Does the country have an openly stated and effectively implemented anti-corruption policy for the defence sector?
7a. Anti-corruption policy
India score: 100/100
There is no anti-corruption policy, or there is one but it explicitly does not apply to the defence sector.
There is an openly stated anti-corruption policy, but it is unclear if it applies to the defence sector or the government is in process of developing one that applies to the defence sector.
There is an openly stated anti-corruption policy that applies to the defence sector.
The current government’s election success of 2014 was centred on bringing greater transparency in governance and combating corruption in all sectors including defence. Prime Minister Modi has sought to fight corruption and since taking office, has implemented a number of anti-corruption measures. In July 2018, the government passed the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which amended and brought significant changes to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to bring the legal framework in conformity with current international practices of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). India widened the definition of criminal misconduct to include the briber giver . This Act is applicable to the defence sector.
India has an institutional and legislative framework for fighting corruption including an independent Central Vigilance Commission, Central Information Commission, Comptroller and Auditor General, the Judges (Inquiry) Act ,1968 and a number of legislations including the Whistle Blowers Protection Act , 2014; the Lokpal Act, 2013; the Prevention of Money Laundering Act; the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 and the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Amendment Act, 2016 . All of the aforementioned are applicable to the defence sector.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD)’s Vigilance Division is entrusted with the task of dealing with complaints regarding corrupt practices, misconduct and irregularities in respect of employees of the MoD and the various units under it. As part of new defence reforms, the MoD recently approved the establishment of a Vigilance Investigation Unit in the Army under the new ADG Vigilance. The unit will call upon Corps of Military Police (CMP) personnel to conduct independent investigations into corruption . Each of the branches of the Armed Forces have an Act which governs them. These Acts such as the Army Act, 1950 cover corruption and mention penalties. The Indian Army Act, 1950, Chapter IV Section 53 states:
“53. Extortion and Corruption. – Any person subject to this Act who commits any of the following offences, that is to say : (a) commits extortion ; or (b) without proper authority exacts from any person money, provisions or service; shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to suffer imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or such less punishment as is in this Act mentioned.” 
The MoD has an Integrity Pact provision in procurement. Bidders and the MoD need to sign an Integrity Pact committing to not offering or accepting bribes and ensuring integrity in public procurement. Submission of Integrity Pact Bank Guarantee (IPBG) is needed. The Seller must confirm and declare to the Buyer that it is the original manufacturer of the stores contracted and that no third party has been engaged who can influence or manipulate award of the contract, or indulge in corrupt and unethical practices .
India has attempted to address country-wide systemic corruption with the Lokpal Act which came in to force in 2014, encouraging anti-corruption efforts from the Center. Its efficacy has yet to be measured given the delays in appointing a Lokpal. India does have a strong institutional framework to ensure the accountability of its defence institutions (10). These include the Comptroller and Auditor- General (CAG) and the Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC). State governments such as Maharashtra have an Anti-Corruption Bureau. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) provides oversight and has an Anti-Corruption division .
1. Press Information Bureau Government Of India, 25 July 2018, “Prevention of Corruption Act”, accessed 19 May 2019
2. KPMG, “The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018: Key Highlights”, accessed 19 May 2019
3. G20, “G20 ANTI-CORRUPTION WORKING GROUP ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 2018”, pg.133, accessed 19 May 2019
4. Reed Smith, 16 October 2018, “Significant Updates to India’s Anti-Corruption Law”, 19 May 2019
5. Shaurya Karanbir Gurung, 12 March 2019 “Army’s new vigilance unit to use Corps of Military Police personnel”, The Economic Times, accessed May 19th, 2019
6. Indian Army, “Indian Army Act, 1950”, accessed 19 May 2019
7. Bharat Electronics Limited, “INTEGRITY PACT AND IEMS”, accessed 10 May 2019
8. Press Information Bureau Government of India, 18 July 2018, “Corruption in Defence Deals”, accessed 10 May 2019
9. Ministry of Defence Government of India, “Defence Procurement Procedure 2016 Capital Procurement (Incorporating all amendments upto 30 April 2019), accessed 10 May 2019
10. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, accessed 19 May 2019
11. Comptroller General of Defence Accounts, “Mandate and Charter of Audit”, accessed 19 May 2019
12. Lok Sabha, “PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE”, accessed 19 May 2019
13. ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, MAHARASHTRA STATE, accessed 19 May 2019
14. CBI, “Divisions”, accessed 19 May 2019
7b. Effective implementation
India score: 75/100
There is no action plan to implement the policy, nor have any actions been taken.
There is an action plan at the ministry level but it is superficial, and does not address the institutional weaknesses in the system, OR there efforts to implement an action plan at the national level.
There is an action plan at the ministry level that reflects the institutional weaknesses in the system, but no actions have been taken to implement it.
There is an action plan at the ministry level that reflects the institutional weaknesses in the system. While steps have been taken to implement the plan, it is either behind schedule, or implementation is not addressing the priority items in the action plan.
