I thought it was the stuff of novels. Mob frenzy, popular revolution, the rulers cornered. Then it happened in the Arab World, with some high profile casualties. And now, it’s knocking on our door-steps. Well, now that is interesting. Anna Hazare has managed to do what no Indian managed after Mahatma Gandhi- galvanise an entire nation. But the question’s there: Was it really required? Was the situation so grave that deliberation and discussion, debate and following the normal course of law could not have served the purpose? Most frenzied people gripped with Anna Phenomenon would answer with an affirmative. But I believe otherwise. And with this, I want to make a point here. I am NOT AGAINST LOKPAL or JAN LOKPAL. No. I am merely amused by this Anna Phenomenon, how people have reacted to it, and my own view of the issue.
But before I embark upon a passionate blog, for the convenience of all those who have apparently lost their ability to think and are repeating and believing only what they see on news channels, read in newspapers, a quick over-view of both the versions of Lokpal so that we can once again ask ourselves- Is it really needed? (Skip if you’re not interested, cause it’s not really in a nutshell, though not as detailed as I would have liked. I believe being a Political Science student has given me a certain edge. Anyway, for a better understanding of the issue at hand, do go through it. The rest, as they say, is up to you)
Some important features of the proposed bill are:
1. To establish a central government anti-corruption institution called Lokpal, supported by Lokayukta at the state level.
2. As in the case of the Supreme Court and Cabinet Secretariat, the Lokpal will be supervised by the Cabinet Secretary and the Election Commission. As a result, it will be completely independent of the government and free from ministerial influence in its investigations.
3. Members will be appointed by judges, Indian Administrative Service officers with a clean record, private citizens and constitutional authorities through a transparent and participatory process.
4. A selection committee will invite shortlisted candidates for interviews, videorecordings of which will thereafter be made public.
5. Every month on its website, the Lokayukta will publish a list of cases dealt with, brief details of each, their outcome and any action taken or proposed. It will also publish lists of all cases received by the Lokayukta during the previous month, cases dealt with and those which are pending.
6. Investigations of each case must be completed in one year. Any resulting trials should be concluded in the following year, giving a total maximum process time of two years.
7. Losses caused to the government by a corrupt individual will be recovered at the time of conviction.
8. Government officework required by a citizen that is not completed within a prescribed time period will result in Lokpal imposing financial penalties on those responsible, which will then be given as compensation to the complainant.
9. Complaints against any officer of Lokpal will be investigated and completed within a month and, if found to be substantive, will result in the officer being dismissed within two months.
10. The existing anti-corruption agencies (CVC, departmental vigilance and the anti-corruption branch of the CBI) will be merged into Lokpal which will have complete power and authority to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.
11. Whistleblowers who alert the agency to potential corruption cases will also be provided with protection by it.
Difference between Government and activist drafts
Highlights
| Difference between Draft Lokpal Bill 2010 and Jan Lokpal Bill | |
| Draft Lokpal Bill (2010) | Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's Ombudsman Bill) |
| Lokpal will have no power to initiate suo motu action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public. It can only probe complaints forwarded by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. | Lokpal will have powers to initiate suo moto action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public. |
| Lokpal will only be an Advisory Body with a role limited to forwarding reports to a "Competent Authority". | Lokpal will have the power to initiate prosecution of anyone found guilty. |
| Lokpal will have no police powers and no ability to register an FIR or proceed with criminal investigations. | Lokpal will have police powers as well as the ability to register FIRs. |
| The CBI and Lokpal will be unconnected. | Lokpal and the anti corruption wing of the CBI will be one independent body. |
| Punishment for corruption will be a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of up to 7 years. | Punishments will be a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of up to life imprisonment. |
Detailed
The following table details differences between the Government and activist backed version
| Issue | The Jan Lokpal Bill | Government's Lokpal Bill |
| Can be investigated with permission of seven member Lokpal bench | PM cannot be investigate by Lokpal | |
| Can be investigated, though high level members may be investigated only with permission of a seven member Lokpal bench | Judiciary is exempt and will be covered by a separate "judicial accountability bill".[ | |
| Can be investigated with permission of seven member Lokpal bench | Can be investigated, but their conduct within Parliament, such as voting, cannot be investigated | |
| Lower bureaucracy | All public servants would be included. | Only Group A officers will be covered. |
| The CBI will be merged into the Lokpal[ | The CBI will remain a separate agency.[ | |
| Removal of Lokpal members and Chair | Any person can bring a complaint to the Supreme Court, who can then recommend removal of any member to the President.[ | Any "aggrieved party" can raise a complaint to the President, who will refer the matter to the CJI. |
| Removal of Lokpal staff and officers | Complaints against Lokpal staff will be handled by independent boards set-up in each state, composed of retired bureaucrats, judges, and civil society members. | Lokpal will conduct inquiries into its own behaviour. |
| Lokakyukta and other local/state anti-corruption agency would remain in place | All state anti-corruption agencies would be closed and responsibilities taken over by centralized Lokpal | |
| Whistleblower protection | Whistleblowers are protected law | No protection granted to whistleblowers |
| Punishment for corruption | Lokpal can either directly impose penalties, or refer the matter to the courts. Penalties can include removal from office, imprisonment, and recovery of assets from those who benefited from the corruption | Lokpal can only refer matters to the courts, not take any direct punitive actions. Penalties remain equivalent to those in current law |
| Investigatory powers | Lokpal can obtain wiretaps, issue rogatory letters, and recruit investigating officers. Cannot issue contempt orders | Lokpal can issue contempt orders, and has the ability to punish those in contempt. No authority to obtain wiretaps, issue rogatory letters, or recruit investigating officers |
| False, frivolous and vexatious complaints | Lokpal can issue fines for frivolous complaints (including frivolous complaints against Lokpal itself), with a maximum penalty of 1 lakh. | Court system will handle matters of frivolous complaints. Courts can issue fines of Rs25,000 to 2 lakh |
| Scope | All corruption can be investigated | Only high-level corruption can be investigated[ |
Source: Wikipedia.
