We need a strong Lokpal, not toothless tiger Arun Bhatia India has always been a slave to corruption. Today, the growing middle class has registered a protest by supporting Anna Hazare¶s fight against corruption. Without the media¶s support, however, Hazare¶s protest would have ended with him being arrested, taken to a government hospital, and put on the drip. That did not happen because commentators, news channels and editors committed themselves openly and vociferously to the movement for a strong Lokpal Bill and sank their teeth into public scandals, refusing to let go. Traditional, passive journalism restricted to reportin events and avoiding value judgments had been finally discarded. We must remember that caste-, religion- and poverty-based vote banks are still intact. So are mafia outfits serving political parties. The poor do not see the relevance of corruption though they are its victims. Thus, to organise mass support in rural areas for the Lokpal movement might be an uphill journey. However, this movement has a sustainable base. If the often spontaneous outpouring of support to Hazare¶s movement is a ny indication, mass support will be forthcoming readily and at short notice in urban and semi-urban areas whenever required with continued media support. Anticipating the rapid rise of such a wave, the government surrendered. The key to sustainability lies in ensuring honest leadership, especially for a movement dedicated to enforcing integr ity. Therefore, pushing the father -son duo of Shanti and Prashant Bhushan into the drafting committee was a bad move. The fact that the Bhushans did not step down after failing to defend the UPgovernment¶s allocation of farm plots in Noida to them was worse. (When land allotment is opened to the general public, it must be done by drawing lots. If given to favourites, it is just corruption.)
India has always been a slave to corruption. Today, the growing middle class has registered a
protest by supporting Anna Hazare¶s fight against corruption. Without the media¶s support,
however, Hazare¶s protest would have ended with him being arrested, taken to a government
hospital, and put on the drip.
That did not happen because commentators, news channels and editors committed themselvesopenly and vociferously to the movement for a strong Lokpal Bill and sank their teeth into
public scandals, refusing to let go. Traditional, passive journalism restricted to reportinevents and avoiding value judgments had been finally discarded.
We must remember that caste-, religion- and poverty-based vote banks are still intact. So are
mafia outfits serving political parties. The poor do not see the relevance of corruption thoughthey are its victims. Thus, to organise mass support in rural areas for the Lokpal movement
might be an uphill journey. However, this movement has a sustainable base.If the often spontaneous outpouring of support to Hazare¶s movement is any indication, mass
support will be forthcoming readily and at short notice in urban and semi-urban areas
whenever required with continued media support. Anticipating the rapid rise of such a wave,
the government surrendered.
The key to sustainability lies in ensuring honest leadership, especially for a movement
dedicated to enforcing integrity. Therefore, pushing the father-son duo of Shanti and PrashantBhushan into the drafting committee was a bad move. The fact that the Bhushans did not step
down after failing to defend the UPgovernment¶s allocation of farm plots in Noida to themwas worse. (When land allotment is opened to the general public, it must be done by drawing
lots. If given to favourites, it is just corruption.)
Leaders must be able to defend their honesty convincingly before the media and clear any
smears. The pathetic response that the allegations were meant to derail the movement was nodefence and will weaken the movement.
There are multiple institutions in the country that are ostensibly engaged in the task of
delivering justice. The jurisdictions of many of them overlap. Human rights commissions at
the Centre and in the states, women¶s commissions, and vigilance commissions withvigilance officers strewn in every department are examples of organisations advertised by
corrupt system to erect the facade of good governance.
They are carefully crafted to be toothless and ineffective and are manned by proven docile bureaucrats least likely to confront the establishment.
These institutions are glorified post offices that receive complaints that they then pass on to
state government departments or the police. Ironically, they were set up to rectify themalfunctioning of these very agencies. They are not equipped to carry out investigations and
prosecution in a law court. The annual report of the Central Vigilance Commission is stuffedwith meaningless statistics of cases and recommendations sent to governments for ³further
action´ and reports called for from them. Thus an independent and adequately empowered
Lokpal is essential.
