White Collar Crimes: Notes

Prepared by
Gayathri. S
Assistant Professor
Ramaiah College of Law

Third Unit
Long Answer Questions
Police Deviance
1.The Constitution of lndia and Criminal Procedure Code provide some
safeguards against arbitrary use of powers by police. Discuss., Elucidate the
structures of legal restraint on police power in India, Analyze the Supreme
Court of India directives on Police reform in Prakash V/s Union of India.
Political Deviance
1.Explain political deviance and accountability mechanisms.
Lokpal /Lokayuktha.
1.Discuss the appointment, powers and procedure of Lokpal institution.
1.Explain the provision regarding the appointment, powers and procedure of
Lokayukta under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984
Short Answer
1. Lokayukta institution
2.D.K. Basu v/s State of West Bengal
3.Police as perpetrators of crime.
4.N. N. Vohra Committee Report.
5. Police reforms
 POLICE DEVIANCE
Police deviance refers to inappropriate actions taken by police officers in
connection with their official duties. Police deviance occurs when law
enforcement officers behave in a manner that is “inconsistent with the officer’s
legal authority, organizational authority, and standards of ethical conduct. Some
forms of such deviance are discrimination, misconduct, intimidation, sexual
harassment, corruption, excessive force, use of restricted weapon and illegal
surveillance. When the police violate organizational rules or break the law then
deviance occurs. These acts are called malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-
feasance.
1.Malfeasance: Intentional commission of a prohibited act or intentional unjust
performance of some act of which the party had no right (e.g., gratuity, perjury,
use of police resources for personal use)
2.Misfeasance: Performance of a duty or act that one is obligated or permitted to
do in a manner which is improper, sloppy, or negligent (e.g., report writing,
improper searching of suspect)
3.Non-feasance: Failure to perform an act which one is obligated to do either by
law or directive due to omission or failure to recognize the obligation (e.g., failure
to file report, security breach.
FORMS OF POLICE DEVIANCE
1.POLICE GRATUITY: Gratuity is the receipt of free meals, services, or
discounts. It violates the Code of Ethics.
2.POLICE PERJURY: Fixing a match whereby necessary information is left out
on purpose for a specific favour by the police so as to "fix" a criminal prosecution.
3.POLICE BRUTALITY: Police brutality has been defined as excessive force,
name calling, sarcasm, ridicule, and disrespect.
It includes:
 profane or abusive language
 commands to move or go home
 field stops and searches
 threats of implied violence
 prodding with a nightstick or approaching with a pistol the actual use of
physical force
4.POLICE MISUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This normally ,
involves jeopardizing an ongoing investigation by "leaking" information to
friends, relatives, the public, the press, or in some cases, directly to the criminal
suspects or members of their gang.
5.POLICE USE OF FATAL /EXCESSIVE FORCE: Police use excessive force
it can be called police misconduct or police criminality
6.POLICE DRINKING ON or OFF DUTY
7. POLICE CORRUPTION: Police corruption is a specific form of police
misconduct designed to obtain financial benefits, other personal gain, or career
advancement for a police officer or officers in exchange for not pursuing, or
selectively pursuing, an investigation or arrest. Article 7 of the United Nations
Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials says that ‘Law enforcement
officials shall not commit any act of corruption. The national police commission
1980 is more critical about the problem of corruption among the police.

