Lokpal: A half-won victory and an incomplete Bill?
|
COMMENTS 
The Jan Lokpal Bill 2011 is an incomplete document that Team Anna and watchful members of civil society need to fully work out if the aspirations of millions who have been fired by the campaign for a corruption-free India are to be met, says Chitta Behera
The Jan Lokpal Bill, 2011, version 2.3, which is now in Parliament, is certainly a much better draft than its predecessors. If enacted, it will carry the anti-corruption crusade, begun with the RTI Act, 2005, to a logical conclusion. As all of us know, it is the RTI Act that helped unearth huge scams relating to the Commonwealth Games, Adarsh Housing Complex, and 2G spectrum. But it is not within this Act’s jurisdiction to investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators of corruption. It is precisely to fulfil this indispensable need to build a corruption-free polity that the Jan Lokpal Bill was mooted by social activist Anna Hazare.
However, for the Jan Lokpal Bill to fulfil its historic destiny it must be formulated and reformulated in such a way as not to leave any critical loopholes through which wily and corrupt bureaucrats, politicians and judges can find an escape route. All of us know that Anna, who is a strong and down-to-earth campaigner for a corruption-free India, is not very proficient in drafting laws and is therefore dependent on a coterie of experienced people -- popularly called Team Anna -- who manage not only the entire drafting business but also negotiations with the government and public relations exercises on behalf of Anna. It is this group to whom credit or discredit for the draft Bill will go. Notwithstanding the fact that Anna has both clarity of vision and the courage of his convictions, it is Team Anna that will ultimately prevail with respect to what is in the fine print of the Jan Lokpal Bill.
While breaking his fast, on August 28, Anna observed that his battle against corruption was only half over, in the sense that Parliament, yielding to the popular sentiment, agreed to accept his Jan Lokpal Bill as the main draft document for enacting a comprehensive ombudsman law for the country. Victory would only come when the draft Bill has been enacted into a full-fledged law by Parliament.
But the moot question remains: Is the Anna Bill itself a foolproof draft from a civil society perspective, or for that matter from Anna’s perspective? To this author, like the half-won victory, the Jan Lokpal Bill, 2011 is an incomplete document that needs to be fully worked out in the coming days by Team Anna and watchful members of civil society.
Firstly, the current version of the Jan Lokpal Bill, unlike the earlier ones, conspicuously leaves the judiciary out of the Lokpal’s ambit. Although Anna has stressed the need for this, just as he did with respect to two other wings of the state, namely the legislature and the executive, he conceded to the omission at the last moment on grounds that government had already tabled the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 in Parliament for enactment. But neither Anna nor any member of Team Anna has reflected on the merits or nuances of this Bill, especially from the Jan Lokpal perspective. They owe an explanation to their supporters as to how far the proposed Bill on judicial standards and accountability will investigate, prosecute and punish corrupt judges belonging to the higher or lower judiciary. If the said Bill, like the government Bill on Lokpal, is restrictive in its scope and toothless in its impact, will Anna Hazare not prove the loser in his bargain with government?
Secondly, one of the sticking points between Anna and the government was Anna’s insistence on formulating a single Lokpal law for the entire country, with provision for Lokayuktas at the state level, along the lines of the Lokpal at the Centre. Now that government has conceded to this demand too, the draft Jan Lokpal Bill needs to be redrafted in order to incorporate a host of provisions concerning Lokayuktas at the state level. Presently, a footnote appearing at the end of Anna’s draft Bill reads: ‘This draft provides only for the Lokpal for central public servants. Similar provisions for Lokayuktas in the states to deal with public servants of the state will have to be incorporated in the Bill.’
Indeed, a huge task awaits Team Anna and civil society. It calls not only for the replication of existing provisions for the Lokpal at the Centre with respect to Lokayuktas in the states, but also demands of its drafters the unique skill of presenting the expanded and composite text of the reworked Bill in an integrated and coherent manner. Instead of leaving this critical job to a nexus of wily bureaucrats and politicians, Team Anna must take upon itself the unique challenge of reconstructing the draft Bill, with inputs from vigilant members of civil society of course.
Thirdly, the current draft Bill, though marked by fewer loopholes than the preceding drafts, has serious omissions and commissions which, if not sorted out right now, will defeat its objectives. For instance, Chapter XIII entitled ‘Grievance Redressal System’ quite rightfully addresses certain issues that have concerned the common citizen and galvanised hundreds of people across the country to stand in solidarity with Anna’s crusade for a Jan Lokpal Bill. It says that every office of every public authority shall appoint a public grievance redressal officer (PGRO) whose duty it shall be to accept grievances from any citizen arising from a violation of the citizens’ charter, and to redress the same within 30 days of its receipt. If the said officer fails in his duty a complaint can be lodged against him before the appellate grievance officer (AGO), appointed by the Lokpal for each district, who has the power not only to redress the concerned grievance but also to penalise the defaulting PGRO to the tune of a maximum of Rs 500 against a day’s delay, and up to Rs 50,000 in total. The AGO shall also subject himself to a six-monthly social audit by members of the public in the presence of a senior officer from the Lokpal. But the Bill doesn’t provide a timeframe within which the complaint shall be lodged before the AGO, or within which the AGO shall redress the citizen’s grievance, or within which the AGO shall pronounce a penalty against the defaulting PGRO. In the absence of timeframes regarding such crucial issues, the huge expectations of the public from the Jan Lokpal Bill will be belied.
Fourthly, Section 7 titled ‘Powers of Officers under Lokpal’, in its sub-section (8) says that the Lokpal, if it feels it needs to stay implementation or enforcement of any decision by a public authority in the interest of preventing the incidence of corruption, may make a recommendation to the concerned public authority in the said light. The public authority shall either comply with the said recommendation or reject the same within 15 days of the recommendation thereof. In the event of rejection, the Lokpal may approach the appropriate high court for appropriate directions to be issued to the public authority. Again the questions arise: What is the timeframe within which the Lokpal shall seek the high court’s directions? And, what is the timeframe within which the concerned high court shall issue its directions? Moreover, what shall happen if the high court fails to give its decision within the given timeframe? The absence of timeframes in such matters, apparently a small issue, is fraught with the critical implication of atrophying the very anti-graft objective of the proposed law, since public authorities with vested interests will always want their cases to linger ad infinitum at the level of the high court.
Fifth, unlike the preceding version of the Jan Lokpal Bill (V 2.2), in which there existed an explicit provision to compensate anyone who has suffered a loss on account of corruption (vide Section 21 A-5-ii), the present draft Bill (V 2.3) offers no such provision although Chapter XV is speciously titled ‘Seizure and Confiscation of Property and Recovery of Compensation from Corrupt Government Servants’. Section 27 (3) speaks of estimating the “loss caused to the exchequer or any other person,” but stops short of mentioning compensating the individual for the loss. Needless to say, the provision to compensate somebody who has lost in whatever terms due to corruption by a public servant will always draw the common man into the campaign for a just Jan Lokpal Bill.
What is required of Team Anna at the moment, therefore, is to fine-tune the draft Jan Lokpal Bill, version 2.3, in such a manner as to meet the aspirations of millions of people who have been fired by the campaign for a corruption-free India.
(Chitta Behera is a Cuttack-based consultant on governance issues)
Infochange News & Features, September 2011