Font size: 
Eight of these officials, who are now facing criminal charges, are senior police or other law enforcement officers. The other two are senior administrative officers with quasi-judicial authority.
Corruption in government service is not news in Asia, with few exceptions. In most Asian countries government servants are considered corrupt by default. India is no exception. Corruption is a way of life in India; it is part of the culture. It is part and parcel of the average Indian life. Corruption is rampant in public and private sector dealings.
There is a legislative framework aimed at preventing corruption, including the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988, but it is poorly implemented. The law mandates that cases of corruption must be investigated by special investigative teams and prosecuted by a special prosecutor in a special court. Everything concerning corruption is "special" in India. Yet, corruption has only increased from what it was in 1988 to what it is now in 2008. In short, the administration has failed in dealing with corruption.
It is difficult to point out one specific reason for this failure. The most common reason that is often given is low salaries. This is however not true in India. Public servants are better paid in the past several years, and are paid several times more than their counterparts in neighboring countries like China. Yet in China corruption has been reduced from what it was a few years ago. Probably the difference is in what happens when corruption is detected in China and in India.
The very fact that those facing corruption charges in Karnataka are senior officers is valid enough reason for the ordinary Indian to consider the entire exercise as a farce. In the past, whenever a senior government officer was charged with corruption, sooner or later the officer was acquitted due to lack of evidence.
As in any other criminal case, corruption charges are investigated by ordinary police officers. The fact that the term "special" is prefixed to his title does not make the officer different from his corrupt counterparts in the local police. These officers are often on deputation from the local police. What they learn in the local police station is practiced when they discharge their duties as "special" investigators for the corruption prevention department. They continue their corrupt practices.
The same quotient applies to the prosecution. The public prosecutor serving at the special court dealing with economic offenses is nothing special merely because of the prefix attached to his designation. It is the very same prosecutor who fails to study or prepare for his cases in the regular criminal court that appears in the special court to prosecute corrupt officers. What difference does this prosecution make? Practically none.
The net result of all this is that raids are conducted, charges are framed, prosecutions are carried out and the accused walk away free. This is the never-ending charade played out in the name of justice in India. When it is repeated over and over, the people finally lose faith in such games.
Cesari Baccaria wrote in his masterpiece "Crime and Punishment" that what prevents crime in a society is the certainty of punishment. This is what is lacking in India -- the certainty of punishment for a crime, irrespective of its gravity. On the contrary, justice is a "commodity" that can be bought in the open market.
By the time this article is published and read, the officers charged with corruption in Karnataka state might well have started bargaining their way out of prosecution. Often the state government itself will drop the case, evoking its prerogative to withdraw from prosecuting a criminal.
All that is required for this to happen is good political contacts and enough money to make a pen move somewhere in the corridors of absolute power at the state capital. It has happened in the past. This time is nothing special.
--
(Bijo Francis is a human rights lawyer currently working with the Asian Legal Resource Center in Hong Kong. He is responsible for the South Asia desk at the center. Mr. Francis has practiced law for more than a decade and holds an advanced master's degree in human rights law.)