Police Atrocities or Brutality

The unfair and savagely violent use of power by the police is called police
atrocity. The police atrocity is the misuse of power by the police authority. The
police have immense power but they have started misusing it. The powers of
police is mentioned in the Police Act, 1861.The main Or primary obligation of a
police is to serve the people and protect them from the wrongdoers. It was once
a powerful and respectful notion but it has lost its reputation through time.
Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 625.
The Apex Court held that the use of third degree methods by police is violative
of Article 21 of the Constitution. It observed that the State must take necessary
steps to eradicate such derogatory practices by educating the police as to respect
for human rights.
Nandini Satpathy v. P.L. Dani, AIR 1978 SC 1075
The S.C gave some guidelines with regard to the person in custody and to provide
him with protection against police atrocities. If the police force a person to give
information it would be considered as torture and will be violation of the
fundamental rights given in Article 20(3) regarding the right against self-
incrimination.
In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P,A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1349.
The Supreme Court, while referring to the recommendations made in the Third
Report of the National Police Commission, laid down that except in heinous
offences, police should avoid arrest. A notice to the person to attend the police
station and not to leave it without permission would sufficient.
Nilabati Behra v. State of Orissa, AIR 1933 SC 1960
The S.C held that the state was bound by the constitution to protect the citizens
under police custody and if the state has been unable to do so it has to compensate
for the loss.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, 1997 Cri. L.J. 743
While issuing the guidelines the Court also condemned the tortuous methods
adopted by the police while observing:
“Torture' has not been defined in the Constitution or any other penal laws.
Torture of a human being by another human being is essentially an instrument to
impose the will of the 'strong' over the 'weak' by suffering. The word 'torture'
today has become synonymous with the darker side of human civilization.... And,
custodial violence including torture and death in the lock-up strikes a blow at the
rule of law”
Refer 11 guidelines.
Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1980 SC 1535
Held that handcuffing should not be done and should be only in extreme cases
and for reasons must be recorded by the escorting authority.
Kharak Singh v. State of U.P, AIR 1936 SC1295
The S.C held that the relevant provisions that allowed police to make domiciliary
visits to 'habitual criminals' or individuals without legal sanctions infringed their
fundamental right of personal liberty and such provisions should be struck down.
Saheli v .Police Commissioner Delhi
The S.C held police responsible for the death and ordered payment of
compensation
Munshi Singh Gautam and others v.State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2005 SC
402
The S.C emphasized the 113th Law Commission report that the amendment in
the Evidence Act 1872 should be helpful in bringing about decrease in police
torture.
Sheela Barse v.State of Maharashtra,1983 CrLJ, AIR 1990 SC 513.
Held that State is responsible for the atrocities inflicted by its officials
Fake Encounter killings
Extra Judicial killings by the police or the armed force of suspected gangsters or
terrorists in gun battles.
Encounter: when such killing can be justified in case if the offender was running
away from custody, endangering life of someone etc.
No direct provision in the Indian law which legalise encounters.
Private Defence contained in Sections 96-106 IPC
Section 100 specifies the various circumstances (death, grievous hurt,
kidnapping, rape, acid attack etc.) under which a person causing death in exercise
of private defense, will be justified & excused from Criminal liability.
No direct provision in the Indian law which legalise encounters.
Private Defense contained in Sections 96-106 IPC
Section 100 specifies the various circumstances (death, grievous hurt,
kidnapping, rape, acid attack etc.) under which a person causing death in exercise
of private defense, will be justified & excused from Criminal liability.
INTERNATIONAL PROVISIONS ON ENCOUNTER KILLINGS
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
The ICCPR clearly mentions that the Police should only use a reasonable amount
of force and that the domestic framework should determine the legitimate purpose
and circumstances permitting the use of force.
Article 6(1) of the(ICCPR) provides: “Every human being has the inherent right
to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived
of his life”.
Article 14(2) of ICCPR provides, everyone accused of a crime is to be considered
as innocent until otherwise.
Judicial Response
In1990-2000 the Mumbai police used encounter killings to crush the city’s
underworld and break down the extortion racket.
Ishrat Jahan Encounter killing case (Ishrat Jahan v. A.D.J and others, 2005
(2) AWC
Encounter killings of Ishrat jahan, Praneesh pillai, Amjad and Zeeshan.Police
alleged their link to Lasker-e-Taiba. In 2011, SIT Informed Gujarat H.C that the
encounter was not genuine and the victims were killed prior to date of staged
encounter.
Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case
In 2005 police killed underworld criminal while he was in police custody. Link
with Lasker-e-Taiba. State govt. lawyer later submitted a report before the
Supreme Court that the it was a fake encounter. 10 police officers were
subsequently arrested.
Batla House encounter case
Operation Batla house took place on 19 September 2008 against Indian
Mujahideen terrorists in Batla house. Two suspected terrorists were killed and
two were arrested. Encounter specialist also killed.
Priyanka Reddy case
In December 2019, four rape accused were extra judicially killed when they tried
to flee out of the police van,
Vikas Dubey case
- In July 2020, Vikas Dubey a dreaded murderer who flew after killing 8
policemen in Uttar Pradesh and finally Madhya Pradesh police officials got hold
of him in Ujjain and whilst taking him back to Uttar Pradesh for custodial stay,
he was extra judicially killed.
NHRC GUIDELINES IN CASES OF FAKE ENCOUNTERS
In March 1997, Justice M. N. Venkatachalam (the then chairperson of the
NHRC), issued guidelines.
In 2010, NHRC extended these guidelines by including:
Registering FIR: When a complaint is made against police alleging committing
of a criminal act recognized as cognizable case of culpable homicide, an FIR must
be registered under appropriate sections of the IPC.
Magisterial Probe: A magisterial enquiry must be held in all cases of death which
occurs in the course of police action, as expeditiously as possible (preferably
within three months).
Reporting to Commission: All cases of deaths in police action in the states shall
be preliminary reported to the Commission by the Senior Superintendent of
Police/Superintendent of Police of the District within 48 hours of such death.
A second report must be sent in all cases to the Commission within three months
providing information like post mortem report, findings of the magisterial
enquiry/enquiry by senior officers, etc.
Om Prakash v. State of Jharkhand, 2012) 12 SCC 72
Supreme Court, condemned the incidents OF Fake Encounter as ‘State-sponsored
terrorism’ and stated that it is not the duty of the policemen to neutralize the
accused just because he is a ‘dreaded criminal’. The police have to arrest the
culprit and put them up for trial.
Prakash Kadam & Etc. Vs Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta & Anr, (2011) 6 SCC
189
S.C held that ‘Fake encounters’ are equivalent to cold blooded’ and ‘brutal
murder’ by persons who are expected to uphold the supremacy of law. Also court
held that if the offence is committed by policemen and where a fake encounter is
established against policemen in a trial, they must be given death sentence,
considering it as the ‘rarest of rare cases’.
PUCL v State of Maharashtra case [(2014) 10 SCC 635],
The Supreme Court in after taking into account the suggestions made by Bombay
High Court, the Counsels, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) & other
stakeholders issued some guidelines to be followed in the investigation of death
following police encounters.
The Apex court held that ‘Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees ‘sacred and
cherished right’ to life or personal liberty to ‘every single person’ in the country
and that even the state is not exempt to abide by that right.
15 guidelines were issued

