Society & Welfare
Social Legislation and Human Rights
Prevention of Corruption, Lokpal and IT Laws
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and its 2018 amendment, CVC, Lokpal and Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, the IT Act 2000, IT Rules 2021–2026 and the DPDP Act 2023.
Prerequisites
- Right to Information Act and Citizen-Service Laws — transparency is the first defence against corruption.
- Constitutional and Statutory Bodies — where the CVC and Lokpal fit among oversight bodies.
- Computers and Information Technology — the technology the IT Act regulates.
The Hook: A Bribe, a Screenshot and a Deepfake
Connect
A patwari in a Chhattisgarh tehsil asks for money to correct a land record. Years ago, the farmer who paid might have been treated as a victim; since 2018, giving a bribe is itself an offence unless he was forced and reports it within seven days. Meanwhile, his son loses ₹40,000 to a fake “KYC update” call, and his daughter finds a morphed photo of herself circulating online.
All three are governance failures of the digital age. Which law punishes whom, who investigates a minister or an IAS officer, and how fast must a platform take down a deepfake?
Why it matters: The Prevention of Corruption Act and the IT Act are named in GS-V. Recent changes (Section 17A litigation in 2026, IT Rules amendments in 2026, the DPDP Act) make this a fertile area for Mains questions.
Part A: Anti-Corruption Laws
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम)
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Replaced | Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 |
| Covers | “Public servants” broadly: government employees, judges, employees of PSUs, universities, co-operative societies receiving government aid, and anyone performing a public duty |
| Major amendment | Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, in force from 26 July 2018 |
What the 2018 Amendment Changed
| Feature | Detail |
|---|---|
| “Undue advantage” | Replaced the older term “gratification” |
| Taking a bribe (Sec 7) | 3 to 7 years imprisonment and fine (raised from 6 months–5 years) |
| Giving a bribe (Sec 8) | Made a specific offence (up to 7 years and/or fine). Exception: a person compelled to give a bribe who reports it to law enforcement within 7 days |
| Commercial organisations (Sec 9) | A company is liable if a person associated with it bribes a public servant; defence: it had adequate procedures (guidelines) to prevent bribery |
| Criminal misconduct (Sec 13) | Narrowed to two heads: fraudulent misappropriation of property, and intentional illicit enrichment (disproportionate assets) |
| Section 17A | Prior approval of the competent government is needed before any inquiry or investigation into a public servant’s decisions or recommendations in official functions (not needed if caught red-handed accepting a bribe) |
| Sanction for prosecution (Sec 19) | Extended to former public servants for acts done while in office; decision on sanction within 3 months (extendable by 1 month) |
| Speedy trial | Trial to be completed within 2 years, extendable to a maximum of 4 years (with reasons recorded) |
| Property | Attachment and forfeiture of property acquired through corruption |
Section 17A: split verdict (January 2026)
In January 2026 a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave a split verdict on the validity of Section 17A:
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna held it unconstitutional: prior approval forecloses inquiry at the threshold and shields the corrupt.
- Justice K.V. Viswanathan held it valid, but read it so that approval should depend on the recommendation of the Lokpal or Lokayukta, not the government alone.
The matter was referred to the Chief Justice of India for a larger bench (pending as of the latest reports). Mains point: the tension between protecting honest officers from harassment (“policy paralysis”) and preventing executive veto over anti-corruption probes.
Anti-Corruption Institutions
| Body | Basis | Key facts |
|---|---|---|
| Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) | Set up in 1964 by executive resolution on the Santhanam Committee’s advice; made statutory by the CVC Act, 2003 (after Vineet Narain, 1997) | CVC + up to 2 Vigilance Commissioners; appointed by the President on the recommendation of the PM, Home Minister and LoP (Lok Sabha); term 4 years or 65; supervises the CBI’s corruption investigations |
| CBI | Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 | Needs state consent to investigate in a state (several states have withdrawn general consent at different times) |
| Lokpal | Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (in force 16 January 2014) | Chairperson + up to 8 members, half judicial; at least half of members from SC, ST, OBC, minorities and women. Selected by PM, Speaker, LoP (LS), CJI or a nominated SC judge, and an eminent jurist. Covers the PM (with exclusions such as international relations, security, public order, atomic energy and space; any inquiry needs a full bench, two-thirds approval and in-camera proceedings), ministers, MPs, and Group A to D officers |
| Lokayuktas | Section 63 of the 2013 Act required every state to set up a Lokayukta (by its own law) within one year | Many states already had Lokayukta laws; Maharashtra (1971) was the first to set one up |
- First Lokpal: Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose (March 2019).
