Public servant can be convicted for corruption on circumstantial evidence

Thursday, the Supreme Court constitution bench stated that a public servant can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct evidence of demand and acceptance of a bribe, noting that corruption has taken on a massive proportion in affecting governance.

A five-judge Constitution bench comprised of Justice S.Abdul Nazeer, Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, and Justice B V Nagarathna stated that corrupt officials must be booked and convicted because their continuation in administrative set-up demoralises honest officers.

Even if the direct evidence of the complainant is unavailable due to the complainant's death or other circumstances, the highest court ruled that circumstantial evidence can be used to condemn a public work under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The constitution bench stated, "This (allegation of corruption) may be shown by oral or written direct proof. In the absence of direct oral or written evidence, the contested fact, namely proof of demand and acceptance of illicit gratification, can also be established by circumstantial evidence."

The constitution bench ruled that the trial of a public servant accused of demanding and accepting gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act will not automatically end or result in an acquittal if the complainant dies, turns hostile, or refuses to testify and that the case can still be proven with other evidence or testimonies.

Whether public workers can be tried for bribery if bribe providers fail to record their comments or become hostile was the subject of the Constitutional Court's ruling.

The third issue before the constitution bench was whether the death of a complainant, the non-appearance of complainants, or the hostility of a complainant would have an effect on outstanding cases against public work under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Constitution Bench was also asked if, in such a case, it would be the responsibility of the prosecution to show the guilt of a public worker using other evidence.

Under the current legal framework, a public official can be convicted if the element of demand and acceptance of a bribe is demonstrated and claims of demanding gratification are proven.

In February 2019, a three-judge panel referred the case to the constitution bench, citing inconsistency in a 2015 high court decision that stated public workers should be acquitted if there is insufficient main evidence against them. The highest court then stated that direct evidence of demand may not be accessible if the complainant is deceased, unable to be interviewed, hostile, or otherwise unavailable.

The federal government informed the constitution bench that the court has a golden chance to explain its 2015 ruling by stating that the absence of direct or main evidence does not automatically result in an acquittal. The Centre had cited a number of examples in which the 2015 judgement resulted in the acquittal of the accused when arguing before the constitution bench for a strict anti-corruption statute, characterising it as "urgently required."