Police Reforms
Police reforms aim to transform the values, culture, policies and practices of
police organizations. It envisages police to perform their duties with respect for
democratic values, human rights and the rule of law. It also aims to improve how
the police interact with other parts of the security sector, such as the courts and
departments of corrections, or executive, parliamentary or independent
authorities with management or oversight responsibilities.
Ribero Committee,1996
The Ribeiro Committee submitted two reports which were filed in the Supreme
Court during 1998 and 1999
The Rebeiro Committee endorsed the recommendations of the NPC with certain
modifications. The case came up for hearing on 10.2.2005 and the Hon’ble Court
directed Union of India and respective State Governments including NHRC to
file their responses with regard to the direction issued in the Vineet Narain case
and implementation of recommendations of Rebeiro Committee.
The Padmanabhaiah Committee on restructuring of Police (2000);
The committee submitted its report in 2000 and made over 240 recommendations.
Out of these, 23 recommendations were not accepted. These related to IPS
officers’ age of entry, police commissioners system in cities, compulsory
retirement to those not empanelled as DIG, etc. 154 recommendations were
pertaining to recruitment, training, reservation of posts, involvement of public in
crime prevention, recruitment of police personnel, delegation of powers to lower
ranks in police, revival of beat system, use of traditional village functional village
functionaries, police patrolling on national and state highways, designs of the
police stations, posting and transfer of SP and above etc. were found to be such
that they can be implemented without any structural changes.
LAW COMMISSION REPORTS
The 113th Law Commission reports recommended to the government that section
114B shall be inserted in the Indian Evidence Act,1872. Section 114B provides
for the prosecution of police officer for an injury to a person in custody, and such
injury was caused during the period of the custody then it will be presumed by
the court that such injury is caused by the police officer who has his custody
The 152ndLaw Commission report recommended that section 41(1A) of the
CrPc,1860 in such a manner that the arrest must be recorded officially and also
inserted section 50A so that the police must inform the relatives or any person
nominated by the person arrested of his arrest.
The 177th Law Commission report suggested amendment of section 55A of CrPC
by adding a proviso to protect the health and safety of the arrested person.
The Law Commission in its 217th report recommended that definition of torture
should include “inflicting injury, either voluntarily or involuntarily or any attempt
to cause such injury which will result in mental, physical or psychological injury.
It suggested that the convention of United Nations against torture should be
ratified.
NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION
The National Police Commission (NPC) was appointed by the Government of
India in 1977 with wide terms of reference covering the police organization, its
role, functions, accountability, relations with the public, political interference in
its work, misuse of powers, evaluation of its performance etc.
The Commission produced eight reports between 1979 and 1981
First Report:
Complaints against the police: There should be a separate mechanism for inquiry
into the complaints against the police officers either by an independent agency or
by any superior officer of the department and in case of custodial rape, custodial
death or fake encounter, it is to be inquired by judicial authority.
Second Report:
Appointment of the Criminal Justice Commission: To monitor the performance
of various wings of the police department and to take corrective measures
whenever necessary. The police act shall be amended in order to prevent any
undue and unlawful influence on the police by the political parties.
Third Report:
Police and the Weaker Sections: Separate wings of investigation for the backward
societies such as scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. It provided guidelines for
arrest and suggested that no person shall be handcuffed in any bailable offences
except by an order or the court.
Fourth Report:
Registration of FIR: To provide protection to a person being arrested. It
suggested that section 50A shall be inserted into CrPC which would require the
police to inform the person of arrest, which is nominated by the arrestee. It
recommended that there should be surprise visit of senior police officers to any
police stations in order to prevent the instances of custodial torture or false
imprisonment.
Fifth Report:
Recruitment to the Police: Recruitment to the Police must be at two levels only-
Constables and Indian Police Service. The recruitment at other levels should be
eliminated in a phased manner. The working of the police system should be
transparent.
Sixth Report:
Examinations for Promotion of Officers: The law and order wing and
investigation wing shall be separate.
Seventh Report:
Norms for Police Stations: There shall be central law to bring uniformity across
the armed police force in the country.
Eighth Report:
Police Accountability: The most important recommendation of the last report was
to withdraw the protection provided to the police under section 132 and 197 of
the CrPC.
Implementation
The major recommendations of the NPC have remained unimplemented. There
is a deep seated and strong resistance to the idea of police reforms. Politicians
and bureaucrats have developed a great vested interest in retaining control and
superintendence over the police organization

