watchdog agency established in 1964 with a mandate to undertake inquiries or investigations of transactions involving certain categories of public servants and has supervisory powers over the Central Bureau of Investigation. The CVC can investigate complaints against public officials at the higher levels of central government in cases where an official is suspected of having committed an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The CVC is mandated to deal strictly with public sector corruption at the federal level, as opposed to state level. The CVC had been advocating for India to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). The CVC has a whistleblower/complaint mechanism on its website; however, it requires citizens to register first before they can lodge a complaint. It is important to point out that the independence of the CVC has been sometimes questioned. For example, Global Integrity 2009 is somewhat critical towards the efficiency of this institution and claims that it is not sufficiently protected from political interference in practice. In addition, according to the report, the appointments to the agency do not always support its independence, and individuals appointed may sometimes have party loyalties. Furthermore, an April 2011 news article by BBC News also points out that between 2005 and 2009, only 6% of cases in which the CVC found that corruption had been authorised, were prosecuted by the government, while the remaining were let off with departmental penalties, some of them minor. 

• Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General (C&AG): The C&AG of India is the supreme audit authority in the country. The Office of the C&AG is located in New Delhi, but Accountant Generals (AGs) offices can be found in all state headquarters (AGs are independent of state governments and are accountable only to the C&AG). Public expenses management reportedly suffers from poor monitoring, poor targeting and corrupt practices. According to Global Integrity 2007, the C&AG has sought to improve the accountability of the executive by producing several reports on various subjects, including state departments, railways, telecommunications, state-owned companies and tax administration. These reports have revealed many financial irregularities in various branches of the state; however, the government allegedly often fails to act on the findings of the reports. According to Global Integrity 2009, the C&AG does not have power to initiate investigations, and has to work with the Central Vigilance Commission to make enquiries into ‘red flag’ issues. Furthermore, the appointments to this agency do not always support its independence from the executive and can sometimes be based on political considerations. On the positive side, the C&AG publishes audit reports regularly on its website, with free public access. Hence, Global Integrity evaluates the C&AG as ‘very strong’.

• Supreme Court: The Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 reports that secondary powers, such as the Supreme and High Courts, have become more proactive in carrying out their duties. Judges have displayed unprecedented activism in response to Public Interest Litigation over official corruption, environmental issues, and other matters, and this expanded role has received considerable public support. The Supreme Court has been taking and tackling corruption seriously in recent years, both in general and political domains. The Supreme Court has challenged the legislative decisions of ministers and the exercise of powers to pardon politically connected individuals based on 'arbitrary' and 'irrelevant' considerations. According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2008, one method that the legislature has employed since 1951 to evade judicial scrutiny concerning the constitutionality of legislation is to place such laws under the Ninth Schedule, which granted legislation immunity from being tested in court. This provision enabled the legislature to prevent any judicial review of a law even when it conflicted with fundamental rights. More than 300 laws found political sanctuary under the Ninth Schedule. However, the Supreme Court did away with this immunity in April 2007, leading the Prime Minister to complain of judicial overreach. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has established a police commission and complaints authority to look into police corruption and malpractice, ordered fixed tenure for police chiefs and other senior officers, and ruled that corrupt police officers can be prosecuted without government consent.

• Reserve Bank of India (RBI): Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2009 states that the Indian Central Bank published guidelines in 2008 taking serious note of complaints received against recovery agents for abusive practices and violation of guidelines. This initiative by the RBI aims at ensuring that banks refrain from hiring disreputable people to recover debts and to prevent malpractice in the offering and management of loans by banks. The guidelines include provision of recording of calls made by recovery agents to customers and vice versa, placing of updated list of recovery agents on bank's website, periodical verification of antecedents of employees of recovery agents which may include verification through police, additional conditions for repossession of assets. To achieve this, it has threatened erring banks with a ban on engaging recovery agents in a particular area, either jurisdictional or functional, for a limited period.