The action plan at the ministry level reflects the institutional weaknesses in the system, and implementation has progressed according to the estimated timeline.
One can conclude from above, that the government is robustly addressing corruption at the Centre, encompassing defence. From the significant changes to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to the new Vigilance Investigation Unit in the Army, the government is taking an holistic approach. Evidence of CBI cases filed against defence personnel shows that there is legal apparatus at work and implementation of the anti-corruption measures .
The area of defence that has courted the most controversy historically in India is procurement. It seems that this is acknowledged and the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) mechanisms are being tightened to allow less room for corruption, greater transparency and probity. There is evidence that sanctions have been recently applied such as suspension and banning. As of 2018, six firms were debarred from further business dealings with Ministry of Defence for a period of ten years . This also applied to allied and subsidiary firms of each of the debarred firms. Business dealings with fourteen firms were suspended. Orders were issued restricting procurement from two other firms. In the past, Lockheed Martin, Textron, and Boeing have all been fined for failing to meet offset obligations .
1. KPMG, 2019, “The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018: Key Highlights”, accessed 19 May 2019
2. Shaurya Karanbir Gurung, 12 March 2019,“Army’s new vigilance unit to use Corps of Military Police personnel”, The Economic Times, accessed 19 May 2019
3. CBI, 26 May 2015,“CBI ARRESTS TWO OFFICIALS OF PRINCIPAL CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PCDA), WESTERN COMMAND IN A BRIBERY CASE OF RS.20,000/-“, accessed 19 May 2019
4. CBI, 13 May 2016, “CBI REGISTERS A CASE AGAINST DEPUTY COMMANDANT OF CRPF IN A CASE RELATING TO RECRUITMENT IN CRPF”, accessed 19 May 2019
5. CBI, 16 May 2019,“PROBE IN BOFORS CASE TO CONTINUE”, accessed May 19 2019
6. Ministry of Defence Government of India, 19 February 2018, “Details of firms debarred/put on hold/suspended etc. from doing business with MoD”, accessed 10 May 2019
7. Defence-Aerospace, 19 February 2018, “India MoD Updates Blacklist of Debarred Defense Contractors”, accessed 11 May 2019
8. Manu Pubby, 4 September 2018, “Upset over offsets: India, US to fix old problem to take ties to new heights”, The Economic Times, accessed 13 May 2019
Compare scores by country
Please view this page on a larger screen for the full stats.
|Country||7a. Anti-corruption policy||7b. Effective implementation|
|Albania||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Algeria||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Angola||0 / 100||NA|
|Argentina||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Armenia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Australia||25 / 100||NA|
|Azerbaijan||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Bahrain||50 / 100||NA|
|Bangladesh||0 / 100||NA|
|Belgium||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Botswana||0 / 100||NA|
|Brazil||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Burkina Faso||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cameroon||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Canada||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Chile||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|China||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Colombia||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Cote d'Ivoire||100 / 100||0 / 100|
|Denmark||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Egypt||0 / 100||NA|
|Estonia||75 / 100||NA|
|Finland||25 / 100||NA|
|France||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Germany||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Ghana||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Greece||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Hungary||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|India||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Indonesia||50 / 100||NA|
|Iran||50 / 100||NA|
|Iraq||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Israel||50 / 100||75 / 100|
|Italy||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Japan||0 / 100||NA|
|Jordan||50 / 100||NEI|
|Kenya||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Kosovo||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Kuwait||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Latvia||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|Lebanon||50 / 100||NA|
|Lithuania||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Malaysia||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Mali||0 / 100||NA|
|Mexico||75 / 100||25 / 100|
|Montenegro||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Morocco||25 / 100||NA|
|Myanmar||0 / 100||NA|
|Netherlands||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|New Zealand||75 / 100||NEI|
|Niger||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Nigeria||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|North Macedonia||75 / 100||75 / 100|
|Norway||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Oman||0 / 100||NA|
|Palestine||0 / 100||NA|
|Philippines||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Poland||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Portugal||0 / 100||NA|
|Qatar||0 / 100||NA|
|Russia||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Saudi Arabia||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Serbia||75 / 100||50 / 100|
|Singapore||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|South Africa||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|South Korea||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|South Sudan||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Spain||50 / 100||25 / 100|
|Sudan||0 / 100||NA|
|Sweden||25 / 100||NA|
|Switzerland||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Taiwan||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|Tanzania||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Thailand||100 / 100||25 / 100|
|Tunisia||100 / 100||50 / 100|
|Turkey||0 / 100||NA|
|Uganda||50 / 100||0 / 100|
|Ukraine||100 / 100||75 / 100|
|United Arab Emirates||50 / 100||NA|
|United Kingdom||100 / 100||100 / 100|
|United States||25 / 100||NA|
|Venezuela||25 / 100||0 / 100|
|Zimbabwe||100 / 100||NEI|