- Chairperson (as of 2026): Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, former Supreme Court judge, appointed in 2024.
- The Administrative Reforms Commission (1966) first recommended the Lokpal and Lokayukta model.
- Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014: protects persons who disclose corruption or wilful misuse of power by public servants.
Chhattisgarh: Lok Aayog and the anti-corruption machinery
- Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (छत्तीसगढ़ लोक आयोग अधिनियम), Act No. 30 of 2002, provides for a Pramukh Lokayukta and Lokayukta to inquire into allegations of misconduct and corruption against public servants. The Lok Aayog has its headquarters at Raipur.
- Criminal investigation of corruption in the state is handled by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) and the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the state police, with the Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa Guarantee Act, 2011 covering delays in service delivery.
- In recent years large alleged scams in the state (for example in liquor trade, coal transport levies and online betting) and alleged irregularities in the state civil services recruitment examination of 2021 (taken over by the CBI in 2024) have been under investigation by central and state agencies. Use such examples carefully: say “alleged” and avoid naming individuals.
Evaluation (Mains)
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| 2018 amendment targets supply side (bribe-givers, companies) | Section 17A may let governments block probes |
| Time-bound trials and property forfeiture | Low conviction rates; sanction delays |
| Lokpal covers even the PM | Lokpal was set up only in 2019, five years after the Act; few prosecutions so far |
| CVC supervision of CBI (Vineet Narain) | CBI’s dependence on state consent and on the government for staff |
Way forward: a time-bound, independent approval mechanism (possibly through Lokpal/Lokayukta), stronger whistle-blower protection, e-governance to remove discretion (DBT, online land records), and asset-declaration transparency.
Part B: Information Technology Act, 2000 (सूचना प्रौद्योगिकी अधिनियम)
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Enacted / in force | 2000; in force 17 October 2000 |
| Basis | UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996) |
| Purpose | Legal recognition of electronic records and digital signatures, e-governance, and punishing cyber offences |
| Major amendment | IT (Amendment) Act, 2008 (in force 2009): added Sec 66A, 66B–66F, 67A–67C, 43A, 69A, CERT-In (70B), recast Sec 79 |
| Authorities | Controller of Certifying Authorities (digital signatures); CERT-In (national agency for cyber incidents, Sec 70B); NCIIPC (critical information infrastructure, Sec 70A) |
| Appeals | The Cyber Appellate Tribunal was merged into TDSAT in 2017 |
Key Sections
| Section | Subject |
|---|---|
| 43 | Damage to computers (unauthorised access, viruses): compensation |
| 43A | Compensation for failure to protect sensitive personal data (to be omitted once the DPDP Act’s Sec 44(2) takes effect) |
| 66 | Computer-related offences (hacking) |
| 66C | Identity theft (passwords, electronic signatures) |
| 66D | Cheating by personation using a computer resource (phishing, fake calls) |
| 66E | Violation of privacy (capturing or publishing private images) |
| 66F | Cyber terrorism: up to life imprisonment |
| 67, 67A, 67B | Obscene material; sexually explicit material; child sexual abuse material |
| 69 | Interception, monitoring, decryption by government |
| 69A | Blocking of public access to online content (upheld in Shreya Singhal) |
| 70B | CERT-In |
| 79 | Safe harbour for intermediaries (platforms) if they follow due diligence |
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (24 March 2015)
- Section 66A (sending “grossly offensive” or “menacing” messages) was struck down as violating Art 19(1)(a): its terms were vague and over-broad, and it was not saved by Art 19(2).
