Lokpal Bill

Basic tenets

The fundamental tenets which support the formation of Lokpal in India are as follows:

• United Nation Convention against Corruption requires all countries to put in place anti corruption agencies that would be independent of the executive and would have jurisdiction to investigate all public servants for corruption.
• In the Hawala (or Vineet Narain) case, the Supreme Court held that the right to corruption-free governance is a fundamental right.

The background for Lokpal

The two major stakeholders involved at this time in formulation of Lokpal in India are the Central government and Team Anna. The government initially was unenthusiastic to bring in any legislation regarding the Lokpal till August last year. However, the massive public support which the movement of Anna Hazare received compelled the government to change its strategy.

By the end of the last year, it was clear that in the Winter Session of the Parliament the government would come up with legislation for the formation of Lokpal. Thus the focus of debate after this shifted to the “nature, kind and powers” that are to be given to Lokpal. Team Anna drafted “Janlokpal Bill” and pressurized the Central government to come up in Winter Session of Parliament with a Bill similar to that.  The following are the major features of Jan Lokpal Bill that was drafted by Team Anna:

Composition: Lokpal should be a 11 member body

Selection: By a broad based selection committee comprising of:

•  Prime Minister 
• Leader of Opposition
• Two judges selected by all the judges of Supreme court
• CAG
• Chief Election Commissioner
• Chief Vigilance CommissionerPrevious three chair persons of the Lokpal

1.  It proposed to bring the anti-corruption wing of CBI under the administrative control of Lokpal.
2. The Lokpal is proposed to be given corruption investigation jurisdiction over all the public servants.
3. The Lokpal is sought to recommend the removal of those officials who were charged sheeted for the corruption and the order of freezing of any assets that seemed to be acquired by the corrupt means.
4. Corruption related trials is envisaged to be put on the fast track and the court would determine the loss caused to the public exchequer by an act of corruption- which would be recovered from the corrupt public servants.
5. Bill provided for framing of Citizen Charters by all public authorities, which provide for time bound delivery of public goods and services. The failure to do so could invite the action at the hands of officers working under Lokpal.
6. The Lokpal, in order to ensure integrity and transparency, is sought to put every detail of the investigations conducted by them on the public website.
7. Any citizen could make a complaint against any member of the Lokpal to the Supreme Court, which has the power to order her/his suspension or removal.
8. Public servants were barred from taking up jobs with those organizations or companies which they had been dealing with in their official capacities.

The Central government and various members of Parliament have criticized team Anna on the following fronts:

• There are allegations that Team Anna had no Dalits, Adivasis, Other Backward Classes or minorities in it, effectively saying that only the upper and middle classes were involved in the campaign. Thus the Bill drafted by Team Anna is in line with the demands of the “urban elites” and does not represent the broad based demands.
• Central government and various political leaders have also questioned the legitimacy of the demands. As per this view the democratically elected legislature truly represents the citizens of India and not the Civil Society.

Lokpal Bill in Winter Session of 2011

The Central Government  has passed its version of the Bill itself, it has, however, failed to pass the Bill for making the Lokpal a Constitutional body, like the Election Commission. Secondly the Bill could pass only in Lok Sabha as a result it cannot be sent for the assent of the President until it is passed in Rajya Sabha as well.

Team Anna is highly dissatisfied with the Lokpal Bill in its present form. According to the team, the government has diluted almost all the provisions in the Bill which could make Lokpal an effective institution to curb corruption.

The following are the major issues which Team Anna has raised about the present Bill:

1. Selection and removal procedures should be made independent of the government. The December Bill proposes five members, of whom three should be government nominees – the Prime Minister, the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha – and the CJI or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the CJI, and one eminent jurist nominated by the President.
2. The CBI should be brought under the administrative control of Lokpal, or the Lokpal should have its own investigating body
3. All government servants should be brought under the Lokpal’s investigation ambit.
4. The procedure for the investigation should be in line with the normal criminal investigation.
5. The provision of mandatory reservation for SCs, STs, OBCs and women in Lokpal and putting NGO’s under scrutiny is also questioned.

Apart from the above criticism of the Bill raised by Team Anna, there are four divergent views on the present Lokpal Bill:

1. It is a weak Bill; some civil society organizations have even termed it as “Jokepal”.
2. It is better to have some sort of Lokpal even if it is not what it ought to be.
3. The Bill will undermine Indian parliamentary democracy and would severely affect the functioning of executive and legislators.
4. One of the arguments against the Bill is its tendency to disturb the federal equation by legislating on the State's power to take disciplinary action against its employees.

However, last criticism can be countered by the fact that Article 253 of the Constitution says that where Parliament makes a law for the whole or any part of India to implement an international treaty or a decision made at any international conference, such law will hold good even if it transgresses the federal division of legislative power. The Lokpal-Lokayukta Act is made in compliance with the United Nation Convention on Corruption.

Conclusion

The corruption in India has become the issue of grave concern and in the recent past has reached to an alarming level , thus it’s a fact that present arrangements, structure and functions to curb corruption requires an alteration.  It’s also an established fact that there is lukewarm political will to tackle the issue.

Dilution of various provisions in the Janlokpal Bill on the pretext that Lokpal will undermine Indian parliamentary democracy and would severely affect the functioning of executive and legislators seem to lacks merit. The democracy in India has reached to a maturity level and if an institution is established which affects the functioning of democracy it can be diluted anytime.

However, it should be kept in mind that corruption in India exists not just because a powerful Lokpal is absent in the system. The reasons of corruption are complexly interwoven in the social, cultural, and ethical dimensions as well. Thus, Lokpal cannot be panacea for all public pathologies arising due to corruption. To get rid of corruption an engaging democracy based on ethics can be the best solution. The democracy of such kind would restrict the entry of elements that perpetuate corruption, and it’s an age old saying that “prevention is better than cure”.