Directions of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh vs Union of

India, 2006 8 SCC
In 1996, a petition was filed before the Supreme which stated that the police abuse
and misuse their powers. It alleged non-enforcement and discriminatory
application of laws in favour of persons with clout, and also raised instances of
unauthorised detentions, torture, harassment, etc. against ordinary citizens.
The petition asked the court to issue directions for implementation of
recommendations of expert committees.
7 Guidelines
1.Constitute a State Security Commission any of the models recommended by
the National Human Right Commission, the Reberio Committee or the Sorabjee
Committee in every state that will lay down policy for police functioning,
evaluate police performance, and ensure that state governments do not exercise
unwarranted influence on the police.
2. Constitute a Police Establishment Board in every state that will decide
postings, transfers and promotions for officers below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, and make recommendations to the state government for
officers of higher ranks. Select the Director General of Police of the State from
amongst three senior-most officers of the Department empanelled for promotion
to that rank by the Union Public Service Commission and once selected, provide
him a minimum tenure of at least two years irrespective of his date of
superannuation.
3. Prescribe minimum tenure of two years to the police officers on operational
duties. Constitute Police Complaints Authorities at the state and district levels to
inquire into allegations of serious misconduct and abuse of power by police
personnel.
4. Separate investigating police from law & order police, starting with towns/
urban areas having population of ten lakhs or more, and gradually extend to
smaller towns/urban areas also, provide a minimum tenure of at least two years
for the DGP and other key police officers (e.g., officers in charge of a police
station and district) within the state forces, and the Chiefs of the central forces to
protect them against arbitrary transfers and postings.
5.Set up a Police Establishment Board at the state level for inter alia deciding
all transfers, postings, promotions and other service related matters of officers of
and below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and
6. Constitute Police Complaints Authorities at the State and District level for
looking into complaints against police officers.
7. The Supreme Court also directed the Central Government to set up a
National Security Commission at the Union Level to prepare a panel for being
placed before the appropriate Appointing Authority, for selection and placement
of Chiefs of the Central Police Organisations (CPOs), who should also be given
a minimum tenure of two years, with additional mandate to review from time to
time measures to upgrade the effectiveness of these forces, improve the service
conditions of its personnel, ensure that there is proper coordination between them
and that the forces are generally utilized for the purposes they were raised and
make recommendations in that behalf
Implementation:
According to a report of the NITI Aayog (2016), of 35 states and UTs (excluding
Telangana), State Security Commissions had been set up in all but two states, and
Police Establishments Boards in all states. The two states in which the State
Security Commissions were not set up by August 2016 were Jammu and Kashmir
and Odisha.

