Calcutta High Court: The Calcutta High Court has taken a firm stance on the issue of police bribery in West Bengal, stressing that officers who demand bribes cannot be allowed to continue in service. The case arose after an engineer, Biltu Hazra, alleged that a woman police officer from Tarakeswar Police Station demanded ₹5,000 to manipulate a case against him. Initially, the police imposed only a departmental warning. However, the High Court sharply criticized this soft approach, questioning why dismissal was not ordered in such a serious matter.
This case has reignited debate about corruption in police forces, legal remedies under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the accountability of law enforcement agencies.
Calcutta High Court: Background of the Case
- Complainant: Engineer Biltu Hazra lodged a case against his neighbor who allegedly assaulted his wife.
- Allegation: Instead of getting support, Hazra claimed that a woman officer at Tarakeswar Police Station summoned him and said a case was registered against him. She allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹5,000 to settle the matter.
- Initial Action: The officer received only a departmental warning, sparking criticism that this was too mild.
- High Court’s Intervention: A division bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md Shabbar Rashidi rebuked the police, saying: “Why only departmental action? Why not dismissal?”
The High Court directed Kolkata Police to file a fresh report, to be submitted at the next hearing.
The Legal Framework: Why This Matters
1. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The PCA criminalizes any public servant’s demand or acceptance of an undue advantage. After the 2018 amendment, both taking and giving bribes are punishable.
🔗 Prevention of Corruption Act – India Code
2. Proof of Demand
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that mere recovery of money is insufficient; proof of demand is essential for conviction.
🔗 SC Observer – PCA and Proof of Demand
3. Disciplinary Action in Police Service
According to service rules, corruption is treated as gross misconduct, often inviting suspension or dismissal. However, many cases end with only warnings or transfers, leading to erosion of public trust.
Why the Court’s Stand is Significant
- Restoring Public Confidence: Citizens approach police expecting justice, not extortion. Demanding bribes damages credibility.
- Deterrence: Dismissal sends a clear message across the police force that corruption will not be tolerated.
- Judicial Oversight: Courts can step in when internal mechanisms appear inadequate or biased.
Social and Institutional Implications
For the Police
- Morale & Image: Corrupt practices damage the reputation of honest officers.
- Internal Discipline: A culture of leniency towards bribery fosters further corruption. Strong action strengthens accountability.
For Citizens
- Access to Justice: People often hesitate to file complaints fearing police harassment. Strict punishment can reduce such fear.
- Trust in Institutions: Judicial intervention shows citizens that courts are willing to act when administrative systems fail.
Challenges in Bribery Cases
- Gathering Evidence – Most bribe demands happen verbally, making proof difficult.
- Fear of Retaliation – Citizens may hesitate to lodge complaints against police officers.
- Delays in Action – Departmental inquiries often drag on for years, reducing effectiveness.
Comparative Perspective
Cases across India show a similar pattern: light punishments are common, while dismissals are rare. Judicial interventions have often been necessary to push for stricter measures.
For example:
- In several Supreme Court rulings, bribe-taking officers were dismissed to protect institutional integrity.
- Internationally, police reforms in countries like Singapore and Hong Kong show that strict anti-corruption policies backed by independent watchdogs can drastically reduce such practices.
Policy Recommendations
- Mandatory Dismissal Rule: Any proven bribe demand by a police officer should result in dismissal, not mere warnings.
- Independent Oversight Bodies: Stronger Lokayukta or Vigilance Commissions should monitor corruption cases.
- Technology Use: Installing body-worn cameras and digital complaint mechanisms can reduce opportunities for bribes.
- Public Awareness: Citizens must be informed about their right to refuse bribes and how to report demands safely.
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s stance on police bribery is more than just a ruling on one case—it is a call for systemic change. By questioning why a corrupt officer was spared dismissal, the court has underscored the need for zero tolerance towards corruption in law enforcement.
If Kolkata Police follows through with stronger disciplinary action, it could set a precedent for other states and send a strong signal that police officers who exploit their authority will face the ultimate consequence—loss of their job.
This case reminds us that corruption in uniform is not just a violation of law but a betrayal of public trust, and restoring that trust requires nothing less than firm, decisive action.
🔗 Useful References:
- Prevention of Corruption Act – India Code
- Supreme Court Observer – PCA and Proof of Demand
- Central Vigilance Commission, India
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
