Examine the effectiveness of State anti-corruption agencies in India in turning raids and seizures into successful prosecutions. What reforms are needed?

State anti-corruption agencies, such as Tamil Nadu's Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC), often carry out surprise checks. Their real test is how many raids end in convictions. The Madras High Court's Madurai Bench recently asked DVAC to report on five years of raids: the money recovered, the prosecutions started and their status, and the cases sent for disciplinary action instead [1]. The order shows judicial doubt that seizures are turning into punishment.

Where State agencies are effective

• Visible deterrence: surprise inspections expose cash that employees cannot explain, which works as on-the-spot preventive vigilance [1].
• Finding weak systems: CVC norms use inspections to find "system failures" and corruption-prone posts, not only guilty individuals [2].

Why raids rarely end in convictions

• Evidence gap: unexplained cash is not proof of a bribe. A prosecution must link the money to an official act done or withheld.
• Prior-approval hurdle: Section 17A of the PC Act (added in 2018) requires permission before a public servant can be investigated. MPs warned that it raised the threshold for investigation [3].
• Quiet exit: some cases are moved to departmental proceedings, which lead to penalties, not prison. This weakens deterrence, so the Court asked for these cases to be counted separately [1].
• No clear rule: no common Government Order (G.O.) caps the cash an employee may hold on duty, so a "personal money" defence often works [1].

Reforms needed

• Preventive rule-making: issue a G.O. with a cash cap that varies by post, plus cash registers for field staff. A breach then becomes a service-rule violation that needs no proof of a bribe [1]. This follows the CVC's advice to rework rules that create scope for corruption [2].
• Time-bound approvals: enforce deadlines on Section 17A approval and on sanction for prosecution, so that investigations do not stall [3].
• Outcome audits: publish yearly data comparing recoveries with convictions, and require written reasons whenever a case goes to the disciplinary route [1].
• Targeted checks: aim inspections at sensitive posts identified from past recovery data [2].
• Digital payments: use digital payments in public offices to cut cash handling and leave audit trails [1].

Raids are necessary but not enough to curb corruption. The 2nd ARC held that corruption can be removed only when prevention, surveillance and deterrent prosecution work together [4]. A clear cash rule, targeted surprise checks and time-bound prosecutions can turn seizures into convictions. This would strengthen probity in governance and advance SDG 16.5.