POLITICAL DEVIANCE
Political deviance is the behavior such as engagement in social interactions that
putts other persons at a personal or political disadvantage. In most cases, political
deviance will comprise of unacceptable human contacts that take place at
workplaces and hurt the other individuals. Political deviance refers to behaviors
that intentionally harm the organization's assets and possessions. Political
corruption involves abusing one's power for personal gain. Politicians get
financial help from the criminals in elections; moreover, criminals are used in
inciting violence, proxy voting, booth capturing, rigging, intimidation to the
candidates and killing of party workers etc.
Reasons for Criminalization of Politics
1. Vote Bank
2. Corruption and Red Tapism: corruption and red-tapism in the bureaucracy and
government have led to the development of a nexus between bureaucrats,
politicians, police officers, criminals, and the corporates
3. Use of Money and Muscle Power: Candidates with criminal records often have
large hordes of cash that ensures their victory in elections
4. Poor Conviction Rate: In India, the level of conviction of MPs and MLAs with
criminal records have been very low. Low level of convictions and the delays in
the trials does not deter the political party to give tickets to candidates with a
criminal background.
5. Lack of law Enforcement: Several laws and judgment have not helped much,
due to lack of enforcement of laws and judgment. violation of the model code of
conduct, as seen in almost all Elections
6.Election Commission’s inefficiency: Election commission asks for the details
of the property, cases pending in the courts, and educational qualifications from
the candidates filing the nomination papers and also election expenditure of
candidates. However, the candidates often give wrong details, and the Election
commission is unable to take any action against them
7. Lack of intra-party democracy: In India, there is a lack of intra-party
democracy, and the top leadership takes the decision on the candidates contesting
elections. Thus, politicians with criminal records are able to escape the scrutiny
of the ground level workers and organization of the party.
8. 8. Weak Rule of Law : Weak rule of law has reduced the belief of people on
the police and bureaucracy. The social divisions on the basis of caste and religion
etc., and the inability of authorities to act promptly in case of social tensions have
reduced the faith of people on democratic institutions.
LEGISLATIVE MEASURES TO PREVENT CRIMINALISATION OF
POLITICS
Chapter IX A of Indian Penal Code deals with offences relating to elections
It defines and provides punishment for offences, such as bribery, undue influence
and personation at elections etc.
Sec. 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 appears more deterrent as it
provides disqualification on conviction of certain offences. Sec. 8(1) provides
that a person convicted of an offence specified therein and sentenced to
imprisonment for not less than six months shall be disqualified from the date of
such conviction.
In Union of India (UOI) vs. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2001
Delhi 126, Supreme Court gave a historic ruling that every candidate, contesting
an election to the Parliament, State Legislatures or Municipal Corporation, has to
declare their criminal records, financial records and educational qualifications.
Ramesh Dalal vs. Union of India,in 2005 held that a sitting Member of
Parliament (MP) or Member of State Legislature (MLA) shall also be subject to
disqualification from contesting elections if he is convicted and sentenced to not
less than 2 years of imprisonment by a court of law.
in Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, AIR 2013 SC 1650. the Supreme Court held
that Section 8(4) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 is
unconstitutional which allows MPs and MLAs who are convicted to continue in
office till an appeal against such conviction is disposed of.
in People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, AIR 2013 SC 568
The Supreme Court asked Election Commission to provide 'none of the above'
choice to voters to exercise their right to express no confidence against all
candidates in fray
Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 244
The constitution bench held that candidates cannot be disqualified merely
because charges have been framed against them in a criminal case. The bench
also directed the legislature to consider framing a law to ensure decriminalization
of politics.
The court issued the guidelines:
 All candidates seeking to contest elections must declare their past criminal
charges/ records
 Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 244
 The constitution bench held that candidates cannot be disqualified merely
because charges have been framed against them in a criminal case. The
bench also directed the legislature to consider framing a law to ensure
decriminalization of politics.
 Political parties must also display the full details of the criminal charges
faced by their candidates on their official website.
 Parliament must make a law to ensure candidates with criminal records
don’t enter public life or take part in law-making.
 The Election Commission also must ensure that candidates clearly specify
the details of their pending cases or criminal past at the time of filing their
nominations in bold letters.
 Political parties should also issue a declaration and give wide publicity in
electronic media about the criminal past of the candidates.
Right to Information Act and Criminalization of Politics
The Supreme Court has held that the right to information- the right to know
antecedents, including the criminal history, or property of candidates - is a
fundamental right provided by Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution of India and
that the information is primal for the sustenance of democracy.
The Right to Information Act 2005, empowers people and holds Government
officers liable for punishment if they fail to reply to the queries of people within
stipulated time duration.
N.N. Vohra Committee Report
The NN Vohra committee was set up after the 1993 Mumbai blasts in a bid to
take stock of the nexus developed over the years between mafia organisations and
politicians as well as government functionaries. The Vohra (Committee) Report
was submitted by the former Indian Home Secretary, N. N. Vohra, in October
1993. It studied the problem of the criminalisation of politics and of the nexus
among criminals, politicians and bureaucrats in India.
The committee was set up by the PV Narasimha Rao government in 1993 to
examine the link between crime syndicates and government functionaries and
political personalities. The Vohra Committee report on the criminalization of
politics in India clearly brought out that (a) crime syndicates and mafia
organizations have developed significant muscle and money power and (b) they
were virtually running a parallel government pushing the State apparatus into
irrelevance.
The committee that had members from RAW, the Intelligence Bureau as well as
the CBI had unanimously expressed an opinion that during the 1993 bomb blasts,
the criminal network in Mumbai was virtually running a parallel government. The
Committee submitted its reports after 3 months In a startling disclosure, the report
had allegedly mentioned that many Congress leaders, who were in influential
positions in Maharashtra and Gujarat in the 1990s had developed close relations
with underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and his henchman Iqbal Mirchi.
During the 1993 Government of India has appointed Vohra Committee Points the
following facts:
a) Origin of such nexus is traced even in petty crimes.
b) Political parties totally rely upon criminals during the election time.
c) Criminals gradually develop their own social status.
d) Criminals involve themselves in much unnoticed activities of Hawala
transactions and Black money hording.
e) Indian underworld is exploited by ISI and other terrorist organizations of
Middle East.
f) Coastal and Boarder States of India are much affected by the macro – terrorism.
g) Lack of co-ordination in combating this manure at the Government level
The NN Vohra committee submitted its report to the Ministry of Home Affairs
(MHA) on 5 October 1993, three months after it was established on 9 July 1993
in the aftermath of the 1993 Bombay bomb blasts. In a startling disclosure, the
report had allegedly mentioned that many Congress leaders, who were in
influential positions in Maharashtra and Gujarat in the 1990s had developed close
relations with underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and his henchman Iqbal Mirchi.
he NN Vohra Committee report stated that the cost of contesting elections made
politicians depend on the underworld network. The 1993 bomb blasts in Mumbai
and subsequent communal violence in Surat and Ahmedabad showed that the
underworld exploited Pakistan’s ISI network in India to stoke communal tension
in India. “The investigations into the Bombay bomb blast cases have revealed
extensive linkages of the underworld in the various governmental agencies,
political circles, business sector and the film world,” the report stated.
One of the main recommendations of the Vohra Committee was the creation of a
national database of criminals. The committee recommended that all law
enforcement agencies should be connected to this database and should have
access to information on the criminal history of individuals. This would help in
preventing criminals from entering politics and also in identifying and
prosecuting politicians with criminal backgrounds.

