ANALYSIS: NARADA SCAM CASE

-By Bhuvneshwari Rathore

AIM: The article aims to give an analysis of the Narada Scam Case, discuss the current legal
framework of bribery and corruption in India along with solutions at the end of it.

 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

The Narada sting operation case was a series of sting operations carried out by Narada News
in West Bengal to expose the administration of Mamata Banerjee's "corrupt" ministers. The
sting lasted two years and was supposed to be featured in Tehelka magazine at the time. It
was carried out by Matthew Samuel, who eventually left Tehelka to start his own West
Bengal television channel.

Mathew Samuel, the creator of Narada News, ran a sting operation in West Bengal for almost
two years. It was conducted in 2014 for the news magazine Tehelka and published months
before the 2016 West Bengal Assembly elections on a private news website called Narada
News. Samuel was Tehelka's previous managing editor. Samuel created a fictional firm
called Impex Consultancy Solutions and approached many TMC ministers, MPs, and leaders,
asking for favours in exchange for money as part of the operation.

HMS Mirza, an IPS officer who has now been suspended, was also caught collecting money
from Samuel. Shanku Deb Panda, the TMC's head, was also spotted requesting shares in
Samuel's fictional firm in exchange for promised favours. Although Mukul Roy (currently the
BJP's national vice-president) was not shown collecting payment in the video, he was shown
instructing Samuel to come to his party's headquarters with the promised money. Suvendu
Adhikari is presently a BJP leader and the state Assembly's Leader of the Opposition. Sovan
Chatterjee joined the BJP in 2019 but left after being refused a ticket for the Assembly
elections this year. Panda is presently a member of the BJP.
K D. Singh, a TMC Rajya Sabha MP and primary owner of Tehelka, Samuel alleged, was
aware of and sponsored the entire operation. According to Samuel, the operation's budget was
initially set at $2,500,000 but was subsequently boosted to $8,000,000. Singh, on the other
hand, denied any involvement in the sting.

 LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED-

Samuel was charged under numerous sections of the IPC, including 469 (forgery to destroy
reputation), 500 (defamation), 120(B) (criminal conspiracy), and others. On August 5, 2016,
the High Court issued an ad infinitum stay of the state inquiry, stating that the police cannot
conduct a parallel investigation while a court-monitored inquiry was done.

On March 17, 2017, the Calcutta high court directed the CBI to undertake a preliminary
investigation and submit a report within 72 hours after taking into custody the sting devices
and forensic findings from the court-appointed committee. The court also ordered the CBI to
find out if the accused leaders took the money. According to the court, the CBI should file an
FIR and proceed with the inquiry-based on the results of the probe. The TMC challenged the
high court ruling in a special leave petition to the Supreme Court.

The Calcutta high court directed the CBI to undertake a preliminary investigation on March
17, 2017. If necessary, the court further ordered the CBI to file an FIR against individuals
engaged in the case. The state began disciplinary procedures against SMH Mirza on March
18, 2017. The CBI filed an F.I.R against 12 Trinamool leaders for "criminal conspiracy" on
April 16, 2017. Following that, the CBI called all the leaders involved to help with the probe.

On April 17, 2017, the CBI filed a case under Indian Penal Code section 120B (criminal
conspiracy) and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sections 7 & 13(2) r/w 13(1) (a) & (d).
The investigation discovered prima facie information for the registration of a regular case,
according to the agency (FIR). Following this, a huge number of Congress and Left activists
took to the streets, demanding the immediate arrest of all TMC officials and ministers
featured in the sting tapes. The CBI began an investigation, and several of the suspects were
interrogated, but no arrests were made.
A parallel inquiry was conducted by the Enforcement Directorate. It filed a lawsuit under the
Anti-Corruption Act alleging theft of public funds and has issued many summonses to the
accused and Samuel himself. Because members of Parliament were involved in the sting
operation, a Lok Sabha ethics committee was formed to investigate if the individuals
involved violated the house's privileges. After the event, the committee only met once. On
May 9, 2021. West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar approved the prosecution of Subrata
Mukherjee, Firhad Hakim, Madan Mitra, and Sovan Chatterjee, after a request by the CBI.

