Opinion and public accountability

Bribery Near Shirdi Temple: Can Faith Alone Stop Corruption?

A personal account of a pilgrimage to Shirdi, an alleged roadside bribe, and the uncomfortable questions that arise when devotion, poverty and public corruption exist side by side.

Editorial context: The journey described below is a personal recollection from an earlier visit, not a verified report of a recent incident. The account expresses the writer's observations and opinions; the alleged payment and the conduct of unidentified officers have not been independently established.

Why I return to Shirdi

During an earlier year, I once again visited the Sai Baba Temple in Shirdi. I have tried to visit this holy place regularly, not because I consider myself a particularly great devotee or expect a favour from Sai Baba, but for a mixture of personal, social and cultural reasons.

With some irony, I observe that the Shirdi shrine receives substantial offerings. In a society where wealth often commands respect, I joke that even a wealthy deity is expected to receive a salute.
I enjoy travelling through the villages of Maharashtra, meeting farmers wearing Gandhi caps and seeing the straightforward life of rural communities. After many years in towns, I find these encounters refreshing compared with the artificial smiles and formal courtesies of city life.
A close friend is a devoted follower of Sai Baba, and I enjoy travelling with him.
My wife believes in many gods and saints, including Sai Baba, although our children are less interested in religious visits.
I enjoy bringing Shirdi prasad to people who appreciate it.
The pilgrimage economy provides affordable food to many visitors and livelihoods to local people, including vendors, drivers and service providers.

These are sufficient reasons for me to keep visiting Shirdi and other temples. Yet I cannot say that the visits have transformed our lives. They have certainly added to our travel expenses. Friends who are deeply religious still face the same everyday difficulties as everyone else.

Faith, prosperity and the contradictions of society

I respect gods and saints, but I continue to question how faith relates to daily experience. India's economy and the visible contrasts in our society leave me puzzled.

When I hear about wealthy religious figures, politicians and businesspeople travelling in private aircraft, or see signs of conspicuous consumption in towns, I feel that the country has prospered. When I see people begging in Delhi, widespread unemployment and families living in poverty, I question how widely that prosperity is shared.

Likewise, when religious institutions receive increasing wealth, I see the enormous power of belief. Yet when devoted followers experience hardship, I wonder whether prayer alone can change their circumstances. I have known people who publicly display devotion while, in my opinion, behaving dishonestly. I have also seen people who resist wrongdoing face difficulties.

These observations do not establish anything about the existence or powers of God. They explain my own unsettled relationship with religion: I visit temples with respect, habit and perhaps some fear, but I do not always find easy answers.

On arriving at Shirdi, I went for darshan and jokingly felt that I had marked my attendance before Sai Baba. I noticed a warning board telling visitors to beware of pickpockets. The sign made me smile and reflect: if even a holy place needs ordinary precautions against theft, how can we expect faith alone to protect us from every danger?

An alleged bribe on the road to Shani Mandir

The following day, we decided to visit Shani Mandir. My friend was negotiating with a taxi driver whose fare seemed excessive. Another driver offered a lower price, although I still thought the charge was high, and we hired his vehicle.

After we began the journey, our vehicle suddenly stopped. I saw a uniformed policeman, whom I understood to be a head constable, standing by the roadside. Our driver got out, approached him respectfully and handed over a Rs. 500 note. From where I sat, it appeared that the policeman returned part of the money after retaining an amount. The driver returned to the taxi smiling.

I interpreted this exchange as a bribe. I also saw other vehicles being stopped and, a short distance later, another group of policemen on the opposite side of the road. I suspected similar collections there, although I could not establish what payments, if any, were being made.

In frustration, I remarked that begging in India appeared to have two forms: one by people without formal education, and another, in the case of corrupt officials, by those who had obtained government jobs. That was a sarcastic criticism of corruption, not a description of honest public servants, the vast majority of whom should not be judged by an unverified incident.

I was troubled by what I had seen: suspected bribe-taking near a pilgrimage destination, touts offering easier darshan, and drivers demanding what seemed like excessive fares. I wondered why misconduct could continue in a place regarded as sacred. In a moment of irony, I concluded that perhaps God did not have a supercomputer to monitor and stop every such activity.

What Indian law says about bribery of public servants

Whatever one's religious beliefs, suspected corruption is a matter for public institutions and the rule of law. The principal central legislation is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended, including by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

Section 2(d): Meaning of undue advantage

"Undue advantage" means gratification other than legal remuneration. It is not confined to cash or benefits measurable in money. An authorised fine or official fee is different from an unlawful personal payment.

Section 7: Public servant being bribed

Section 7 addresses a public servant obtaining, accepting or attempting to obtain an undue advantage in connection with improper or dishonest performance of public duty, including specified rewards for such conduct. The prescribed punishment is imprisonment of three to seven years and a fine. Whether a particular roadside payment amounts to an offence depends on evidence and the statutory elements.

Section 7A: Improper influence over a public servant

Section 7A covers obtaining or attempting to obtain an undue advantage to influence a public servant through corrupt or illegal means or personal influence so that public duty is performed improperly or dishonestly.

Section 8: Giving or promising a bribe

Section 8 also criminalises giving or promising an undue advantage to induce or reward improper public duty. The law contains exceptions and safeguards, including for a person compelled to pay who reports the matter to a law enforcement authority or investigating agency within seven days, and for certain cooperation with an investigation after informing the authorities. People should not assume that paying a bribe is automatically lawful merely because an official demanded it.

Section 17A and Section 19: Procedural safeguards

Section 17A deals with prior approval for certain inquiries or investigations relating to official recommendations or decisions, subject to statutory exceptions. Section 19 governs previous sanction for prosecution in specified cases. Their application depends on the facts and the statutory requirements; neither provision should be treated as blanket immunity for public servants.

How to report suspected bribery in Maharashtra

A person facing a demand for an unofficial payment may contact the Maharashtra Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB). Its official website provides an online complaint facility and lists the toll-free helpline 1064 and WhatsApp number +91 9930997700. For an immediate or ongoing demand, contacting the ACB before making any payment can help authorities advise on a lawful course of action.

Record the date, time, place, vehicle registration and other details you can safely and lawfully obtain.
Distinguish clearly between what you personally witnessed and what you merely suspect.
Keep receipts, messages or other available records; do not fabricate evidence or confront anyone dangerously.
Use the official ACB complaint channel and follow investigators' directions.
If payment was made under compulsion, seek prompt legal advice about the reporting period and the conditions under Section 8.

The original roadside episode was a personal observation, not a judicial finding. The lesson I draw is broader: faith may inspire ethical conduct, but preventing corruption requires responsible officials, evidence-based investigations, accountability and citizens willing to report wrongdoing.

Legal information reviewed for this editorial update in October 2026. This article is general information and opinion, not legal advice.