There is a school of thought propagated mainly by the bureaucracy which argues that if the
Lokpal were empowered to enquire against senior public servants, it would bring decision-
making processes, recommendations and file notes into the open and make them subject to
challenge. This, they argue, would paralyse the administration because almost every decision
pleases some segments while displeasing others. Offices would be loaded with complaints,
there would be a flood of allegations against public functionaries, and decision makers would
avoid making decisions or be under pressure to make decisions that are popular but not
always the best.
These arguments are false, for the following reasons:
1. There are already laws in place to punish defamation, false complaints and so on.
Therefore, unfounded allegations will not be generated though complaints will certainly rise,
which should be welcome.
2. Transparency in decision making is desirable though offensive to a corrupt establishment
because bureaucrats are comfortable working in dark corners.
3. Bureaucrats are already under pressure from ministers, MPs, MLAs, corporation members,
corrupt bosses and powerful vested interests behind closed doors in the present system. I
more decisions are opened for public debate through the Lokpal, this sinister pressure caused
by secrecy will be reduced.
4. By uniting the executive and the legislature, the party system has lodged immense power
in the Indian executive and degraded the legislature to a debating society. A strong Lokpal
will be a major step towards diffusing power. It will introduce checks and balances that are
crucial for good governance.
Judges, including those of the Supreme Court, cannot enjoy immunity because the judiciary
is an important safeguard against arbitrary rule and must not be above investigation, an
because courts have themselves now become corrupt. The present procedure is that a judge
cannot be investigated without the permission of the chief justice. When the investigatingofficer (Anti-Corruption Bureau) seeks permission to investigate corruption charges against a
judge (on suspicion or complaint), the officer is required to provide evidence first to justifythe request. But very often, without some inquiry evidence will not emerge. In this comical
situation, it becomes easy to deny permission. The Lokpal will dispense with this procedure.
Ultimately, the Lokpal will only be empowered to investigate and conduct prosecution andnot to conduct trial. The main point is that barriers to investigation that protected corrupt
public servants for years will be knocked down. These barriers include the procedure to
proceed with investigations against judges accused of corruption and the notorious section
197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) that prohibits criminal prosecution of a public
servant by a citizen without the permission of the appointing (higher) authority.
It is preferable to give such power to a committee instead of an individual to prevent
arbitrariness or capture by vested interests. There could be many models to select members,
including the prescription of a qualifying exam and selection by draw of lots. The committee
will head a fully equipped team of professionals recruited from the police force and th
private sector who will constitute an independent cadre not linked to the department. The
term for the committee members could be six months. If a citizen jury in America can pronounce judgments, let us not fear participatory governance. It is the way to the future.
Finally, let every honest Indian support the demand for a strong Lokpal and not allow theestablishment to impose on us yet another sycophant with a title, nominated by those he is
mandated to confront in moving against corruption.
Lokpal must address money power in polls
N Gopalaswami
AAfter the euphoria over the formation of the Lokpal bill drafting committee, it is time to
look at some essential ingredients in the Lokpal Bill. The first question is if the Lokpal
should be an anti-corruption crusader or a grievance redressal mechanism or both.
Given that the jurisdiction of the chief vigilance commissioner (CVC) is restricted to public
officials and it has no jurisdiction over ministers, and given the fact that most major
corruption scandals like the 2G spectrum allocation scam and the CWG scam involve
government ministers or high-profile politicians, there can be no two opinions on the need for
a strong institutional mechanism to tackle corruption in high places.
It would be unwise to have the Lokpal cover all government servants and all manner of casesagainst them, including minor acts of omission and commission. Those should be continued
to be dealt with by the CVC, an authority of long-standing. But the CVC must be given more
powers, enhanced resources, and staff support. CVC and VCs (vigilance commissioners) can be made part of the Lokpal set up with ex-officio membership with the Lokpal concentrating
on high-profile cases with wider ramifications.
The Lokpal should have jurisdiction over senior officers, joint secretaries and above, and onministers. An empowered and autonomous Lokpal, reporting directly to Parliament, can be
expected to do what the Supreme Court (SC) is doing now in the 2G case. The Lokpal shouldhave an investigation wing and the powers to launch prosecution and its recommendations
should be binding, though it can be appealed against in any high court or the Supreme Court.Similar empowered bodies, the Lok Ayuktas, should be created through the same legislation
to tackle cases of high-level corruption in states.