Committee of the Lok Sabha Because members of Parliament were involved in the sting
operation, a Lok Sabha ethics committee was formed to investigate if the individuals
involved violated the house's privileges. After the event, the committee only met once.

Some are now members of the BJP. Although Mukul Roy (currently the BJP's national vice-
president) was not shown collecting payment in the video, he was shown instructing Samuel
to come to his party's headquarters with the promised money. Suvendu Adhikari is presently
a BJP leader and the state Assembly's Leader of the Opposition. Sovan Chatterjee joined the
BJP in 2019 but left after being refused a ticket for the Assembly elections this year. Panda is
presently a member of the BJP.

The Governor's Function on May 9, 2021, West Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar
approved the prosecution of Subrata Mukherjee, Firhad Hakim, Madan Mitra, and Sovan
Chatterjee after the CBI requested it.” As the appointing authority for such ministries under
Article 164 of the Constitution, the Honourable Governor is the authorised authority to give
sanction in line with the law,” said the governor.

The CBI petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a Calcutta High Court ruling placing four
TMC leaders under house arrest in connection with the Narada scandal. The CBI also filed
an adjournment notice with the Calcutta High Court, indicating that because the agency has
approached the Supreme Court, the matter, which was scheduled to be heard on May 24,
would be postponed. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also filed an appeal with the
Supreme Court against a May 21 judgment of the Calcutta High Court order that the four
TMC leaders implicated in the Narada case be placed under house arrest for the time being
rather than being held in judicial custody. The court determined that the Supreme Court's
direction in the case of Gautam Navlakha vs. National Investigation Agency, issued on May
12, 2021, was completely relevant in these situations, according to the decision. “In terms of
interim relief, while amending the earlier order dated May 17, 2021, we direct that, in light of
the accused's age and health issues, three of whom are said to be in hospital, instead of being
held in custody in jail, all of the accused persons be placed under house arrest in their own
homes,” it read.

On May 17, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) detained three Trinamool Congress
(TMC) politicians in connection with the 2016 Narada sting operation case, including two
recently inducted ministers in Mamata Banerjee's cabinet, a lawmaker, and a former TMC
politician. Ministers Firhad Hakim and Subrata Mukherjee, MLA Madan Mitra, and former
Kolkata mayor Sovan Chatterjee have all been detained. When the Narada videos were shot
in 2014, all four leaders were ministers in Mamata Banerjee's administration. After Mamata
Banerjee won a third term, Hakim and Mukherjee were sworn in as members of her new
government last week.

 RECENT IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS OF THE CASE-

Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, an All India Trinamool Congress leader and
Member of Parliament, has filed an affidavit in the Calcutta High Court alleging that West
Bengal Law Minister Moloy Ghatak was not present in the special CBI court on May 17,
2021, when the bail pleas of four TML leaders arrested in the Narada case were being heard.

On June 9, 2021, Singhvi remarked while attempting to persuade the Court that there was no
threat of a breakdown of law and order in West Bengal, as the CBI claimed in its motion to
transfer the proceedings against TMC officials.

The CBI requested that the case be transferred from the Special CBI Court in Kolkata to the
Calcutta High Court or any other court, citing a threat to the investigation agency because
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and other TMC leaders were staging a dharna
outside the agency's office in Kolkata, obstructing justice and creating an intimidating
environment. It was also claimed that TMC leaders had gone to the Special CBI Court's
location.
On June 9, 2021, Due to crowd pressure, the decision to grant bail to four TMC leaders was
thrown out. Senior Advocate Dr AM Singhvi, representing the accused TMC leaders,
countered Solicitor General Tushar's arguments for the CBI reading vitiation of Trial Court
proceedings owing to the public impression of bias allegedly developed because of the May
17 rallies, which Mehta labelled "mobocracy."

 POLITICAL QUANDARY IN BENGAL-

While the TMC escaped electoral defeat because of the sting operation, the party suffered
because of the repercussions, with many of the implicated defecting to the BJP. After the
Narada tapes surfaced in 2016, Mukul Roy, whose name had previously come up in the
Saradha controversy, was suspended from the party. He joined the BJP a year later and is
now the party's national vice-president.