• Chief Information Commission (CIC): The CIC was established in 2005 and became operational in 2006. According to Transparency International's Global Corruption Report 2008, it has delivered decisions instructing government, courts, universities, police, development NGOs and ministries on how to share information of public interest. State information commissions have also been opened, thus giving practical shape to the Right to Information Act 2005 (RTI Act), although they have not been immune to criticism. Of India's 28 states, 26 have officially constituted information commissions to implement the RTI Act. Nine states pioneered access to information laws before the RTI Act was passed. One state has complimented the quality of law, but mourned the 'lukewarm response of a largely unaware citizenry'. According to the Transparency Reviews regularly published by the Centre for Media Studies, however, awareness has been increasing towards the end of 2008. The Transparency Reviews point on the other hand to the resistance of some civil servants to abide by the law and disclose information. According to the US Department of State 2009, as of February 2009, the CIC had penalised public information officers in over 200 cases and recommended disciplinary action in over 20 cases for not following the RTI Act in response to public requests.

• E-Governance: A wide range of public services have been digitised, which has considerably increased the speed of government services and removed some of the direct contact points with public officials. Obtaining licences, permits, official documents, paying taxes and clearing goods are some of the services that have been digitised. The Government of India has created the National Portal of India which lists all these services and thus serves as an ideal entry point for companies wishing to do business in India. The customs service is increasingly integrated into the e-governance project of the Government of India. Under the e-governance project, many possibilities for extraction of bribes related to trade across borders have been removed. Please see the homepage of the Central Board of Excise and Customs for more information on e-payment, which also contains information on how to complain about corrupt officials. The business section of the National Portal of India is also useful when seeking information on trading across borders.

• Public Procurement: Corruption in public procurement is widespread, especially in procurement of telecommunications, power, and defence contracts, as reported by the Heritage Foundation 2011. According to the US Commercial Service 2011, many measures have been taken in order to make the Indian procurement system more transparent and efficient, such as the newly revised Defense Procurement Procedure in 2011. However, companies should be aware that states have their own specific procurement laws and regulations, and bias in government procurements still exists, such as when local suppliers receive a price preference over foreign suppliers. Information on tenders is available online through the Indian Government Tenders Information System, which is the main source for government and public sector procurement. This comprehensive portal contains links to central and state tenders as well as tenders by public sector units. All major public authorities are also required to publish on their website a monthly update of all their contracts/purchases above a certain value threshold. Some states, such as Andhra Pradesh, have their own online tender information system. Each state has its own financial rules based on the broad principles of the General Financial Rules which govern procurement by all government agencies of the central government. The absence of a central law or state act in public procurement means that each ministry, department, agency, local body, and state enterprise is free to devise its own rules for public procurement and contracting as long as they follow the basic rules of the open tender system. This decentralisation also means that any procuring authority may develop its own debarment lists of companies that have been shown to have violated tender procedures, as long as the established procedures laid down for blacklisting, banning and suspension of companies are followed. According to Global Integrity 2009, companies guilty of major violations of procurement regulations can sometimes circumvent the law through politicians or middlemen and participate in bidding. Companies should report corruption or any kind of misuse of office by any employee of the central government to the Central Vigilance Commission. Complaints of corruption by state officials should be directed to the respective anti-corruption bureaus at state level which can be found by entering the homepages of state governments.

• Whistle-Blowing: The protection of whistleblowers has improved since the Dubey case in 2003, where a technical manager of the National Highways Authority was killed after reporting several incidences of corruption among contractors of the project to the Prime Minister's Office. His request for anonymity was ignored. Following massive protests from the public and international organisations, the courts made it clear that the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is authorised to protect whistleblowers and to act on their complaints. The CVC can now take action against anyone who leaks names of whistleblowers and witnesses and can request police assistance to investigate complaints. See the CVC's brief introduction to the Public Interest Disclosures and Protection of Informer Resolution (PIDR) whistleblower legislation. See also the Central Bureau of Investigation online whistleblower/complaints mechanism which guarantees the protection of whistleblowers when they report corruption. The Right to Information Act 2005 has reportedly improved bureaucratic transparency by giving citizens better access to records. Nevertheless, according to an October 2011 article by Bloomberg, in practice, these measures have not provided sufficient protection for whistleblowers. According to the article, at least 12 whistleblowers were killed since January 2010, while at least 40 people were assaulted after seeking information under the law. This signals serious institutional flaws within the whistleblower protection system. In August 2010, the Parliament approved the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill (commonly known as the Whistleblower’s Bill) was introduced in the parliament which enables the CVC to provide harsh penalty to people revealing the identity of whistleblowers. On 14 October 2011, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that the government will pass a legislation that will provide security to and safeguard whistleblowers’ identity. The law is expected to be enacted in the upcoming months, according to the same article from Bloomberg. 