Another recommendation of the Vohra Committee was the disqualification of

politicians with criminal backgrounds. The committee recommended that all
political parties should be required to provide information on the criminal
background of their candidates at the time of nomination. Candidates with
criminal records should be disqualified from contesting elections and holding
public office.
The Vohra Committee also recommended the establishment of special courts to
expedite the trial of cases involving politicians and organized crime. The
committee suggested that these courts should have the power to confiscate the
assets of convicted criminals and use the proceeds to compensate victims.
The Vohra Committee report received widespread attention and led to the
enactment of several measures to address the problem of the criminalization of
politics in India. However, the problem persists to this day, with many politicians
facing criminal charges and some even holding public office despite their
criminal records.
In conclusion, the Vohra Committee report was a wake-up call for India’s
democracy, highlighting the serious threat posed by the criminalization of
politics. The recommendations of the committee, if implemented in letter and
spirit, could go a long way in restoring the credibility of India’s political system
and ensuring that the country’s democracy remains vibrant and strong.

LOKPAL INSTITUTION
Lokpal (caretaker of people) is an anti -corruption authority or body of
ombudsman who represents the public interest in the Republic of India.
It has jurisdictions over central government to inquire into allegations of
corruption. The concept of a constitutional ombudsman was first proposed in
parliament by law minister Asok Kumar Sen in early 1960.
The term Lokpal was coined by Former Rajya Sabha MP Dr. L.M. Singhvi in
1963.
In 1968 the first Lokpal Bill was introduced in Parliament by former Law
Minister and member of the Rajya Sabha Adv. Shanti Bhushan but that was not
passed. 45 Years after the first introduction and after 10 failed attempts, the
Lokpal Bill was finally enacted in India in 2013.
In 2019 Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose has been appointed India’s first Lokpal,
followed by the appointments of eight other members of the Lokpal panel. The
present chairperson is Justice Pradeep Kumar Mohanty.
The features of LOKPAL as given by ARC (Administrative Reforms
Commission) are:
1. They should be demonstrably independent and impartial.
2. Their investigations and proceedings should be conducted in private
and should be uniform in character.
3. Their appointment should as far as possible, be non-political.
4. Their status should compare with the highest judicial functionary in
the country.
5. They should deal with matters in the discretionary field involving
acts of injustice, corruption and favouritism.
6. Their proceedings should not be subjected to judicial interference
and they should have the maximum latitude and powers in obtaining
information relevant to their duties, and
7. They should not look forward to any benefit or pecuniary advantage
from the executive government.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 commonly referred as the Lokpal Act,
seeks to provide for the establishment of Lokpal for the Union; and Lokayukta
for state to inquire into allegations of maladministration or corruption against
government officers.
The Act extends to whole of India, and is applicable to “public servants” within
and outside India
Structure of the Lokpal
Lokpal is a multi-member body consisting of one chairperson and a maximum of
8 members.
The person to be appointed as the chairperson of the Lokpal must be either:
1. The former Chief Justice of India; or
2. The former Judge of the Supreme Court; or
3. An eminent person with impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, who must
possess
special knowledge and a minimum experience of 25 years in matters relating to:
• Anti-corruption policy;
• Public administration;
• Vigilance;
• Finance including insurance and banking;
• Law and management.
The maximum number of members must not exceed eight.
Term and appointment to the office of Lokpal
Lokpal Chairman and the Members can hold the office for a term of 5 years or
till they
attain the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier. The members and the chairman of
Lokpal
are appointed by the president on the recommendation of a selection committee.
• The selection committee consists of:
• The Prime Minister of India;
• The Speaker of Lok Sabha;
• The Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha;
• The Chief Justice of India or any Judge nominated by Chief Justice of India;
One eminent jurist.
The Prime Minister is the Chairperson of the selection committee. The selection
of the chairperson and the members is carried out by a search panel of at least
eight persons, constituted by the selection committee