Suvendu Adhikari, who was also a target of the sting operation, defected from the TMC in
late 2020 and joined the BJP to run in the 2021 assembly elections, finally, becoming the
Leader of the Opposition after defeating TMC supremo Mamata Banerjee in a high stakes
struggle in Nandigram. Shanku Deb Panda, the former TMC general secretary who was
recorded soliciting for shares in Samuel's fictional business, has also defected to the BJP
ahead of the 2019 general elections. Former Kolkata Mayor Sovan Chatterjee left the TMC in
August 2019 to join the BJP but left the party in March 2021 after being denied a ticket for
the assembly elections.

 CRITICAL ANALYSIS-

The BJP, the Left, and the Congress made the Narada tapes a campaign issue, but the TMC
won 211 seats in the six-phase election conducted between April 4 and May 5, 27 more than
in the party's first historic triumph in 2011. The Congress, the Left, and the BJP, respectively,
won 44, 26, and 3 seats. A group of lawmakers from West Bengal's governing Trinamool
Congress (TMC) and a senior Indian Police Service official met with a businessman who
promised them money in exchange for helping him operate his business between February
and April 2014. Mathew Samuel, a Delhi-based journalist, was the one giving them money
and secretly capturing the footage on his iPhone. Former TMC Rajya Sabha MP Mukul Roy
(now a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party), then Lok Sabha MPs Saugata Roy,
Aparupa Poddar, Sultan Ahmed, Prasun Banerjee, and Kakoli Ghosh Dastidar, ministers
Firhad Hakim, Suvendu Adhikari (now the leader of the opposition in West Bengal), and
Sovan Chatterjee (who was also the Kolkata Mayor) Iqbal Ahmed, an MLA, and Saiyaad
Mustafa Hussain Mirza, an IPS officer, were also captured on video. Mukul Roy was not
shown immediately taking the money in the footage.

The videos were not discovered for another two years. Samuel published the videos on the
Narada News website on March 13, 2016. The films sparked outrage just before the Bengali
assembly elections were set to take place. The BJP held a news conference during which the
tapes were shown to the media. TMC officials reacted angrily, labelling the sting of a plot,
and rejecting the films as false. The BJP, the Left, and the Congress made the Narada tapes a
campaign issue, but the TMC won 211 seats in the six-phase election conducted between
April 4 and May 5, 27 more than in the party's first historic triumph in 2011. The Congress,
the Left, and the BJP, respectively, won 44, 26, and 3 seats. The opposition parties claimed
that the films were released too close to the election to have an impact. The Congress and the
Left petitioned the Calcutta High Court, requesting a CBI investigation (CBI).

Mukul Roy resigned from the TMC in September 2017. For anti-party activity, he was
expelled from the party for six years. In October of 2017, he also resigned from the Rajya
Sabha. In November, he joined the BJP. Roy was appointed as the BJP's national vice-
president in September 2020. TMC leader Iqbal Ahmed died of a heart attack in Kolkata in
September 2017. Mamata Banerjee blamed the CBI for his death, claiming the agency placed
him under a lot of stress. The CBI's investigation appears to have gotten a boost in June 2018,
when Rakesh Asthana, the agency's then-special director, visited Kolkata and conducted a
lengthy discussion with officers to discuss the Narada case and other major cases. The West
Bengal administration removed the so-called general agreement states provide CBI to operate
on their land in November 2018. CBI detained IPS officer Mirza in September 2019. The
ministry of home affairs (MHA) authorised the agency to act against him. Within weeks of
receiving the CBI's request in February 2020, the Lok Sabha secretariat sought the Union law
ministry's opinion on a request by the CBI for sanction to prosecute three sitting Trinamool
Congress (TMC) MPs accused in the Narada sting operation case, senior officials at the
Lower House said.

