INTRODUCTION
Public procurement is governed by a web of legal frameworks in India, but the sector remains vulnerable to corrupt practices. From manipulated tenders to political favouritism, the problem lies not just in weak enforcement, but also in legislative loopholes. This carousel explores whether India’s legal architecture is robust enough to handle corruption in public contracts—or whether we need comprehensive legal reform.
UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL RISK IN PROCUREMENT
Public procurement constitutes a major chunk of government expenditure, making it a prime target for unlawful gains. Bribery, bid rigging, and misuse of discretion plague every stage—from tender drafting to contract execution. Despite several vigilance bodies and statutory safeguards, loopholes remain. Corruption in this area not only erodes public trust but also violates constitutional principles such as equality and transparency under Article 14. The question is—are existing legal safeguards sufficient?
THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
The Prevention of Corruption Act is the cornerstone legislation criminalizing bribery in public functions. Amended in 2018, it now penalizes both bribe-givers and bribe-takers, introduces corporate criminal liability, and mandates prior sanction for prosecution of public servants. However, critics argue that requiring sanction often delays or dilutes proceedings. Despite a strong legal outline, poor conviction rates and judicial delays have hampered the Act’s effectiveness in ensuring accountability in public procurement.
THE MISSING PUBLIC PROCUREMENT LAW
India lacks a comprehensive procurement law. The Public Procurement Bill, 2012, proposed transparency, fair bidding, and penalties for misconduct—but was never enacted. Instead, the General Financial Rules (GFRs) and departmental guidelines govern procurement today. These are executive instructions and lack the enforceability of a statute. The absence of a binding, central legislation leaves ample room for discretion, inconsistency, and corruption across different departments and states.
STRUCTURAL GAPS IN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
Even where laws exist, enforcement often fails. Investigative agencies like the CBI face allegations of political misuse. Oversight bodies such as the Central Vigilance Commission have recommendatory—not punitive—powers. Delays in sanctioning prosecution, poor witness protection, and inadequate case tracking systems weaken the fight against corruption. Without institutional independence and judicial efficiency, even the most well-drafted legislation fails to translate into deterrence.
GLOBAL LEGISLATIVE MODELS
GLOBAL LEGISLATIVE MODELS India can take cues from global anti-bribery laws. The UK Bribery Act (2010) imposes strict liability on companies and mandates adequate procedures to prevent bribery. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) allows prosecution of American firms involved in foreign corruption. These laws prioritize corporate compliance and cross-border enforcement. India’s framework lacks clear mandates on due diligence, self-reporting, and whistleblower safeguards, making international benchmarking necessary.
LEGAL REFORMS THAT CAN STRENGTHEN THE SYSTEM
Legal experts have long called for reforms to strengthen integrity in public procurement. These include:
- Enacting a standalone Public Procurement Law;
- Strengthening the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014;
- Introducing mandatory e-procurement to ensure transparency;
- Creating a fast-track court system for corruption cases;
- Enhancing the independence and authority of investigative agencies law, policy, and institutional integrity must converge to curb systemic corruption.
CONCLUSION – A LEGAL IMPERATIVE
The existing legal framework is foundational, but far from sufficient. Fragmented laws, weak enforcement, and absence of a central procurement statute create an ecosystem where corruption can persist unchecked. If India is serious about fiscal accountability and constitutional governance, it must legislate with precision and enforce with resolve. The solution is not just stricter laws—but smarter, more coherent legal systems that truly deter misconduct in public contracts.