- Section 69A (blocking) was upheld, because it has procedural safeguards and recorded reasons.
- Section 79 was read down: an intermediary must take down content on “actual knowledge”, meaning a court order or a government notification.
IT Rules, 2021 and Later Amendments
| Rules | Key points |
|---|---|
| IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 | Grievance officers; significant social media intermediaries must appoint a Chief Compliance Officer, a nodal contact person and a Resident Grievance Officer; messaging platforms to enable identifying the first originator of certain messages; a code of ethics for digital news and OTT platforms |
| 2022 amendment | Grievance Appellate Committees to hear users’ appeals against platforms’ decisions |
| 2026 amendment (notified 10 February 2026, in force 20 February 2026) | “Synthetically generated information” (deepfakes and AI-made content) must carry a prominent label and provenance metadata; takedown of court- or government-flagged unlawful content within 3 hours (down from 36); a 2-hour window for non-consensual intimate imagery, including morphed and deepfake images |
Part C: Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act, 2023
| Point | Detail |
|---|---|
| Background | K.S. Puttaswamy (2017) held privacy a Fundamental Right; the Justice B.N. Srikrishna Committee (2018) drafted an earlier bill |
| Enacted | August 2023 |
| Rules | DPDP Rules, 2025, notified 14 November 2025; obligations phased in over about 18 months |
| Key terms | Data Principal (the individual), Data Fiduciary (who decides why and how data is processed), Significant Data Fiduciary (extra duties), Consent Manager |
| Principles | Processing on consent (free, specific, informed, unambiguous) or “legitimate uses”; purpose limitation; data minimisation; storage limitation; security safeguards; breach notification |
| Rights of Data Principals | Access to information, correction and erasure, grievance redressal, nominate another person |
| Children | Processing a child’s data (under 18) needs verifiable parental consent; no tracking or targeted advertising directed at children |
| Regulator | Data Protection Board of India (adjudicatory) |
| Penalties | Up to ₹250 crore per instance |
| Government exemptions | The Centre can exempt its agencies on grounds such as security and public order (criticised as broad) |
| Effect on RTI | Sec 44(3) rewrote RTI Sec 8(1)(j) (in force 13 November 2025) — see RTI page |
Other recent digital laws (dated)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in force 1 July 2024) treats organised crime, including cyber crimes by syndicates, as a specific offence.
- Promotion and Regulation of Online Gaming Act, 2025 (August 2025) prohibits online money games and their advertising, and promotes e-sports and social games. Online betting rackets were a major issue in Chhattisgarh, so this is a useful state-linked example.
Evaluation: Freedom, Safety and Privacy Online (Mains)
| Concern | Balance needed |
|---|---|
| Fake news, deepfakes, cyber fraud | Fast takedown and labelling (2026 rules) vs risk of over-blocking and chilling free speech |
| Blocking under 69A | Security vs transparency and the right to be heard (Shreya Singhal) |
| Traceability of first originator | Investigating crime vs end-to-end encryption and privacy |
| DPDP exemptions for the State | Security vs surveillance concerns |
| Cyber fraud growth | Need for cyber police capacity, digital literacy and bank-level safeguards |
Memory Tricks
PCA 2018: '3-7, 7 days, 2-4 years'
Bribe-taking: 3 to 7 years. Coerced bribe-giver must report within 7 days. Trial: 2 years, maximum 4. And 17A = “prior approval before Any inquiry”.
IT Act: '66A gone, 69A stays, 79 shrinks'
Shreya Singhal (2015): 66A struck down; 69A blocking upheld; 79 read down (actual knowledge = court or government order).