Within weeks of receiving the CBI's request in February 2020, the Lok Sabha secretariat
sought the Union law ministry's opinion on a request by the CBI for sanction to prosecute
three sitting Trinamool Congress (TMC) MPs accused in the Narada sting operation case,
senior officials at the Lower House said. A parallel investigation into the Narada sting case
was also launched by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). The ED issued notifications to five
TMC leaders and summoned suspended IPS officer Mirza in August 2020. Lok Sabha
members Saugata Roy and Kakali Ghosh Dastidar, former Lok Sabha member Aparupa
Poddar, then-minister Suvendu Adhikari, and TMC leader Ratna Chatterjee, who is estranged
from former Kolkata mayor Sovan Chatterjee, who is a defendant in the case, were among
the TMC leaders.

Suvendu Adhikari became a member of the BJP in December of 2020. He ran in the recent
assembly elections in Nandigram, East Midnapore, and beat Mamata Banerjee. The BJP was
anticipated to win at least 200 seats in the legislature and oust the TMC, but the latter
returned to power with 213 members. On May 2, the results were released. Sovan Chatterjee
joined the BJP before the assembly elections but quit due to disagreements with the
leadership. Ratna Chatterjee ran for the TMC and won the Behala East seat, defeating the
BJP candidate.

Governor Jagdeep Dhankhar has granted prosecution sanction to the CBI against three TMC
MLAs, Madan Mitra, Subrata Mukherjee, and Firhad Hakim, as well as former party leader
Sovan Chatterjee, according to a statement released by Raj Bhawan on May 9. The agency
was then able to submit a charge sheet against the four. Mukherjee and Hakim were sworn in
as ministers on May 10. “Governor of West Bengal accorded sanction for prosecution in
respect of Firhad Hakim, Subrata Mukherjee, Madan Mitra, and Suvon Chatterjee, for the
reason that all of them were holding the position of ministers in the government of West
Bengal at the relevant time of the commission of the crime,” according to a statement
released by Raj Bhavan in Kolkata.

A debate has erupted over the governor's use of the interregnum between two administrations
to provide his permission; in normal circumstances, the speaker of the parliament would have
been required. “To file a charge sheet against a sitting member of the house, the CBI must get
permission from the assembly speaker. It was not completed. I am not sure under what law or
with what intent the governor granted such permission. This is anti-democratic,” stated
assembly speaker Biman Banerjee. The three TMC leaders, as well as Sovan Chatterjee, were
detained amid widespread TMC demonstrations.

 CONCLUSION-

Bribery is the most prevalent type of corruption that also incorporates money laundering; it is
used to make it easier to deposit illegal proceeds of crime into the financial system. The
Narada Scam Case is a result of politics the elections were ahead and because of which the
scam happened. The Narada sting operation was directed by Mathew Samuel, who targeted
high-ranking leaders of the All India Trinamool Congress (AITC). It revealed that numerous
lawmakers and key officers were paid bribes to provide an off-the-record benefit to a firm.

There are few laws and regulations for public bribery and corruption in India-

 Regulation of public bribery-

When a person donates, solicits, or receives something of value with the intent of hiding the
conduct of someone exercising a public or legal duty. Bribery is the most common kind of
white-collar crime in India. Bribery is prohibited in India under Section 171-E of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The provisions of the service norms that apply to public officials govern them. The Civil
Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, for
example, control those who work for the government (the Service Rules). Gifts (including
travel, accommodation, meals, entertainment, or other pecuniary advantages) exceeding
specified thresholds (which vary depending on the public servant's grade and seniority) are
prohibited under the Service Rules; however, a casual meal, a casual lift, or other social
hospitality is permitted. Furthermore, the term "public servant" has been defined broadly to
include anyone employed or paid by any government, local authority, statutory corporation,
government company, or other body owned, controlled, or aided by the government, as well
as judges, arbitrators, and employees of state-funded institutions. The PCA also criminalises
the act of taking any unfair benefit to cause the inappropriate or dishonest performance of a
public obligation by influencing peddlers or intermediaries. Bribe-givers were previously
prosecuted under the PCA for 'abetting' the above-mentioned offences (in addition to being
charged with 'criminal conspiracy' under the Indian Penal Code, 1860).