• General Comments on the Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives: The institutional and legal framework for addressing the problem of corruption in India is well-developed. However, according to Transparency International and Global Integrity, the institutional setup suffers from lack of coordination between the different actors, and efficiency is often reduced due to conflicting mandates. Key institutions are often inadequately staffed and under-funded and end up struggling to maintain their autonomy from outside political forces, even though this autonomy is legally mandated. Their activities are generally not proactive and preventive but are instead focused on investigating reported or suspected acts of corruption. However, the Supreme and High Courts and the Election Committee have adopted a more assertive stance and have become more proactive in prosecuting malpractices. The ratification of the UNCAC in May 2011 is indeed a positive step in the fight against corruption; the next step would be the enactment of several important legislations, such as the prevention of bribery of foreign officials, whistleblowers’ protection bill, and the amendment of the current law to criminalise private sector bribery.

• Media: According to the US Department of State 2010, the constitution protects freedom of speech and expression, but does not explicitly mention media freedom. Freedom House 2011 describes India's press as 'by far the freest in South Asia', but as 'partly free' on a global scale. The Indian media has in fact been a key player in putting anti-corruption initiatives on the national agenda. The report, however, states that journalists remain subject to intimidation and newspaper offices continue to be attacked. The Official Secrets Act has been used by the Government of India to censor security-related articles or to prosecute members of the press in recent years, but there are reports that the use of this act is less common than before. According to Global Integrity 2009, the reporter Prahlad Goala from the newspaper Asomiya Khabar in the state of Assam was murdered in 2006 following a series of articles revealing corruption among forestry service officials in the state. Reporters Without Borders 2010 ranks India 122nd out of 178 countries, while Freedom House 2011 ranks India 79th out of 196 countries and describes its media environment as 'partly free'. Business news about India can be accessed at India News Online.

• Civil Society: India's civil society is vibrant and NGOs generally operate freely, although the Bertelsmann Foundation 2010 reports that civil society lacks deep roots. Despite the large number of associations, the participation level rate of the population is still quite low. Nevertheless, civil society has a growing influence on the political agenda and often has a positive influence on intra- and interethnic harmony. A series of anti-corruption protests across India throughout 2011 illustrates that the public will not tolerate the country’s endemic corruption any longer. In April 2011, a civil society activist, Anna Hazare, began his hunger strike demanding a stronger Lokpal Bill, and gained huge public support. In August 2011, the government finally included three conditions set by Hazare in the Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizens’ Ombudsman Bill). The recent civil society movement that forced the government to accept Hazare’s demand for a tougher Lokpal bill is now considered a ‘new force in Indian politics’, according to an August 2011 article by VOA News. According to the US Department of State 2010, the Indian government generally respects the rights of freedom of assembly and association. On the other hand, Freedom House 2011 reports that authorities at state-level are empowered under the Criminal Procedure Code (Section 144) to restrict free assembly and impose curfews, and there are occasional reports of authorities using this power to prevent demonstrations. In 2009, there have been cases where civil society activists working on corruption issues have been imprisoned and killed. For example, eleven prominent Right to Information Act (RTI Act) activists were arrested by police officers and jailed for several days in May 2009. Another case was the murder of an RTI Act activist, who had been questioning the government on controversial issues relating to land mafias under the RTI Act, the murder was reportedly committed by the land mafia, as reported by Global Integrity 2009.

• I Paid a Bribe: ipaidabribe.com, established by the Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy - a non-profit organisation based in Bangalore, is a unique initiative to uncover the nature of bribery in India. The initiative is a website to which citizens can report bribes demanded by public officials and read about experiences to see where bribery occurs. The website urges citizens to report on the nature, number, pattern, types, location, frequency and values of actual corrupt acts. Citizens' reports provide a snapshot of bribes occurring across India, and Janaagraha will use them to argue for improving governance systems and procedures, tightening law enforcement and regulation and thereby reduce the scope for corruption in obtaining services from the government. The website also hosts the Bribe Bandh initiative whose goal is to collect one million online 'clicks' or votes form citizens to influence the Indian government to tighten its laws against corruption.

