India Country Profile

Public Anti-Corruption Initiatives

  • 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 public and private sector in the form of active and passive bribery, extortion, bribery of a foreign public officials and abuse of office. 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. 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, 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. Read more about the RTI Act and different views about its implementation on the Transparency Reviews regularly published by the Centre for Media Studies. Access the the Lexadin World Law Guide for a collection legislation in India.

  • Government Strategies: Every year a 'Vigilance Awareness Week' is observed 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 which 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 level 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 has been advocating for India to ratify the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). The CVC has a whistleblower/complaint mechanism on its website.

  • 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.

  • 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. 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. 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 'luke-warm 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. The US Department of State 2008 reveals that, during 2008, action was taken against 262 Bihar state government officials for not supplying information to RTI applicants.

  • 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 has been a major challenge for companies entering or operating in the Indian market. Many measures have been taken in order to make the Indian procurement system more transparent and efficient, but companies should be aware that states have their own specific procurement laws and regulations. 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. 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. See Public Procurement and Contracting under the Corruption Levels for more information on corruption in public procurement in India.

  • Whistle-Blowing: The protection of whistleblowers has improved since the Dubey case in 2003, where a technical manager of the National Highways Authority overseeing the construction of the Bihar stretch of the National Highways Development Project 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. The CVC provides a secure whistleblower/complaint mechanism for exposing corruption and has received over 1,300 complaints since the PIDR's passing in 2005. 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. However, according to Freedom House 2009, those who try to expose corruption within the bureaucracy often receive threats or are otherwise penalised in terms of career prospects. The CVC reports that some 30 whistleblowers have suffered from harassment or victimisation despite the supposedly confidential PIDR complaints. Those who knowingly file a false complaint can be subject to prosecution.

  • 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 underfunded 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. In addition, there is a general sense that the big fish has successfully avoided investigations and convictions. Additional key anti-corruption legislation has been held up for years, sometimes decades, leading to a perceived lack of political will to tackle corruption at its highest levels. However, the Supreme and High Courts and the election committee have adopted a more assertive stance and have become more proactive in prosecuting malpractices. It is reported that the judiciary is working on different measures aimed at reducing corruption within the judicial system, e.g. by strengthening and enforcing codes of conduct for judges and judicial staff and by recruiting more judges with the aim of reducing delays. Together with improved procedural transparency in government that is supported by freedom of information acts and a more active civil society, this is the beginnings of a potentially significant reduction of corruption in India.