Lokpal Jurisdiction and Powers

1.Jurisdiction of Lokpal includes the Prime Minister, Ministers, members of
Parliament, Groups A, B, C and D officers and officials of Central Government.
2.Jurisdiction of the Lokpal included the Prime Minister except on allegations of
corruption relating to international relations, security, the public order, atomic
energy and space.
3.The Lokpal does not have jurisdiction over Ministers and MPs in the matter of
anything said in Parliament or a vote given there.
4.Its jurisdiction also includes any person who is or has been in charge (director/
manager/ secretary) of anybody/ society set up by central act or any other body
financed/ controlled by central government and any other person involved in act
of abetting, bribe giving or bribe taking.
5. The Lokpal Act mandates that all public officials should furnish the assets and
liabilities of themselves as well as their respective dependents.
6. It has the powers to superintendence over, and to give direction to CBI. If
Lokpal has referred a case to CBI, the investigating officer in such case cannot
be transferred without the approval of Lokpal.
7.The Inquiry Wing of the Lokpal has been vested with the powers of a civil
court.
8.Lokpal has powers of confiscation of assets, proceeds, receipts and benefits
arisen or procured by means of corruption in special circumstances.
9.Lokpal has the power to recommend transfer or suspension of public servant
connected with allegation of corruption. Lokpal has the power to give directions
to prevent the destruction of records during the preliminary inquiry.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Bill, 2016
This Bill was passed by Parliament in July 2016 and amended the Lokpal and
Lokayukta Act, 2013.It enables the leader of the single largest opposition party
in the Lok Sabha to be a member of the selection committee in the absence of a
recognized Leader of Opposition. It also amended section 44 of the 2013 Act that
deals with the provision of furnishing of details of assets and liabilities of public
servants within 30 days of joining the government service. The Bill replaces the
time limit of 30 days, now the public servants will make a declaration of their
assets and liabilities in the form and manner as prescribed by the government. It
also gives an extension of the time given to trustees and board members to declare
their assets and those of their spouses in case of these are receiving government
funds of more than Rs. 1 crore or foreign funding of more

Limitations

 The Lokpal act also called upon states to appoint a Lokayukta within a
year of its coming to force. But only 16 states have established the
Lokayukta.
 Lokpal is not free from political influence as the appointing committee
itself consist of members from political parties. The appointment of
Lokpal can be manipulated in a way as there is no criterion to decide who
is an ‘eminent juristʼ or ‘a person of integrity.ʼ
 The 2013 act did not provide concrete immunity to the whistle blowers.
 The biggest lacuna is the exclusion of judiciary from the ambit of the
Lokpal.
 The Lokpal is not given any constitutional backing and there is no
adequate provision for appeal against the Lokpal.
 The specific details in relation to the appointment of Lokayukta have been
left completely on the States.
 The complaint against corruption cannot be registered after a period of
seven years from the date on which the offence mentioned in such
complaint is alleged to have been committed.

LOKAYUKTHA
The origin of Lokayukta can be traced to the Ombudsmen in Scandinavian
countries. An Ombudsman is generally regarded as a person who is appointed to
protect citizens against any form of maladministration. Sweden was the first
country to have the institution of Ombudsman in the year 1809. The Indian
government’s initiatives towards making the administrative system free from
corruption and malpractices resulted in government’s creation of two anti-
corruption watchdogs, that is, Lokpal and Lokayukta.
The Lokayukta is created as a statutory authority with a fixed tenure to enable it
to discharge its functions independently and impartially as per the
recommendations of the ARC. The person appointed is usually a former High
Court Chief Justice or former Supreme Court Judge. The state of Maharashtra
created the institution of lokayukta in 1972, followed by Rajasthan (1973), Uttar
Pradesh (1975), Madhya Pradesh etc. In few states, there is a provision for
Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta (for instance in Maharashtra and Rajasthan).