Parliament should ratify the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), and thus acquire
the power to legislate for the Centre and states. The legislation should have enough teeth to
prevent states from watering down its provisions.
The havoc wrought on the institution of the state election commissioners should be a warning
about the states¶ potential to torpedo the Lok Ayukta legislation, if empowered to enact
additional legislation.
The financial independence of the Lokpals and Lok Ayuktas is very essential as that is one
tap that can be turned off and on to stymie their work. Simultaneously, the creation of anombudsman in every department for grievance redressal would free the Lokpal to pursu
cases of high-level corruption, ensuring that investigations are carried out quickly, thus notallowing the wrongdoers an opportunity to cover their tracks, and so that punishment is
meted out swiftly and not after decades.
But the Lokpal is a necessity for another important reason. Candidates invest many times
more than the stipulated expenditure ceilings to win elections and secure offices of power,
patronage and increasingly of µprofits¶. The resources of the state are then available to
generate income through arbitrary distribution of scare resources, and in project contracts and
tenders.
One has to just look at the humongous spending in the recently-concluded Tamil Nadu
elections. Over Rs55 crore in cash was seized and yet it did not significantly dent the
distribution, even if that made it a more nocturnal enterprise. It was the µThirumangalaformula¶ of direct cash transfer at work. No prizes for guessing that Thirumangalam 2009
came after the 2G spectrum scam of 2008.
Andhra Pradesh is not far behind in this game. Note the mind-boggling expenditure reported
in the just-concluded Kadapa bypolls. Such overspending is a countrywide phenomenon for
the same reasons but only the degree varies. With economic prosperity and buoyant revenues,
more of the taxpayers¶ funds are now available for scheming than ever before. Huge spending
in elections is but a manifestation of the disease of corruption perpetrated by the neta-babu-
lala combine. Unless this loot of the public exchequer is effectively tackled through an
empowered Lokpal, there is little chance of cleansing elections of money power.Finally, the Lokpal has to be a small and manageable body with not more than three or at best
five permanent members. A broad-based search committee to shortlist, and an empoweredcommittee, presided over by the prime minister and with the home minister, opposition
leaders from the two houses of Parliament, one or two representatives from the civil society,
to select the incumbents will be ideal. Similar provisions should be made in respect of theLok Ayuktas. We have waited 40 years for a Lokpal but the nation¶s mood now is vastly
different and the powers that be better understand it.
Lokpal must lead by example
Aruna Roy & Rakshita Swamy
Angry and frustrated with the depth and pervasiveness of scams and corruption, people across
the country have rallied around in support of the demand for a strong Lokpal that would bring
to account even the highest in the land. The ambitious Jan Lokpal (JLP) Bill seeks to correctcorruption and misgovernance from top to bottom. However, in its current form (2.2), it fails
to detail how this very ambitious task will be achieved, and raises questions about the
accountability of its vast bureaucratic structure. It would be a pity if this law should become
so unwieldy that it collapses under the volume of expectations and the burden of its immenseresponsibility.
Corruption arises out of the misuse of power. We must be doubly careful that we don¶t end
up creating another structure of potential inefficiency, corruption, and unaccountable power.
Drafting a bill of this nature demands our collective attention. The 10 concerns listed below
should help us focus our thoughts on building an institution that is capable of delivering what
it sets out to do:
1) Practicality: The ambitious Lokpal (Centre) and Lok Ayuktas (states) together aim to
overcome corruption and maladministration from the whole gamut of governance.
This will create an edifice of expectation and frustration too huge to manage,undermining even the capacity to deliver on its core area.
2) Checks and Balances: The Jan Lokpal is empowered to investigate corruption in allwings of the state, including the judiciary.
