Khushboo Lucknow, 314 Questions 0 Answers 0 Best Answers 343 Points View Profile Khushboo Asked: November 22, 20212021-11-22T11:47:31+05:30 2021-11-22T11:47:31+05:30In: Polity Tell us about The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill. Tell us about The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill. acts and billsupsc mains Share Facebook 1 Answer Recent Karan 0 Questions 308 Answers 59 Best Answers 866 Points View Profile Karan 2021-11-22T11:52:59+05:30Added an answer on November 22, 2021 at 11:52 am The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 and proposed 2015 amendments Highlights: The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 amends the prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Certain amendments to the Bill were circulated by the government in 2015. The 1988 Act defines taking a bribe by a public servant as accepting any reward other than a salary for performing one’s official act. The2015 amendments replace this to cover acts where a public servant accepts any undue advantage other than legal remuneration. No provision for exceptions to taking a bribe was included in the original 1988 Act. In the 2015 amendment, if a person does not perform a public function dishonestly, then receiving benefits would not qualify as taking a bribe. Under the Act, a bribe giver is charged with abetment. The 2013 Bill makes giving a bribe to a public servant a direct offence. The 2015amendments add that if a person gives a bribe to assist law enforcement authorities, he will not be punished. The Act defines criminal misconduct to cover six types of offences including (i) abuse of position; (ii) use of illegal means; (iii) disregard to the public interest. The 2013 Bill retains only two offences: (i) misappropriating property; and (ii) amassing disproportionate assets. Under the 2015 amendments, prior sanction from the Lokpal or Lokayukta must be obtained before investigating a public servant. Issues and Analysis: A public servant will not be charged with taking a bribe if he proves that he did not ‘perform his public functions dishonestly’. This implies that if a public servant charged with taking a bribe proved that he performed his public functions honestly, he would not have committed the offence. The meaning and implications of this provision are unclear. The 2015 amendments define terms like ‘undue advantage’ and what would constitute ‘improper performance of a public function. However, the term ‘performance of a public function dishonestly’ has not been defined in the the1988 Act, the 2013 Bill or the 2015 amendments. In the absence of a definition of what could constitute ‘dishonest performance of a public function, the types of actions of a public servant that would qualify as ‘honest’ would be wide and open to interpretation The 2013 Bill makes giving a bribe a direct offence. There are diverging views on whether bribe giving under all circumstances must be penalised. Some have argued that a coerced bribe giver must be distinguished from a collusive bribe giver. The requirement of prior sanction for investigation may be considered necessary to protect a public servant from harassment. However, it could delay an investigation into genuine cases of corruption. The Supreme Court had also observed that such a provision could affect the efficiency of the investigation process. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas in some states have not been constituted. This may affect the obtaining of prior sanction for investigation. 0 Reply Share Share Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on WhatsApp Leave an answerCancel replyYou must login or register to add a new answer.Continue with FacebookContinue with Google Related Questions Tell us about the Industrial Relations Bill, 2015. Tell us about The Enforcement of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Bill.