A quick view is enough to conclude that the Jan Lokpal version is the more thorough, and better. Still, there are certain points which are, at best, riddiculous. And here is why:
1. The Lokpal can initiate suo motto action: Now, can it not lead to vested interests? It may even lead to more corruption. If Lokpal is meant to police government agencies, then let it act like Police. Has anyone ever heard of police taking action against anyone without any complaint? If there’s no complaint, then there should not be any action. However, I agree than citizens should be allowed to lodge their complaints. But frivolous complaints should be dealt strictly with.
2. Prosecution Power: Well, we already have a system in place to prosecute the guilty. The Lokpal should only undertake the investigation and forward the charges to ‘competent authority.’
3. Criminal investigation? FIR? Are we looking at an anti-corruption body or an all-powerful extra constitutional mafia here? Who is there to check Lokpal then? Who will guarantee that Lokpal’s members will themselves be corruption-free? And once they are member of Lokpal, they virtually become all-powerful! It’s blasphemy! Totally unconstitutional!
4. PM should be under the purview of Lokpal, but only with certain parameters. After all, he’s the most powerful functionary in the government; you cannot place someone over his head. That would undermine the constitution then, with the members of Lokpal eventually getting more powerful. Maybe not now, but in the years to come definitely. And also, since MPs enjoy immunity for their actions in the Parliament, they cannot be probed for that.
5. And last, but not the least, the Lokpal cannot have punitive powers. There’s a judicial system for that. Nor can it have powers to obtain wiretaps, issue rogatory letters, or recruit investigating officers At best, The Jan Lokpal version is an attempt to undermine the constitution, and lord over the government.
So, I am not anti-corruption and anti-lokpal. Anna's cause is for the greater good, but his methods aren't. You say what you see on news channels, what you read in papers, what everyone's saying. People tell me, it was unconstitutional on the part of Government to arrest him, that his right was violated, that it could happen with anyone of us. But I am sorry to say, no constitutional right was violated when Anna was arrested. There's something called Preventive Detention (IP 144) where-in the government can arrest anyone who it feels may create a law and order situation, and after the Ramdev incidence, Anna Hazare was asking for it. And there's nothing in the constitution which says that a person has the constitutional right to hold the government to ransom by taking a fast unto death.
Anna's version is thorough, yes. But it wouldn't go a long way to end corruption. It, as they say, starts at home. So bringing about changes as a macro level doesn’t count much when there's no prior change at the micro level.
I am told, at home, on facebook, at other places, that it’s not about Anna, it about fighting corruptiom. No. It's not about corruption, not entirely. Where was this protestation when Anna called off his fast? And why did it start so suddenly again just because an octogenarian is sitting on a fast unto death? I hear people saying that it has been going on for 60 years; it's high time we take matter in our own hands. Where was this consciousness in the past half a century of independence?
I repeat- I am not against this movement. Obviously, something has to be done to fight corruption. But do you have any idea about how many people would go back to bribe officials to get driving licenses, pull strings to get their children in the nest North Campus colleges, give donations to get their children in the best schools of Delhi? It should start at home, rather than on the streets. No one has given the civil society the right to legislate on such issues. Democracy has some drawbacks, but still, law-making should be left to Parliament. Why isn't Anna willing to appear before the Standing Committee?
The bill is premised on an institutional imagination that is at best naïve; at worst subversive of representative democracy. It would not be a popularly elected body, like the government, and hence it will have no accountability. It’s high time people should realise, it is not supposed to be a second STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM. Gandhiji’s idea of satyagraha was straightforward. With Mr. Anna Hazare, it’s tweaking it to own advantage. Gandhiji fought against a foreign power which oppressed and ruled India without any mandate, without any right. Mr. Hazare is turning into a dictator now, issuing diktats, telling the government what to do.
Anyway, these are my views. I may not be correct, legally or otherwise with all of them. But that wouldn’t matter if I have been able to drive home a point.
And as I say, ‘Main Anna NAHI Hun.’