3) Use of state power should have independent oversight, but should this be vested in
one body? Some eminent jurists demand that the judiciary should be covered by an
independent agency ± outside the Lokpal. Can this opportunity be used to demand the parallel enactment of other appropriate legislations that can enforce accountability an
independent oversight over each institution?4) 5) 3) Scope and Responsibility: The bill places enormous responsibilities on the entire
JLP structure. These include the duty to a) investigate; b) prosecute; c) punish (interms of misconduct and maladministration); d) ensure grievance redress; e) protec
whistleblowers; and, f) even formulate policy through amending citizens¶ charters.
Too many roles in one institution.
4) Enhanced Police Powers: The Jan Lokpal will bring all investigating and vigilance
agencies under its ambit, independent of the political executive, vested with authority
with few constraints. The investigating wing has enhanced police powers, including
search and seizure, tapping phones, monitoring the Internet, and even contempt
powers. Only the high courts have to ensure compliance. Too much power for our
police.
5) Budgets and Staff: Independence and autonomy of institutions depend on financial
independence. The Jan Lokpal perhaps steps beyond autonomy, into potential
arbitrariness, when it is empowered to fix its own higher pay scales, oversee
appointment of judges for special courts; and use at its own discretion for collections
made through fines and recoveries of misappropriated funds.
6) Beyond the RTI: The Lokpal will have the authority to disclose all information
during the course of its investigation unless it will obstruct further enquiry. Though
transparent functioning of the lokpal is essential, it leaves too much potential for
misuse and persecution through selective disclosure of information.
7) Accountability of the Lokpal: The JLP is premised on the analysis that the failureof all institutions of vigilance lies in lack of internal accountability alone. The JLP isalso answerable only to its own superiors. What prevents the replication o
shortcomings and corruption of institutions it seeks to replace?
8) Empowering the People: The Lokpal also reduces people to mere complainants.
People cannot monitor the working of the JLP. They cannot ensure that a complaint
reaches its logical conclusion. The ³Jan´ in the JLP continues to be dependent on a
benevolent centralized bureaucracy.
9) An Open Consultative Process: Civil society members of the Joint Drafting
Committee (JDC) have promised a wide and transparent consultative process.
However, even the terms of reference have not been published. There is no officialweb site of the committee yet. There have been no public consultations announced by
the JDC. Can the functioning of the JDC serve as a model of participatory democracyif it fails to open up the official platform for consultative and participatory drafting?
10) Our View: Focus and Deliver: The Lokpal bill should focus on those areas of
grand corruption that most citizens cannot impact. An efficient, apex-level,transparently selected, comfortably staffed and empowered body, with an exclusive
focus on fighting grand corruption could pass a message that no one is above the law.
The Lokpal itself could be made accountable through strong checks and balances, and
high standards of transparency and conduct.
Let us build an institution that can deliver and let the Lokpal lead by example; thatwill meaningfully deliver on the promise made at Jantar Mantar.
Aruna Roy is a social activist who has won the Magsaysay Award; Rakshita Swamyworks with the National Campaign for People¶s Right to Information
Don't overload Lokpal & make it ineffective
Sujata Manohar
India has been listed as one of the most corrupt countries in
the world. It is a devastating assessment of a nation that
aspires to be an economic power in the world and would like
to project itself as a teacher of spiritual values to the rest o
the world. Setting up a system for monitoring corruption and
punishing the corrupt is a complex task. The institution of a
Lokpal can be an effective first step provided we do notoverload the institution of Lokpal and make it ineffective. The
Lokpal needs to be supported by a network of existing,modified, or new supportive institutions, and guided by
proper clear laws.
There is, for instance, the petty public servant who willdemand a bribe to do his duty. Someone who needs a death
certificate has little choice. He needs the document. Lodging acomplaint is time consuming, and he may have to pay a bribe,
with the outcome uncertain. Any institution dealing with these
"small" cases will have to be extensive in its reach and need a
massive nationwide network to function effectively.
Setting up short-staffed institutions has been the bane of this
country. The Right to Information Act is experiencing this kind of overload. Therefore,
ensuring proper infrastructure is essential to remove corruption.
