Should the public take action against corrupt bureaucrats and politicians?

The root of all corruption lies in the bureaucratic hurdles that arise in the absence of even a single recommendation, obstructing matters that ought to proceed smoothly. In cases that could potentially turn into legal proceedings and court actions, some people seek corrupt means to prevent the natural course of justice from taking place. Those seeking to either “make things happen” or “prevent things from happening” resort to shortcuts—these shortcuts, fueled by bribery and the desires of officials, form the toxic web of corruption. A corruption-free administrative system is the true essence and beauty of democracy in any country. Unfortunately, in many government offices, things don’t move without a bribe, indicating how deeply entrenched corruption has become in the bureaucracy. Though a few corrupt officials occasionally get caught, it barely scratches the surface of the widespread problem, as evident from the daily news.

The Chief Minister frequently reiterates on public platforms that corruption at the bureaucratic level will be eradicated. He has even issued stern warnings during employee union meetings to leaders who shield corrupt individuals. However, this vigilance of the Chief Minister must also be embraced by both politicians and officials. The government must ensure that it does not withhold permissions required for prosecuting such "high-power" officials. A recent report by Kerala Kaumudi revealed that over 500 individuals—politically influential leaders and officials—accused in vigilance corruption cases are yet to be prosecuted, with the required departmental permissions still pending.

According to the amended Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior approval from a competent authority is required even to file a case against the Chief Ministers, Ministers, elected representatives, officials, or public servants. Even if permission to register a case is granted, additional approval is needed to file a chargesheet or to proceed with prosecution. Vigilance departments are required to receive a decision from the relevant departments within three months on such requests; otherwise, complainants can approach the High Court. But in reality, these applications often remain indefinitely stuck with the department heads. The accused enjoy promotions, full benefits, and even cushy post-retirement positions. If the accused is an elected representative, they often complete their term without any legal consequences.

Even though the Supreme Court has ruled that circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict public servants in bribery cases where direct evidence is unavailable, the accused still escape justice by exploiting loopholes like the need for approval for prosecution. In this context, the decision by the Vigilance Department to inform the courts of repeated denials or delays in prosecution approval is a welcome move—let the courts decide further.

A recent example is the Madras High Court's decision to overturn a 2007 special court verdict that had acquitted Tamil Nadu Minister Durai Murugan and his family in a disproportionate assets case. The High Court ordered that charges be framed and the trial be completed within six months.

Similarly, only two days have passed since the Supreme Court gave a stern warning to DMK Minister Senthil Balaji, who had secured bail in a money laundering case, that he would be jailed if he didn’t resign. Politicians caught in corruption and money laundering cases must take these court rulings seriously. The fact that over 500 individuals are being shielded by the government—300 of whom are political leaders—is alarming. This includes members from all political parties. The real question remains: will politicians clean up the bureaucracy, or will bureaucrats restrain the politicians? Either way, a situation where corrupt leaders are handled only by the public poses a serious threat to democracy.