Don’t Confuse
| This | vs | That |
|---|---|---|
| PCA 1988, Sec 17A: approval to begin an inquiry | vs | Sec 19: sanction to prosecute |
| CVC: PM, Home Minister, LoP select | vs | Lokpal: PM, Speaker, LoP, CJI (or judge), eminent jurist select |
| CVC statutory in 2003 (set up 1964) | vs | Lokpal Act 2013, first Lokpal 2019 |
| Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam 2002: inquiry into corruption | vs | Chhattisgarh Lok Sewa Guarantee Act 2011: time-bound services |
| Sec 66A: struck down 2015 | vs | Sec 66F: cyber terrorism, life imprisonment (valid) |
| CERT-In: Sec 70B | vs | NCIIPC: Sec 70A |
| IT Act 2000: offences, e-records | vs | DPDP Act 2023: personal data, consent, Data Protection Board |
Common Mistakes
MCQ traps
- “Giving a bribe has always been an offence under the PCA.” Before 2018, it was punishable only as abetment. The 2018 amendment made it a specific offence (Sec 8).
- “The Supreme Court struck down Section 17A in 2026.” False. It was a split verdict, referred to a larger bench.
- “The Lokpal cannot inquire into the Prime Minister.” False. It can, with exclusions and special procedure.
- “Section 66A was struck down for violating Article 21.” It was struck down for violating Art 19(1)(a) (and not being saved by 19(2)).
- “The DPDP Act applies only to data collected online.” Not quite. It covers digital personal data, including data collected offline and later digitised.
- “The CVC is a constitutional body.” False. It is statutory (2003 Act).
Practice
All questions below are original practice questions written in CGPSC style. They are not previous-year questions.
Level 1: Foundation
- The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 requires a coerced bribe-giver to report the matter within ______ days.
- Section 66A of the IT Act was struck down in the case ______ (2015).
- The Chhattisgarh law providing for a Pramukh Lokayukta is the ______, 2002.
Answers
- 7 days.
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.
- Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam.
Level 2: Prelims-style MCQs
Q1. Consider the following statements about the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018:
- It made bribe-giving a specific offence, with an exception for a person who is compelled and reports it within seven days.
- It requires prior approval of the competent authority before inquiring into a public servant’s recommendations or decisions in official functions.
- It abolished the requirement of sanction for prosecuting retired public servants.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 1 and 2 only
- (c) 2 and 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer and explanation
(b) 1 and 2 only. Sec 8 makes bribe-giving an offence with the coercion-and-report exception; Sec 17A requires prior approval for inquiries into official decisions. Statement 3 is the reverse of the truth: the 2018 amendment extended the sanction requirement under Sec 19 to former public servants.
Q2. Match List I (section of the IT Act) with List II (subject):
| List I | List II |
|---|---|
| A. Section 66F | 1. Safe harbour for intermediaries |
| B. Section 69A | 2. Cyber terrorism |
| C. Section 70B | 3. Blocking of public access to information |
| D. Section 79 | 4. CERT-In |
- (a) A-2, B-3, C-4, D-1
- (b) A-3, B-2, C-4, D-1
- (c) A-2, B-4, C-3, D-1
- (d) A-2, B-3, C-1, D-4
Answer and explanation
(a) A-2, B-3, C-4, D-1. 66F cyber terrorism (up to life); 69A blocking orders; 70B CERT-In as the national incident response agency; 79 exemption from liability for intermediaries that observe due diligence.
Q3. Who among the following is not a member of the selection committee for the Chairperson of the Lokpal?
- (a) Speaker of the Lok Sabha
- (b) Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge nominated by the CJI
- (c) Union Home Minister
- (d) Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha
Answer and explanation
(c) Union Home Minister. The Lokpal selection committee is the PM, the Speaker, the LoP in the Lok Sabha, the CJI (or a nominated judge) and an eminent jurist. The Home Minister sits on the CVC selection committee, not the Lokpal’s: a classic confusion.
Q4. Under the IT Rules as amended in 2026, the time within which an intermediary must remove content flagged as unlawful by a court or the government is:
- (a) 72 hours
- (b) 36 hours
- (c) 24 hours
- (d) 3 hours
Answer and explanation
(d) 3 hours. The amendment notified on 10 February 2026 (in force 20 February 2026) cut the window from 36 hours to 3 hours and introduced a 2-hour window for non-consensual intimate imagery. It also requires labelling of synthetically generated content.
Q5. Which of the following are features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023?
