"Preventive vigilance is more effective than punitive vigilance in curbing petty corruption." Discuss, citing the recent judicial suggestion to cap the cash government employees may hold on duty.

Preventive vigilance changes rules and systems so that there is less chance to take a bribe. Punitive vigilance catches and punishes corrupt officials after the act. The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently asked Tamil Nadu to consider a uniform cash limit for employees on duty [1]. Its suggestion shows that prevention often works better against petty corruption, though it cannot replace punishment.

Why prevention works better for petty corruption

• It removes the chance to take a bribe. No common Government Order (G.O.) sets how much cash an employee may carry on duty. The court said a limit could curb corruption "to some extent", since almost every payment can now be made digitally [1].
• It makes breaches easy to prove. With a written limit, excess cash becomes a clear breach of service rules. The department would not have to prove that a bribe was paid.
• It fixes weak systems. CVC guidelines ask vigilance officers to identify sensitive posts, to use surprise inspections to find system failures, and to review rules that create scope for corruption [2].

Limits of prevention and the role of punishment

• Bribes can move elsewhere. They can be paid outside the office or through middlemen, which a cash limit does not reach. Field staff who genuinely need cash also need a tiered limit and a cash register.
• Prevention needs deterrence behind it. The court asked DVAC for five years of data on money recovered, prosecutions started, and cases where departmental action replaced prosecution [1]. This tests whether raids actually lead to punishment.
• Legal hurdles weaken punishment. The 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior approval before police investigate a public servant [3]. This can slow cases that begin with surprise checks.

Prevention (cash-limit G.O.) → Surveillance (DVAC checks) → Prosecution (court)

Figure: The three steps must work together.

Prevention does more to reduce the everyday chances of petty corruption, but it lasts only if credible punishment stands behind it. The 2nd ARC said corruption can be removed only through prevention, surveillance and deterrent prosecution together [4]. A tiered cash-limit G.O., linked to digital payments and data-driven raids, would bring these together and strengthen probity in governance.