• Transparency International India (TI India): TI India is the Indian chapter of Transparency International. It works at national, regional and local levels in India and has a network of state chapters and regional centres that operate in all parts of India. The organisation has advocated for introducing Integrity Pacts into contracts given out by government departments and public sector units, and it has also pushed for the adoption of citizens' charters in all public sector institutions. TI India has managed to persuade 20 public sector companies to adopt Integrity Pacts in procurements requiring large outlays. It convinced the Ministry of Defence to adopt the pact in all procurements of INR 100 million or more, although Russia, India's biggest weapons supplier, has refused to sign any contract that requires an Integrity Pact on the grounds that it 'collides with' its own domestic laws. TI India conducts research into corruption and related offences and publishes a quarterly newsletter on its own work and on corruption in India. A sign of the successful advocacy carried out by TI India is the recent signing of a memorandum of understanding and Integrity Pact between TI India and the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) to make its procurement processes more transparent.

• Centre for Media Studies (CMS): CMS is a non-profit, multi-disciplinary development research agency which has undertaken corruption tracking surveys since 2000. It has a transparency studies unit, which publishes a quarterly magazine, Transparency Review, with research on selected issues relevant for public accountability and transparency. CMS periodically produces reports such as India Corruption Study 2010 and Face of Corruption in News Media 2010. CMS Transparency Studies Team also publishes Transparency Review on a regular basis.

• Parivartan: Calling itself a 'people's movement' struggling for just, transparent and accountable governance, Parivartan was established in 2000 as an attempt to shed light on corruption within the Income Tax Department in New Delhi. The movement now concentrates on using the Right to Information Act in order to ensure transparency and accountability in public services.

• 5th Pillar of India: This Chennai-based social welfare group has developed anti-corruption initiatives such as launching the 'zero currency note' as a tool to help achieve the goal of zero corruption. The NGO asks people to offer this note to rankle the conscience of government officials who deliberately delay a service in expectation of a bribe, as reported in a 2010 article by Livemint. 5th Pillar of India strives to prevent corruption in both the public and private sector, while providing information concerning the Right to Information Act and how to use it, as well as building general awareness about corruption among the population.

• Karmayog: Karmayog.org is a non-profit networking website and platform that works to improve society by connecting citizens, civil society organisations, media, corporations and government officials and organisations by online and offline methods. Karmayog has specific anti-corruption initiatives; Karmayog has recently developed the Corruption ROKO (Stop Corruption) Form, which is a complaint and suggestion form to reduce corruption in government departments in India. Individuals who wish to report an incidence of corruption concerning any government organisation can access the form and complete it anonymously if so desired. Completed forms are displayed on the Karmayog website for the authorities and media to take action, and will be formally forwarded to the relevant government authorities.

The websites listed below provide useful facts on India as well as contacts and tools for companies operating in India:

• International Finance Corporation: India SME Toolkit
  Guide to sustainable business management practices for SMEs.
• Business Fighting Corruption
  An online resource centre for business on collective action to avoid corruption which contains a guide and resources for partnerships with companies and other stakeholders to fight against corruption.
• CIA World Factbook: India Country Profile
• World Bank: India Data Profile

Sources for further reading:

• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - India 2011.
• KPMG: Survey on Bribery and Corruption - Impact on Economy and Business Environment 2011.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - India 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - India 2010.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2009.

UNCAC Status: Singed 9 December 2005. Ratified 1 May 2011.

Status on UNCAC Implementation
This field describes the country's status on the United Nations Convention against Corruption. Please note any declarations and reservations made upon ratification. The list of signatories can be found on the UNODC website. Read more about the UNCAC.

Other Relevant Conventions or Treaties:

• ADB & OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia-Pacific Anti-Corruption Action Plan for Asia and the Pacific: Endorsed 30 November 2001.
  Read Transparency International's summary and assessment of the action plan.
• United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime: Signed 12 December 2002. Not Ratified.
  Read Transparency International's summary and assessment of the convention.

Transparency CPI: 2011: 95/182 (Score: 3.1)

Transparency CPI
This field consists of the score for the country in question on the Corruption Perceptions Index from Transparency International as well as its ranking.

World Bank CORR Index (-2.5 - +2.5): 2010: -0.52

World Bank Corruption Index
This field consists of the score for the country in question on the 'Control of Corruption' indicator in the World Bank Governance Research Indicator Country Snapshot (GRICS): 1996-2010.

