Figure 8.1 Crime and corruption cases 2003–2007

20,00,000

19,00,000

18,00,000

17,00,000

16,00,000

(19,89,673)

(18,78,293) (18,32,015) (18,22,602)

(17,16,120)

LEGENDS

IPC Cases

PC Act Cases

4000 3900 3800 3700 3600 3500 3400 3300

(3865)

(3343) (3835) (4004)

(3788)

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Figure 8.1 Crime and corruption cases 2003–2007

YEAR

corruption cases during the period 2003–2007 the following graphical representation can be seen:

From Figure 8.1, it may be seen that while the crime figures are increasing steadily, the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act are showing a fluctuating trend. While the total number of cases under the PC Act, 1988 decreased from 3,865 in 2003 to 3,343 in 2004, it again increased to 3,835 in 2005 and further to 4,004 in 2006. Again, surprisingly, it decreased to 3,788 in the year 2007. Our study did not reveal any specific reasons for such a fluctuating trend. In fact there could be no reason why corruption cases should have decreased in the year 2007 from the previous year 2006.

Table 8.1 shows the number of cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by the CBI and the States during 2003–2007. It may be seen that the maximum number of cases were registered in 2005 and the least in 2007. But the number of persons arrested during 2007 was the maximum which indicated that more number of corrupt

Table 8.1 PC ACT Cases by CBI and States 2003–2007: Details of cases registered and persons arrested under prevention of corruption act

No. of vigilance cases registered by Persons arrested

Sl. No. Year CBI States/UTs CBI States/UTs

1 2003 707 3,158 409 3,320 2 2004 758 2,585 292 3,209 3 2005 827 3,008 NA 3,510 4 2006 719 3,285 NA 3,425 5 2007 610 3,178 NA 4,531

Table 8.2 Major fraud cases during 2005–2007: Major frauds reported during 2005–2007

2005 2006 2007

Sl. No. Value of property lost/defrauded (in Rs. Crore) CBT Cheating CBT Cheating CBT Cheating

1 1–10 17 86 58 285 74 147 2 10–25 4 11 0 4 3 7 3 25–50 1 3 4 1 0 21 4 50–100 1 1 0 0 1 0 5 Above 100 1 0 0 0 1 1 Total 24 101 62 290 79 176

public servants have been working in groups or syndicates, which again is a cause for worry. Table 8.1 also highlights the details of public servants arrested in corruption cases during the relevant period by the CBI and the States/UTs. From this table, it is seen that the State Governments are taking more and more initiative to enquire into cases of corruption involving corrupt State Government officials.

Table 8.2 highlights the major frauds reported during 2005–2007. It may be noticed that number of cases of CBT has gradually been increasing while the number of high-value cheating cases decreased

during 2007 as compared to previous year. The State Vigilance Bureau seized property worth Rs 29.6 crore in various seizures connected with corruption charges showing a 101.4% increase in value of seizure over the year 2006 when the figure was Rs 14.7 crore. However, a very conservative estimate of public money lost only in petty corruption cases stands at more than Rs 21,000 crore as per the study of corruption undertaken by the Transparency International in 2005. This figure does not take account of the big frauds/scams involving Ministers, Senior Politicians and Public Servants. So the percentage seizure of the misappropriated money stands at a meager 0.0014%.

If we critically examine the total number of cases under PC Act started by CBI and the State Anti-Corruption Bureau during the year, we find that Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Kerala, Punjab and Haryana started the maximum number of cases as against Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, West Bengal, Tripura and Mizoram recording the minimum number of cases. On the other hand, the maximum number of IPC crimes were registered in Madhya Pradesh, Maharastra, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh, while minimum number of cases were registered in Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Meghalaya and Mizoram. During the same year, the economic growth of the States are given in Table 8.4.

India has a decentralized federal system in which State Governments possess broad regulatory power. Although corruption is found to be pervasive across all states and public services, several reports indicate important regional variations in the level and impact of corruption. HP, AP and Maharashtra are perceived to experience moderate levels of corruption while states like Bihar, J&K and MP are affected with an alarming level of corruption. There are also regional differences in the sectors and institutions most affected by corruption at the state level, as illustrated in the TI’s 2005 study:

a. In Gujarat, the judiciary, the police and the land administration are ranked the most corrupt services. b. In Maharashtra, the Municipal services are perceived to be the most corrupt. c. In Punjab, the judiciary, the police and the municipal services are perceived to be the most corrupt.

Table 8.3 Max/Min PC Act cases vis-à-vis IPC cases

Max Min

PC Act Rajasthan Arunachal Pradesh Maharashtra Meghalaya Kerala West Bengal Punjab Tripura Haryana Mizoram IPC Madhya Pradesh Sikkim Maharashtra Arunachal Pradesh Tamilnadu Nagaland Andhra Pradesh Meghalaya Uttar Pradesh Mizoram

Table 8.4 State-wise economic growth

Max Min

Himachal Pradesh Bihar Punjab Jharkhand Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh Gujarat Chattisgarh Kerala Assam

d. In Bihar, all public services are ranked among the most corrupt in India. e. According to Freedom House 2008, rebel groups operate extensive extortion networks in the north east of the country, compounding the impact of corruption in the various affected states.

In our study we decided to closely examine the relationship between Crime, Corruption and State Domestic Product in 5 states, viz. Kerala and Gujarat which are perceived to be “Less Corrupt States” (as may be seen in Table 8.5), Punjab and West Bengal known to be “Moderately Corrupt States”, and Bihar which is at the bottom of Table 8.5 indicating the Most Corrupt State.

Table 8.5 State-wise corruption perception ranking of states

State Composite index Rank Kerala 240 1 Himachal Pradesh 301 2 Gujarat 417 3 Andhra Pradesh 421 4 Maharashtra 433 5 Chattisgarh 445 6 Punjab 459 7 West Bengal 461 8 Orissa 475 9 Uttar Pradesh 491 10 Delhi 496 11 Tamil Nadu 509 12 Haryana 516 13 Jharkhand 520 14 Assam 542 15 Rajasthan 543 16 Karnataka 576 17 MP 584 18 J&K 655 19 Bihar 695 20

Table 8.6 gives the Comparative Bar Diagram of Crime, Corruption and SDP in these 5 states. While Kerala and Gujarat expectedly had significant higher SDP as compared to West Bengal and Bihar (having the least SDP), Punjab which is ranked 7th in Table 8.5, achieved much higher SDP than Kerala(1st) and Gujarat(3rd), reasons of, which could be attributable to other factors. 9. Slow disposal of court cases again weakens the anti-corruption efforts of the Government only 2,004 out of 15,861 cases under PC Act registered by the State Anti-corruption Bureau were disposed of during 2007. Out of these 2,004 cases only 739 cases ended in conviction. The position of trial of CBI cases gives a better picture with 744 out of 6,172