The structure of Lokayukta does not follow a uniform pattern in all the states.
Some states such as Rajasthan, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra have
created the Lokayukta as well as Up-Lokayukta, while some others like Uttar
Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh have created only the Lokayukta. There is no
Lokayukta or UpLokayukta, in Jammu and Kashmir.
Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta are two independent and impartial functionaries
created to investigate the actions and decisions of public servants. These
functionaries are held at par with the Judges of the Supreme Court and High
Court; and independent of the legislature and executive.
In states, the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta are appointed by the Governor. At
the time of appointment, the Governor, generally, consults the Chief Justice of
the State High Court, and Leader of Opposition in the State Legislative
Assembly.
Qualification and Term of Office
For the Lokayukta, judicial qualifications are prescribed in the States of Uttar
Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Odisha and Karnataka.
However, no specific qualifications are prescribed in the states of Bihar,
Maharashtra and Rajasthan.
The term of office fixed for Lokayukta in majority of states, is of five years
duration or
70 years (Himachal Pradesh) of age, whichever is earlier; and the Lokayukta is
not eligible for reappointment for a second term.
Jurisdiction
At the state level, there is no uniformity in case of the jurisdiction of Lokayukta.
In this regard:
i) The Chief Minister is included within the jurisdiction of Lokayukta in
Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, while s/he is
excluded from the purview of Lokayukta in the states of Maharashtra, Uttar
Pradesh, Rajasthan and Bihar.
ii) Ministers and higher civil servants are included in the purview of Lokayukta
in majority of states. However, the Maharashtra has also included former
ministers and civil servants.
iii) Members of the state legislatures are included in the purview of Lokayukta in
Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.
iv) The authorities of the corporations, companies and societies are included in
the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta in majority of the states for example, Himachal
Pradesh.
The Lokayukta of a state is usually responsible to the state legislature. Its annual
report is presented in the legislature; and conventionally its recommendations are
accepted by the House.

LOKAYUKTA: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

The institution of the Lokayukta is considered as an anti-corruption agency,
which is responsible for addressing citizens’ grievances pertaining to corruption,
nepotism, favouritism arising out of maladministration. In this context, the
Lokayukta has:
Supervisory powers, that is, powers of superintendence over and to give
direction regarding matters referred for preliminary inquiry or investigation;
Power of Search and seizure;
Power of civil court in certain cases;
Power to utilise services of officers of the State Government;
Power of provisional attachment of assets;
Power regarding confirmation of attachment of assets;
Power related to confiscation of assets, proceeds, receipts and benefits arisen
or procured by means of corruption, in special circumstances;
 Power to recommend transfer or suspension of public servant connected with
allegation of corruption;
Power to give directions to prevent destruction of records during preliminary
inquiry; and
Power to delegate. In this context, the Lokayukta may direct that any
administrative or financial power conferred on it, may also be exercised or
discharged by its officer

Functions
Accepts complaint against administration from any citizen.
Accepts grievance against the accused person or body of persons, the
Lokayukta provides the chance to the complainant for defending, after duly
informing her/ him/them.
The Lokayukta carry out fair and impartial investigations, based on facts
against the accused person by taking the assistance of special investigating
agencies. Lokayukta
If the Lokayukta is satisfied with the validity of the complaint, s/he can
recommend her/his proposal through written request to the competent authority.
The Lokayukta has a separate office, staff and budget, which is essential for
conducting an impartial inquiry. Sometimes s/he takes the assistance of the state
investigating agencies for conducting inquiries; and getting access to relevant
files and documents necessary for the investigation. S/he also enjoys the power
to inspect and visit government orgnisations, which are being investigated.
However, it is significant to note that their grievances related to the conduct of
public servants. The Lokayukta has police and prosecution wings. On receiving
a complaint, the Lokayukta has powers to initiate investigation against any public
servant, ranging from Group D employees to the office of the Chief Minister. In
case of officials, s/he can take up cases suo moto as well.
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA ACT, 1984
The Karnataka Lokayukta Act gives powers to investigate; and report on
allegations or grievances related to the conduct of public servants. The Lokayukta
has police and prosecution wings. On receiving a complaint, the Lokayukta has
powers to initiate investigation against any public servant, ranging from Group D
employees to the office of the Chief Minister. In case of officials, s/he can take
up cases suo moto as well. In most of the states, the Lokayukta can initiate
investigations either on the basis of a complaint received from the citizen against
unfair administrative action or suo moto. In case of initiation of Prosecution ”If
after investigation, the Lokayukta is satisfied that the public servant has
committed any criminal offence, he may initiate prosecution without reference to
any other authority. Any prior sanction required under any law for such
prosecution shall be deemed to have been granted”.
The Karnataka Act empowers the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta with judicial and
investigative powers and functions to investigate the decisions of the bureaucratic
officials. However, certain government functionaries do not fall within the ambit
of the Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta. They are the Judges, Speaker of the
Assembly, Chief Election Commissioner, Chairman and Members of the
Karnataka Public Service Commission.