Amid SC split over anti-corruption clause, data shows cases rising, but acquittals outnumber convictions

Prior to a 2018 amendment that introduced Section 17A to this law, the sanction from a higher authority was only required to prosecute public servants at the Joint Secretary level or above under the Act.

While Justice B V Nagarathna of the two-judge apex court bench ruled that Section 17A is “unconstitutional” and “protects the corrupt”, Justice K V Viswanathan held it as valid, provided the sanction is recommended by the Lokpal or Lokayukta.

Now, the matter will be placed before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant for the constitution of a larger bench to hear the case.

Corruption cases since 1988

In the year it was passed, 1,224 cases related to corruption under the Act were reported across India, as per the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB). But a chargesheet was filed and a trial started in just 425 cases. Trials were completed in 289 cases that year, resulting in 167 convictions and 93 acquittals or discharges, amounting to a conviction rate of 64.5%. That was the only year in which the number of convictions exceeded the number of acquittals or discharges, and that year’s conviction rate remains the highest on record. Of the 736 public servants arrested in 1988, 660 faced departmental punishment, which still stands as the record high proportion of punishment in such cases.

Since 1988, despite the number of cases and arrests consistently rising under the Act at the national level, acquittals and discharges have outnumbered convictions.

Cases, conviction and acquittals since 1988

The number of corruption-linked cases reported in a single year peaked in 2015 at 5,250, coinciding with the India Against Corruption movement that saw the Congress-led UPA government at the Centre losing power at the hands of the BJP-led NDA the previous year.

But even in 2015, despite chargesheets and trials in 4,224 cases, only 2,100 trials were completed resulting in 788 convictions and 1,312 acquittals or discharges, accounting for 37.5% conviction rate. Moreover, of the 6,223 public servants arrested in 2015, the second highest number of arrests in a single year on record, 437 faced departmental action, ranging from dismissal from service to fines.

After 1988, the highest conviction rate was recorded at 46.2% in 2023, which marks the latest available data.

The proportion of arrested public servants facing departmental action also peaked in 1988 at 89.7%, with the next highest coming in 1992 at 37.2%. In 2023, of the 4,759 arrests made, just 638 public servants faced departmental action at a rate of 13.4%.

Conviction rate since 1988

Since 1988, the number of corruption cases has more than tripled, while the number of chargesheets and trials have grown almost eight-fold. However, the number of pending trials at the end of a year has grown from 3,378 to 29,484, an almost nine-fold increase. And the number of new chargesheets each year has always exceeded the number of completed trials – an indication of the pressure on the judicial system to dispose of these cases as the backlog continues to increase.

Despite these growing figures, the conviction rate has not exceeded 50% since 1988, dropping to as low as 22.9% in 1999.

The gap between convictions and acquittals or discharges has fluctuated, peaking in 1999 when there were 326 convictions and 1,094 acquittals or discharges. The gap was lowest in 2023, when there were 1,052 convictions and 1,223 acquittals or discharges.

A broad analysis of the data shows that law enforcement’s ability to detect corruption has improved considerably, but the judicial system’s capacity has limited the efficacy of the anti-corruption law.

How Section 17A was debated in Parliament

Section 17A had become contentious when it was introduced as an amendment in Parliament in 2018. While there were fears that the law could encourage “political vendetta” or “misuse”, Section 17A in particular was viewed by several Opposition MPs as a way to “dodge accountability”.

During the discussion on it in the Lok Sabha, while Congress leader Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury pointed to a “civil servant lobby” that managed to insert this clause, YSR Congress Party (YSRCP) MP Geetha Kothapalli said public servants “should not take refuge” in this provision to avoid accountability.

In the Rajya Sabha, which saw a far more heated debate, CPI(M) MP K K Ragesh said requiring a sanction for investigation in corruption cases was unnecessary. “Without having any investigation, how can you take a decision whether you can give sanction for investigation or not? First, you have to investigate… Prior sanction for prosecution is okay,” Ragesh said.

This argument was echoed by DMK MP Tiruchi Siva, who said preventing a preliminary inquiry would “fetter” investigating authorities.

Vijaysai Reddy, then a YSRCP MP, instead argued for a strict time limit on receiving approval to investigate public servants, rather than eliminating the provision altogether.

However, the then Union Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Jitendra Singh, a BJP MP, defended the amended legislation and Section 17A, arguing that a “preliminary inquiry at random… in certain cases, instead of checking corruption, may add to corruption”. Singh said requiring a sanction to investigate public servants would prevent “frivolous” or “motivated” cases that seek to “extract some benefit”.