OECD Country Risk Classification (0-7): 2011: 3

Country Risk Classification
The classification of countries by risk category has the aim of providing OECD countries with a basis for calculating the premium interest rate to be charged to cover the risk of non-repayment of export credits. Countries are placed in risk categories 0 - 7, with 0 being the lowest risk category and thus the least expensive. Conversely, premium group 7 is the highest risk category. Each classification is comprised of 2 components: 1) an assessment of the country's economic/financial situation, and 2) its overall political stability. Access the complete list of OECD Country Risk Classification figures.

Data Verification:

Publication date: November 2011

Data verified by: Global Advice Network

General Information Sources

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2011.
• KPMG: Survey on Bribery and Corruption - Impact on Economy and Business Environment 2011.
• Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2011.
• Indicus Analytics, Cato Institute & Friedrich Naumann Stiftung: Economic Freedom of the States of India 2011.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2011.
• Times of India: 'Private sector graft may be made crime too: PM', 22 October 2011.
• The Times of India: ‘Thousands gather at India Gate to celebrate Anna’s victory’, 28 August 2011.
• BBC News: ‘Anna Hazare: Indian MPs back anti-corruption demands’, 27 August 2011.
• The Times of India: 'Team Anna resolute on three conditions', 26 August 2011.
• BBC News: ‘India: Activist Anna Hazare rejects anti-graft law’, 29 July 2011.
• KPMG: 'KPMG unveils survey on bribery and corruption', Press Release 14 March 2011.
• Value Notes: '6th wave of Investment Confidence Index by J.P. Morgan Asset Management in association with ValueNotes', Press Release January 2011.
• Times of India: 'Thousands march against corruption in Delhi', 30 January 2011.
• KPMG: India Fraud Survey Report 2010.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2010.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - India 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - India 2010.
• CMI India: India Corruption Study: 2010.
• The Wall Street Journal: 'India's Congress Party Replaces Maharashtra Chief Minister', 10 November 2010.
• Guardian: 'Indian politicians forced to resign over corruption claims', 9 November 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - India 2009.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2009.
• BRIBEline: India Report 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business in India Subnational Report 2009.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2009.
• Thai Indian news: 'Enforcement Directorate registers case against Madhu Koda', 10 October 2009.
• Washington Post: 'India's economic growth accelerates to 6.1 percent', 31 August 2009.
• Newsweek: 'Singh - He might be shy, but his 100-day plan for India is strikingly bold', 6 June 2009.
• Bloomberg: 'Morgan Stanley on India trumps Goldman on China', 20 May 2009.
• BBC News: 'India has 153 tainted new MPs', 19 May 2009.
• BBC News: 'Profile: Manmohan Singh', 30 March 2009.
• The Economic Times: 'Bihar anti-corruption bill gives new powers to the government', 4 March 2009.
• AFP: 'India politicians seen as corrupt, inefficient: survey', 2 March 2009.
• Reuters UK: 'World bank names blacklisted Indian IT firms', 12 Jan 2009.
• IPS: 'Satyam Scam Questions Corporate Governance', 9 January 2009.
• Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Lexadin: The World Law Guide - Legislation India 2008.
• Reuters: 'Analysis - India mining law too late to catch ebbing commods tide', 14 October 2008.
• MSN News: 'Advani lambasts Manmohan on corruption', 30 April 2008.
• A.T. Kearney: FDI Confidence Index 2007.
• Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007.
• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business in South Asia - India Country Profile 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2007.
• C.J. Punnathara: 'Opinion: Corruption Dynamics in India's Growth Study, The Hindu Business Line', 2 November 2007.
• Financial Times: 'Interview with Ramachandra Guha - Muddling Along in the Middle', 15 August 2007.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - India 2006.
• ADB & OECD: Anti-corruption Policies in Asia and the Pacific: Progress in Legal and Institutional Reform in 25 Countries 2006.
• Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study 2005.
• The World Bank & IFC: Investment Climate Assessment India 2004.

Corruption Levels Sources

Judicial System

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - India 2011.
• BBC News: 'India judge Soumitra Sen quits before impeachment vote', 2 September 2011.
• Rediff News: 'RS to take up impeachment motion against HC judge on March 14', 22 February 2011
• India Express: 'Countdown begins to impeachment of Justice Sen, Rajya Sabha admits motion', 15 February 2011.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - India 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2009.
• The UPI Asia Online: 'India's justice undermined by corruption', 26 May 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008.
• Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007.