However, in 2018, legislative changes to the PCA specifically targeted bribe-givers

(including commercial organisations and their identified person in charge) by criminalising
the act of providing or promising to provide a bribe to any person (regardless of whether that
person is a public servant) to induce or reward a public servant. The PCA states that any
effort by a public servant to acquire or accept an unfair benefit, regardless of whether the
public servant performed his or her official function illegally or dishonestly, is enough to
constitute an offence under the PCA. The mere effort to provide or accept a bribe is enough
to bring you into legal trouble under the PCA; actual payment or receipt of bribes is not
required. It makes no difference whether the bribe was obtained for the advantage of the
public servant or the advantage of another person, either directly or indirectly.

 India's anti-corruption legislation-

Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, public
workers can be prosecuted for corruption. Benami trades are prohibited by the Benami
Transactions (Prohibition) Act of 1988. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2002
makes it illegal for public officials to launder money. Since 2005, India has been a signatory
(but not ratified) to the United Nations Convention against Corruption. The Convention
covers a wide variety of corruption-related offences and makes recommendations for
prevention.

The 1988 Anti-Corruption Act was enacted to combat corruption.

 In addition to the IPC categories, the term "public servant" covers office bearers of
cooperative groups that receive government funding, university personnel, the Public
Service Commission, and banks.
 A public servant who accepts reward other than his lawful compensation in exchange
for an official act or to influence public servants faces a minimum of six months in
prison and a maximum of five years in prison and a fine.
  The Act also punishes a public official who takes enjoyment from illegally
influencing the public and using his power over a public worker.
 A public worker who takes a valuable item from a person with whom he is involved
in a commercial transaction in his official position without paying for it or pays
insufficiently may be punished with a minimum of six months and a maximum of five
years in prison and a fine.
 To prosecute a public official, prior approval from the federal or state government is
required.

 Laws against the person giving bribe.

According to Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, anybody who proposes a
bribe to a public official or proposes to provide him with any expensive object in exchange
for a favour provided to him faces a maximum sentence of three years in jail. A declaration
made during the proceedings declaring that he offered or promised to provide any
gratification or valuable object would not, however, make him accountable under Section 12.

A person who offers a bribe can be sentenced to a year in prison, a fine, or both under Section
171E of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Even after such legal frameworks, they have somewhat failed in solving the problems
regarding it. The United Nations Convention against Corruption was ratified in 2011, and
India is a signatory. It is also a G20 Anti-Corruption Action Group member. The problem of
bribery and corruption is pervasive in Indian society. Law-making will not be able to remedy
the situation. People must adapt themselves to deal with such a systemic evil. The next
generation should be taught about the dangers of corruption and how to avoid engaging in
such behaviour.

 SOLUTIONS-

 Legal action is less effective than social punishments and economic incentives:
Penalties are effective deterrents if the law is successfully enforced. However,
because politicians and bureaucrats are the primary benefactors of corruption,
 implementing and enforcing robust anti-corruption legislation is intrinsically difficult.
Social punishments, on the other hand, can be just as powerful, if not more so.

 BCI's goal is to build a clear and impartial corporate rating system: Social
penalties can be more effective than legal action, but they require genuine information
to mobilise. As a result, we see the BCI as a research-driven organisation that assigns
ratings to firms listed on the Bombay Stock Exchange using forensic accounting
(BSE). "3 stars," "2 stars," "1 star," and (by default) "no star" are the four possible
ratings. Companies who provide the gold standard by which a firm's non-corrupt
character is judged will receive the highest grade of "3 stars."

 While the BCI's "research" unit will serve as its backbone, an "outreach" unit
will serve as its sensory organ: A strong and successful outreach unit is required by
the BCI. While the research unit is tasked with maintaining a credit rating system, the
outreach unit's primary goal will be to enlist the support of three key stakeholders: (1)
the corporate sector, given that bottom-up coalitions are known to be the most
effective tool for combating corruption; (2) the youth, as this is the key constituency
that provides both human resources and consumers to corrupt companies; and (3) the
general public. The outreach section must also be responsible for the methodical and
correct dissemination of the ratings, in addition to a systematic outreach campaign.