Give internal vigilance teeth to tackle graft
The eye-popping cash seizure from an additional sub-collector’s residence by Odisha’s vigilance wing has triggered a political slugfest in the state. Using Prasanta Kumar Rout’s enormous wealth as a weapon, Opposition parties in the state have trained their guns on the Biju Janata Dal (BJD) government. The BJP has doubled down on its attack, with the party’s top functionaries and Union ministers leading the pack, while the Congress, too, has joined the bandwagon. The BJD, for its part, has rebuffed the charges on the grounds that it has one of the best anti-corruption structures in the country, rattling out statistics on its crusade against graft. It even chose to ridicule the BJP, citing the seizure of `8 crore from a saffron party MLA’s possession in Karnataka before the Assembly polls.
With the 2024 general election drawing closer, expect political mudslinging to intensify. From former Union telecom minister Sukh Ram to Odisha’s Prasant Kumar Rout, ill-gotten assets of public servants have a history of reigniting the debate on corruption. Rout’s case is one of embarrassing riches: despite facing suspension early in his career, his alleged penchant for gratification saw him accumulate movable and immovable property worth Rs 5 crore, of which a staggering `3 crore was in cash, stored in boxes, packets and almirahs.
NCRB’s report pegs Odisha among the top five states vis-à-vis registration of cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In 2022, 62 class-I officers were booked, while over the last three years, at least 180 corrupt officials have been handed compulsory retirement and dismissed or denied pensions. But the question is: does detection of more corruption cases point to stronger enforcement, or is it a marker for lack of bureaucratic integrity? The answer lies in the weak internal vigilance mechanism in the administrative system.
Despite the state decentralising anti-corruption mechanisms and setting up special courts for speedy trials, the greedy continue to brazenly bleed the exchequer. The state vigilance wing can be an enforcer, but its limited organisational structure and resources hardly make it a deterrent. So, the government must strengthen the internal vigilance system in each administrative department by investing in data, analytics, technology and manpower. Unless every department has an automatic mechanism that flags suspect actions and quality compliances, arresting the tainted would be difficult.