- Verifiable parental consent for processing the personal data of a child below 18 years
- A Data Protection Board of India
- Penalties up to ₹250 crore per instance
- Amendment of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act
Select the correct answer:
- (a) 1 and 2 only
- (b) 1, 2 and 3 only
- (c) 2, 3 and 4 only
- (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer and explanation
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4. All four are in the Act. The RTI amendment (Sec 44(3)) took effect on 13 November 2025, the same time the DPDP Rules, 2025 were notified.
Level 3: Mains Answer Writing
Q1. (60 words) Why is Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act controversial?
Model answer outline
- Inserted in 2018: prior government approval before inquiry into official decisions.
- For: protects honest officers from harassment and “policy paralysis”.
- Against: executive veto over probes; shields the corrupt at the threshold.
- January 2026 split verdict (Nagarathna J: invalid; Viswanathan J: valid with approval via Lokpal/Lokayukta); referred to a larger bench.
Q2. (150–200 words) Examine how India’s legal framework for cyberspace balances freedom of expression, security and privacy.
Model answer outline
- Intro: IT Act 2000 (e-records, cyber offences), IT Rules 2021 (platform duties), DPDP Act 2023 (privacy after Puttaswamy).
- Freedom: Shreya Singhal (2015) struck down 66A; read down Sec 79; safeguards for blocking under 69A.
- Security: CERT-In, 66F cyber terrorism, 2026 rules on deepfakes (labelling, 3-hour takedown), Online Gaming Act 2025.
- Privacy: DPDP Act: consent, rights of data principals, child data, Data Protection Board, ₹250 crore penalties; but broad State exemptions and RTI 8(1)(j) change are criticised.
- Chhattisgarh angle: cyber fraud and online betting rackets in the state; need for cyber police capacity and digital literacy alongside e-governance (Lok Sewa Guarantee services online).
- Conclusion: Proportionality (Puttaswamy) should be the test for every restriction: legitimate aim, necessity, least restrictive means, procedural safeguards.
Quick Revision Table
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| PCA | 1988 (replaced 1947 Act); amended 2018 (in force 26 Jul 2018) |
| Bribe-taking | 3–7 years (Sec 7) |
| Bribe-giving | Specific offence (Sec 8); coerced + report in 7 days = exception |
| Sec 17A | Prior approval for inquiry; split verdict Jan 2026, referred to larger bench |
| Trial | 2 years, max 4 |
| CVC | 1964 (Santhanam); statutory 2003; selection: PM, HM, LoP |
| Lokpal | Act 2013, in force 16 Jan 2014; first Lokpal Justice P.C. Ghose (2019); Justice A.M. Khanwilkar (2024–) |
| Chhattisgarh | Lok Aayog Adhiniyam 2002 (Act No. 30), Pramukh Lokayukta, Raipur |
| IT Act | In force 17 Oct 2000; UNCITRAL model; amended 2008 |
| Shreya Singhal | 24 Mar 2015: 66A struck; 69A upheld; 79 read down |
| IT Rules | 2021; GAC 2022; 2026 deepfake labels, 3-hour takedown |
| DPDP Act | 2023; Rules 14 Nov 2025; ₹250 crore; child = under 18; Sec 44(3) → RTI 8(1)(j) |
Key Takeaways
Key Takeaways
- The 2018 PCA amendment targeted bribe-givers and companies, set trial deadlines, but added the contested Section 17A.
- Oversight runs through the CVC (2003 Act), the CBI and the Lokpal (2013 Act); in Chhattisgarh, the Lok Aayog (2002) and the ACB/EOW.
- IT Act: 66A is gone (Shreya Singhal, 2015); 69A blocking and 79 safe harbour remain the core tools.
- 2025–2026 changes matter: DPDP Rules, the RTI 8(1)(j) rewrite, and deepfake labelling with a 3-hour takedown.
What’s Next
- Social Legislation — Quick Revision — the whole chapter on one page
- Welfare and Development Programmes — the next chapter in GS-V
- IT and E-Governance in Chhattisgarh — digital governance in the state
- Public Administration — accountability and ethics in administration
Advertisement