Police

• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - India 2011.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - India 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - India 2010.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2009.
• BRIBEline: India Report 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008.
• The Times of India: '15 officials in judicial custody for taking bribes', 8 October 2008.
• Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2007.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006.
• MDRA & Transparency International India: Report on Corruption in the Trucking Operation in India 2006.

Licences, Infrastructure and Public Utilities

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2011.
• KPMG: Survey on Bribery and Corruption - Impact on Economy and Business Environment 2011.
• BBC News: 'India telecoms corruption trial under way', 11 November 2011
• Hindustan Times: 'Mayawati wants CBI case closed, Centre says no', 17 October 2011.
• The Wall Street Journal: 'CBI Charges Ex-India Telecom Minister With Corruption', 10 October 2011.
• BBC News: 'Indian MP Kanimozhi arrested in telecoms scandal', 20 May 2011.
• Time: 'India to Investigate Telecom Scandal', 22 February 2011.
• Reuters: 'CBI arrests ex-telecoms min A.Raja over graft', 2 February 2011.
• CMI India: India Corruption Study: 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• Bloomberg Businessweek: 'Dollar Bribes for India Licenses Create World's Deadliest Roads', 30 November 2010.
• Reuters: 'India government mired in giant graft scandal', 16 November 2010.
• The Times of India: 'Postmaster general held for corruption', 26 February 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - India 2009.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2009.
• Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008.
• Indiainfo: 'Naidu levels corruption charges against Andhra government', 31 March 2008.
• International Herald Tribune: 'The Indian economic boom bypasses Bihar', 19 February 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006.

Land Administration

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• KPMG: Survey on Bribery and Corruption - Impact on Economy and Business Environment 2011.
• DNA India: 'Further hearing on PILs seeking Mayawati's prosecution next week', 11 January 2011.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2009.
• The Hindu: 'Court rejects Mayawati's plea in Taj Corridor case', 17 November 2009.
• Expressindia: 'Another Coalition helps Maya: Of CBI and AG', 4 May 2009.
• Thaindian News: 'Supreme Court notice to government on Mayawati plea', 15 May 2008.
• Thaindian News: 'Tainted Uttar Pradesh top official gets clean chit', 17 February 2008.
• Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2007.

Tax Administration

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• Global Post: 'India's "black money" trail', 28 January 2011.
• CMI India: India Corruption Study: 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2009.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2008.
• Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008.
• The Times of India: 'CVC to government: Ratify UN pact on graft', 6 October 2008.
• MSN News: 'Avail of German info on rich Indians evading tax: Advani', 22 May 2008.
• Rediff News: 'Public loot since 1947: Let us bring back our money', 15 April 2008.
• Merinews: 'Is India poor, who says? Ask Swiss banks', 15 April 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2007.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2006.

Customs Administration

• The World Bank & IFC: Doing Business 2012.
• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• World Economic Forum: Global Enabling Trade Report 2010.
• CMI India: India Corruption Study: 2010.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Barometer 2010.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2009.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2008.
• Transparency International: Bribe Payers Index 2008.
• Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2006.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006.

Public Procurement and Contracting

• World Economic Forum: The Global Competitiveness Report 2011-2012.
• US Commercial Service: Doing Business in India: A Country Commercial Guide for US Companies 2011.
• Comptroller and Auditor General of India: Performance Audit of XIXth Commonwealth Games 2010,  Report No. 6, 2011.
• MSN News: 'India exploring ways to criminalise ''foreign bribery''', 27 September 2011.
• BBC News: 'Auditor slams Delhi Commonwealth Games preparations', 5 August 2011.
• Sify: 'Bill introduced to tackle bribery by foreigners', 25 March 2011.
• CNN: 'India makes high-profile arrests in Commonwealth Games scandal', 24 February 2011.
• Times of India: 'Former Congress minister surrenders in court', 18 February 2011.
• KPMG: India Fraud Survey Report 2010.
• The Sydney Morning Herald: 'Tax raids in India over Games graft', 29 October 2010.
• US Department of State: Investment Climate Statement - India 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - India 2010.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2009.
• Asia Sentinel: 'Another scandal mars Indian defense', 15 June 2009.
• The IPS: 'World Bank, India confront corruption', 13 January 2009.
• Thaindian News: 'Hospitals using infected blood: patients' rights group', 7 March 2008.
• International Herald Tribune: 'Thin ray of light shines on dark ocean of graft', 18 January 2008.
• The World Bank & IFC: Enterprise Surveys 2006.

