Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) is a pivotal legislation aimed at combating corruption in public life. Central to its application is the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(c). This definition is intentionally broad and not restrictive, reflecting a legislative intent to cast a wide net to ensure that individuals performing 'public duty' are held accountable, irrespective of their specific designation or formal employment status. This expansive approach is crucial for the effective implementation of anti-corruption measures, especially in an evolving administrative and economic landscape where the lines between public and private functions can often blur.
Illustrative Nature of 'Public Servant' Definition
The statement "The definition of 'public servant' as per the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is only illustrative and not exhaustive" accurately reflects the legislative intent and judicial interpretation of Section 2(c) of the PC Act.
Legal Provisions: Section 2(c) and 2(b) of PC Act, 1988
- Section 2(c) provides an extensive list of categories of persons who are considered 'public servants'. This list includes government employees, judges, employees of local authorities, employees of corporations established by or under Central/State Acts, and employees of bodies owned, controlled, or aided by the Government, among others. The presence of clauses like "any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is authorised or required to perform any public duty" (Section 2(c)(viii)) signifies a functional rather than a purely titular approach.
- Section 2(b) defines 'public duty' as "a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest." This definition further expands the scope by focusing on the nature of the duty performed rather than the source of employment.
Judicial Pronouncements Expanding the Scope
The judiciary has consistently adopted a purposive interpretation, emphasizing the functional aspect of performing 'public duty' to bring a wide array of individuals under the ambit of the PC Act, thereby preventing corrupt individuals from escaping liability due to legal technicalities.
- M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India (1979): Even before the 1988 Act, the Supreme Court held that a Minister is a public servant, receiving compensation from public money for public duties.
- P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998): This landmark judgment affirmed the illustrative nature, emphasizing the functional aspect of 'public duty' as the primary criterion. It underscored that individuals entrusted with public responsibilities are accountable for corrupt practices, irrespective of their formal designation.
- State of M.P. v. Ram Singh (2000): The Supreme Court stressed the need for a purposive approach in interpreting Section 2(c) to align with the legislative intent of combating corruption in government and semi-government entities.
- CBI v. Ramesh Gelli (2016): The Supreme Court expanded the definition to include managing directors and chairpersons of private banks. The court harmonized the PC Act's objectives with Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, reasoning that private banking officials discharge functions impacting public interest.
- State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah (2020): Reaffirmed that any duty performed where the State, public, or community at large has an interest constitutes a 'public duty', thereby broadening the Act's purview.
This broad interpretation ensures that various persons, including those in cooperative societies receiving government aid, university staff, and even individuals temporarily entrusted with public functions, are covered. The aim is to strengthen the anti-corruption framework by ensuring accountability across all sectors performing public duties.
Conclusion
The definition of 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is indeed illustrative, not exhaustive. This deliberate legislative choice, strongly supported by judicial pronouncements, emphasizes the functional performance of 'public duty' over strict designations. This expansive interpretation is critical for ensuring that the fight against corruption extends beyond traditional government employees to encompass anyone entrusted with public responsibilities, including those in quasi-governmental bodies and even certain private sector roles that significantly impact public interest. Such an approach remains vital for adapting the anti-corruption framework to contemporary challenges and effectively upholding public trust.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.