Lokpal Bill

LOKPAL

The Scandinavian institution of Ombudsman created in Sweden in 1809 is the earliest democratic institution in the world for the redressal of citizens’ grievances. The Ombudsman in India is called as Lokpal / Lokayukta.

LOKPAL

The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) of India (1966-1970) recommended the setting up of two special authorities designated as ‘Lokpal’ and ‘lokayukta’ for the redressal of citizens’ grievances. These institutions were to be set up on the pattern of the institution of Ombudsman in Scandinavian countries and the parliamentary commissioner for investigation in New Zealand. The Lokpal would deal with complaints against ministers and secretaries at Central and State levels and the lokayukta (one at the Centre and one in every state) would deal with complaints against other specified higher officials. The ARC kept the judiciary outside the purview of Lokpal and lokayukta as in New Zealand. But, in Sweden the judiciary is within the purview of Ombudsman.

According to the ARC, the Lokpal would be appointed by the president after consultation with the chief justice of India, the Speaker of Lok Sabha and Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. So far, eight official attempts have been made to bring about legislation on this subject.

Salient Features :

The salient features of the 2001 Lokpal Bill are as follows:

1. The bill provides for the establishment of the institution of Lokpal to inquire into allegations of corruption against public functionaries including the prime minister, provided the offence committed is within ten years from the day the complaint is lodged.

2. The Lokpal shall consist of a chairperson who is or has been a chief justice or a judge of the Supreme Court and two members who are or have been the judges of the Supreme Court or the chief justices of the high court.

3. The chairperson and members shall be appointed by the president of India on the recommendation of a committee headed by the vice-president of India and comprising the prime minister, the Lok Sabha Speaker, the home minister, the Leader of the House other than the House in which the prime minister is a member and leaders of the Opposition on both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.

4. The bill provides for a fixed tenure of three years for the chairperson and the members.

5. The bill ensures that the Lokpal is able to act independently and discharge its functions without fear or favour. For this, it provides that the chairperson or a member of the Lokpal shall not be removed from office, except by an order made by the president on the grounds of misbehavior or incapacity. He can issue the removal order after an inquiry by a committee consisting of the chief justice of India and two other judges of the Supreme Court (next to the chief justice in seniority).

6. The Lokpal will inquire into complaints alleging that a public functionary has committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The expression ‘ public functionary’ covers all the three categories of union ministers including the prime minister and the Members of Parliament. The constitutional functionaries such as judges of the Supreme Court and the Election Commission have been kept out of the purview of the Lokpal.

7. The allegations against the prime minister related to his functions in the areas of national security and maintenance of public order have been kept out of the purview of the Lokpal.

8. To enable the Lokpal to function effectively and in a quasi-judicial manner, it has been vested with the powers of a civil court in respect of summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath.

9. The bill provides for an open court or if the Lokpal wishes in-camera proceedings. The proceedings have to be completed within six months, with a provision for extension of six more months.

10.The Lokpal is vested with penal powers to discourage frivolous complaints. For such complaints, the punishment could be an imprisonment from one to three years including a fine upto Rs. 50,000.

___________

THE headlines in the media, the constant talk of how deep corruption has sunk in our body politic and the nefarious role played by ill-gotten contributions to political parties is a spectre, haunting the public all the time. But why is the government still not persuaded to seriously consider enacting an effectively genuine Lokpal legislation to deal with this menace of corruption? If the draft of the Lokpal Bill 2010 is any indication, it would appear that a realisation of grave urgency is still absent in the government. No one is suggesting that an evil like corruption in public life can be eliminated merely by legislation.
Aclean public life, the standards and character of political parties have to be built on grounds of moral conscience and public pressure. Corruption in public life can only be eliminated when, in the words of Mahatma Gandhi, “a small body of determined spirits fired by an unquenchable faith in their mission can alter the course of history”. But we must face the reality. Such spirits are rare to find and we ordinary mortals must make an effort to find some mechanism which may hopefully be able to keep in check the demoralisation and corruption in our public life. One such mechanism, that almost all governments since 1996 have been promising but done nothing about, is the institution of the Lokpal, an independent body to enquire into the lapses and complaints against legislators and MPs, both at the Centre and the states.
The government has at last proposed the Lokpal Bill 2010, but unfortunately it fails even to be a cosmetic exercise to fight corruption. It is shamefully toothless and just meant to give a false reassurance to the people that the government is serious in its fight against corruption. The Lokpal is a threemember body consisting of a chairperson who is or was a former Chief Justice or judge of the Supreme Court and two members who are or have been judges of the Supreme Court or Chief Justices of a high court. But restricting it to judges is too narrow, and outstanding social scientists or academicians should also be eligible, and it should be a five member body. The jurisdiction of the Lokpal under Sec 10 apparently covers the PM, ministers and MPs. But the hypocrisy is exposed when at the same time it nullifies the same by providing that the Lokpal shall not enquire into any allegations of corruption against any member of either House of Parliament unless the recommendation of the Speaker or Chairman of Council of States (as the case may be) is received by it.
Not only that but insultingly, even when the Lokpal finds that any of the charges has been proved, against MPs, all he can do is to send a report of his findings to the Speaker and Chairman of the Council of States, and they alone will determine what action is to be taken. Of course, the presiding officers have to place the report before both the Houses of Parliament. A formal courtesy is to be done by informing the Lokpal as to what action is taken or is proposed to be taken, which may include the rejection of the findings of the Lokpal. This reduces the authority of the Lokpal to lower than that of a magistrate whose order the highest in the land, including the President, has to comply with.
The sheer effrontery of the law ministry in proposing such an insulting provision is a direct negation of the institution of Lokpal. What should have been done was to provide that the establishment of guilt by the Lokpal would be treated, in the same manner as Sec 8 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951, as a disqualification from contesting elections for a period of six years. Further, the Lokpal should have been authorised to impose a penalty for the recovery of any amount found to have been lost by the action of legislators or ministers. The Lokpal, under Sec 11, is also forbidden to enquire into any memo of a complaint if it is made after five years from the date when the offence is alleged to have been committed.
Has the government realised the absurdity of providing a limitation period in such complaints, which, if they were to be tried under the Prevention of Corruption Act, would have no limitation bar, because there is no limitation for initiating proceedings under criminal law where the punishment provided is more than three years? Also has the UPA government considered that if a fiveyear period were to be provided, by the same logic would they not be barred from holding an enquiry into the 2G scam of 2001-02 during the BJP government (which by all standards should be held along with the enquiry into the 2G scam against Raja)? No judge with even a modicum of self-respect will accept such a demeaning, low grade rate post — the inevitable result would be that the Lokpal Bill will collapse –— an event that legislators have always desired. So it is goodbye to cleaning the political dirt, notwithstanding the high sounding calls by all the governments. Regrettably, cynics may be right when they say ‘who cares’ if, in the process, some dedicated Gandhians fighting for integrity in public life fast unto death against this unforgivable lapse by the government.