It is really difficult to believe that Arvind Kejriwal, who came to power on the strength of the agitation for an effective Lokpal, will flounder when his turn comes to deliver. Is there a conscious effort to dilute the provisions of the Lokpal Bill 2015? Or is the criticism politically motivated or comes from the rancour of former colleagues?
Like a ‘dwarpal’ is supposed to protect a door or entry, ‘Lokpal’ has the onerous responsibility of protecting the masses from the evil of corruption by having effective powers/investigative wing to bring the corrupt to book. In a country where state police/vigilance departments and even the CBI is perceived to be incapable of taking action against the political rulers of the day, the demand for an effective Lokpal with powers and independence to enquire corruption at the political level got instantaneous support and catapulted Anna Hazare, Kejriwal and others as credible mass leaders.
Efforts for an enactment to have an effective Lokpal in Parliament began in 1966, but proved futile through nine attempts. When Parliament finally passed a Lokpal Bill in 2014, it was so weak that Kejriwal himself said it could not even catch a mouse. It signifies the reluctance of the political class to offer itself to any anti-corruption scrutiny umbrella. There has been unanimity that India needs to have an ‘ombudsman’-type institution named Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayukta at the state level, and the jurisdictions of the two should not overlap.
For a quick comparative analysis of provisions of the 2014 Bill, 2015 Bill and the 2014 Central Act, the provisions on (i) appointment of Jan Lokpal and its members (ii) powers and jurisdiction (iii) control over investigating agencies and (iv) mode of removal are of paramount importance.
While the Central Act and the 2014 Bill had a broader selection panel, the 2015 Jan Lokpal has only four persons who will select the Jan Lokpal of which three are political persons, namely the chief minister, the leader of the opposition and the speaker, while the fourth is the chief justice of Delhi High Court. It would be prudent to have a seven-member panel as suggested in the 2014 Bill.
As far as power and jurisdiction are concerned, the 2015 Bill will never get the nod of the Centre as it has serious jurisdictional issues. Its Statement of Objects and Reasons says, “The primary aim of the new Bill is to realise the object of establishing the National Capital Territory as a ‘Corruption Free Zone’.” And consequently, Section 7 says, “Subject to... the Jan Lokpal may proceed to inquire or investigate into the allegation of ‘corruption’ occurring in the National Capital Territory of Delhi”, which means the Delhi state Jan Lokpal would have powers to investigate corruption charges against the Prime Minster, Central ministers, MPs and officers working under the Centre.
Kejriwal, your intention may be noble but to achieve this you will have to get the Constitution amended, especially the provisions in Part XI dealing with relations between the Union and the states. The states keep alleging interference by the Centre through the CBI, Enforcement Directorate, Income Tax and other Central agencies. You want to have a reverse situation where the state Jan Lokpal will have powers to investigate deeds of the Centre. This effort is either based on poor knowledge of constitutional provisions or is an intentional death wish for the Act to be killed by the Centre for political mileage. If the AAP government is serious about the 2015 Jan Lokpal actually seeing the light of day, these provisions from the Statement of Objects and Reasons and Section 7 of the Bill must be dropped.
As regards control over investigating agencies, as per Section 10(1): The Jan Lokpal may appoint or, with the consent of the government, designate officers or agencies as investigation officers, authorised to investigate offences under this Act (‘Jan Lokpal investigating officer’). There should be a time limit for appointment of its own investigation officers, and only till then should the power to designate to other agencies be available. Under Section 15(2), the government has powers to even refuse to suspend an officer on request by the Jan Lokpal. This provision must go as it dilutes the Jan Lokpal’s power.
As regards the modes for removal of the Jan Lokpal or its members, the provision of the 2014 Bill would be more appropriate than removal by a majority of Assembly members with two-thirds present and voting. As the Jan Lokpal is expected to probe charges against politicians, it would be better if the power of his removal is not left in the hands of the Assembly.
Kejriwal, for passing an Act on an issue that is the reason for your emergence as a political leader, you have to be more visionary and think of situations when your own party may not be in power. You may require the Jan Lokpal to prosecute and put in prison creatures more menacing than a mouse. vimalkirti86@hotmail.com
Singh is a former IAS officer, and legal practitioner