Environment, Natural Resources and Extractive Industry

• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• Asia Times Online: 'Corruption, looting cloud Kashmir's gems future', 16 May 2008.
• Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007.
• Arleth, Karen & Krogstrup, Ea: Ship Scrapping - a Floating Scenario?, Master's Thesis in International Development Studies and TEKSAM, University of Roskilde, Denmark, 2006.
• Reporters Without Borders: 'Young journalist murdered in Assam after criticising forest warden', 10 January 2006.

Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives Sources

• The Heritage Foundation: Index of Economic Freedom - India 2011.
• US Commercial Service: Doing Business in India: A Country Commercial Guide for US Companies 2011.
• Times of India: 'Private sector graft may be made crime too: PM', 22 October 2011.
• Bloomberg: 'Whistleblowers Murdered in India Show Fatal Hazard of Exposing Corruption', 19 October 2011.
• Hindustan Times: ’Private sector bribes to be criminalised’, 10 October 2011.
• The Times of India: ‘Thousands gather at India Gate to celebrate Anna’s victory’, 28 August 2011.
• BBC News: ‘Anna Hazare: Indian MPs back anti-corruption demands’, 27 August 2011.
• The Times of India: 'Team Anna resolute on three conditions', 26 August 2011.
• BBC News: ‘India: Activist Anna Hazare rejects anti-graft law’, 29 July 2011.
• The Hindu: 'India Ratifies the UN Convention against Corruption', 12 May 2011.
• BBC News: 'Is India serious about fighting corruption?', 11 April 2011.
• Times of India: 'Thousands march against corruption in Delhi', 30 January 2011.
• US Commercial Service: Doing Business in India: A Country Commercial Guide for US Companies 2010.
• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - India 2010.
• Legal Perspectives: 'Law-in-Perspective: Draft National Anti-Corruption Strategy unveiled', 6 September 2010.
• The Times of India: 'Cabinet approves bill to protect whistleblowers', 9 August 2010.
• Hindustan Times: 'RTI whistleblowers under attack', 25 July 2010.
• Reuters: 'India's 'revolutionary' RTI Act fails to reach the poor', 2 July 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - India 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - India 2009.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2009.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2009.
• The Centre for Media Studies: Transparency Review - January-February 2009.
• ADB & OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia-Pacific: India's Measures to Implement the Anti-Corruption Action Plan for Asia-Pacific 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• The Times of India: 'CVC to government: Ratify UN pact on graft', 6 October 2008.
• Global Integrity Commons: 'India: Improvement? Where?', 6 August 2008.
• Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007.
• Global Integrity: India Country Report 2007.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2007.
• ADB & OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia-Pacific: Anti-Corruption Policies in Asia and the Pacific: Thematic Review on Provisions and Practices to Curb Corruption in Public Procurement: Self-Assessment Report India 2005.

Private Anti-Corruption Initiatives Sources

• Freedom House: Freedom in the World - India 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom of the Press - India 2011.
• Freedom House: Freedom of the Press Index 2011.
• Reporters Without Borders: India Country Report 2011.
• VOA News: 'Anti-Corruption Movement in India Seen As New Political Force', 29 August 2011.
• BBC News: ‘Anna Hazare: Indian MPs back anti-corruption demands’, 27 August 2011.
• The Times of India: 'Team Anna resolute on three conditions', 26 August 2011.
• BBC News: ‘India: Activist Anna Hazare rejects anti-graft law’, 29 July 2011.
• Reporters Without Borders: Worldwide Press Freedom Index 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - India 2010.
• US Department of State: Human Rights Report - India 2010.
• Livemint: 'Gandhigiri: zero-rupee payments for zero corruption', 2 February, 2010.
• The Bertelsmann Foundation: Transformation Index - India 2008.
• Transparency International: Global Corruption Report 2008.
• XPRESS News: 'Shaming the corrupt: Play it by the book', 3 April 2008.
• Transparency International India & CMS: India Corruption Study with Focus on Below Poverty Line Households 2007.
• Asia Times: 'Victories in India's war on corruption', 29 June 2006.
• The World Bank Institute: Business Fighting Corruption.