The noose on corrupt politicians just got tighter. The observation of the Supreme Court that a private citizen’s fight to prosecute a public servant for corruption should not transform into an endless wait for government sanction has set the ball rolling on the issue and it is now for the government to suitable amend the rules to reflect the concerns of the apex court.

There is merit in this observation and it will go a long way in the fight against corrupt officials who hid behind the fig leaf of government sanction.
Allowing the petition filed by Janata Party president, Mr Subramanium Swamy against the order of the Delhi High Court refusing to direct the Prime Minister to grant permission for prosecution of then Telecom Minister, A Raja, the Supreme Court also stated that the government should take a decision within four months or it should be considered as given. Justice A K Ganguly went a step further by calling for the amendment of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 which mandates that a proposal to prosecute a public servant for corruption would require prior sanction from the public authority. Although this could stir up the old legislature versus judiciary battle, the government must consider this in the right spirit and show that it is serious about fighting corruption. The section was enacted to give government servants freedom to go about their work without the threat of frivolous litigation hanging over their heads. However, in recent times it has become a shield to protect bureaucrats with doubtful service records.
This is not the first time that the court has issued guidelines on prosecution of public servants. In 1998 while deciding the Vineet Narain case the court had set a three-month deadline for government sanction, which was largely ignored. The UPA government, which is virtually sinking under the weight of corruption scams might find it difficult to ignore the direction of the Supreme Court this time, especially with a strong anti-corruption wind blowing across the nation.
The observation made by the court and the directions issued are key elements in the fight against corruption, an issue that the Central government has not handled with finesse or political maturity. The hunger strike by Anna Hazare to force the government to pass a strong Lokpal Bill was the first instance where the UPA government’s lack of commitment to launch the fight against corruption was exposed. The bill is still hanging fire and might die a natural death in the Rajya Sabha now that Team Anna is threatened with internal collapse.
One can expect the government and its minions to tout the need to balance the interests of public servants with the fight against corruption. This will be used effectively to nullify the directions of the Supreme Court. Arguments will also be made against the wisdom of the court in forcing legislation on Parliament. In general the government will make attempts to wriggle out of the situation or alternately promise to bring the legislation and forget about it. Public memory is short and the government is aware of it.
In real terms the direction of the Supreme Court should not pose too many problems. The four-month window provided by the court is a fair time frame for taking decisions. The problem here is that the government wants to neither grant permission for sanction nor face the music for protecting the guilty. It wants to have the cake and eat it too. Section 19 extends a certain amount of protection to a government servant, but by holding back sanction indefinitely, the government is guilty of violating the spirit of the law. The government should consider the directions of the Supreme Court as it would help restore some of its lost prestige and set the course for cleaner and more transparent governance.