In cases of corruption involving millions of rupees, we need a Lokpal as an institution that
can withstand pressure from those in high positions and can bring the corrupt to the bar of the people. Unless the Lokpal is seen at the apex of a network of anti-corruption programmes
with supportive institutions, and unless the role of the Lokpal is perceived in this manner, the
load of grievances may choke its functioning.
The existing Lok Ayuktas need to be integrated with the Lokpal, besides being appropriately
and uniformly empowered across the country, if necessary, by a constitutional amendment.
Similarly, the CVC and CBI need to be strengthened, made independent, and given specific
areas of action so that they can act against the corrupt.
The most obvious organisation that requires independence and freedom is the
police.The police have become a source of corruption rather than a remedy for corruption. Unles
we have an honest and competent police force, the citizens will be at the mercy of criminals,gangsters, and bribe-takers.
The laws dealing with corruption also need to be examined. Should a member of Parliamenttaking bribe to vote in a particular way enjoy immunity under Article 105(2) of the
Constitution? Should charge-sheeted people be allowed to stand for elections? The
Prevention of Corruption Act and the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code need to be
analysed.
The Jan Lokpal bill is a comprehensive first draft. The most important part is appointment of the Lokpal. The right person at the right post makes all the difference. But there are some
curious provisions in the Bill regarding this. The draft says the selection committee shouldhave the two youngest Supreme Court judges and two youngest chief justices of high courts
as members. There is no justification for preferring the youngest. It might be more relevant to
take into account the length of judicial and administrative experience in the higher judiciary.
The Comptroller and Auditor General and Chief Election Commissioner might be more
appropriate in the nominating committee.
A 10-member Lokpal along with the chair can make it difficult to take decisions; a smaller
body of five members and chair can be more effective.
There is currently an ongoing debate on the process of impeachment and on how to deal with
the misconduct of judges without undermining the judiciary's independence. The special
character of the work done by judges and the need for independent judges mandate a separate
and special procedure to deal with their misconduct. It should not form a part of the omnibus
Lokpal bill.
We need an effective judicial system. Today it is so overloaded that it cannot deliver effective
justice within a reasonable time. Empowering the judicial system through a planned
expansion of its infrastructure and strength over five to seven years is vital to ensure the rule
of law in this country. Whether the Lokpal will be given a separate judicial network at its
disposal, which is adequate for it needs, or whether it will be asked to utilise the existing
judicial structure, will also depend upon this planned expansion and speedy decision-making
on the part of the existing judicial system.
Civil society too needs to make its voice effective for these vital changes so that we have a
country that can take its place in the front ranks of international bodies.
The writer is a former Supreme Court judge and former chief justice of the Bombay an
Corruption is morally obnoxious and an economic cancer. It rewards the crooked and createsa loss for the honest in the society at large. Hence, it needs to be curbed.
Our record of curbing it has been poor. Corruption exists from the lowest to the highestlevels. Despite its pervasiveness, few perpetrators, especially at the top levels, have been
punished in the past 60 years. If any action is initiated, it labours on endlessly in courts. ThePalmolein case that brought down the ex-CVC is of 1982 vintage. Contrast this with the swift
conviction in the US ² a 150-year jail term, within 6 months of start of trial of Berni
Madoff for running a Ponzi scheme. Our Parliament, executive and judiciary have lost their
credibility for controlling corruption.
This is where the Lokpal Bill comes in. We are being offered a choice between a toothless
version by the government and a "draconian" one by Anna Hazare and associates. Obviously,the government version that does not authorise a Lokpal to even file an FIR is not acceptable.
A balance has to be struck in favour of the civil society version, with good legal mindssorting out its rough edges.
We should not be unduly worried about a Spanish inquisition. It was the abrasive ways of TN
Seshan that gave the Election Commission spine and teeth. We have to worry about what
happens in practice and not be mesmerised by theoretical discussions. We are too concerned
with flag waving than movement on the ground. It's the latter that matters. Of course, the due
process of law should be followed and a person presumed innocent until he is convicted in
court of law.
I have heard "the head in the sand" Leftists say that liberalisation has spurred corruption. The
very obverse is true. It is where the government has unfettered economic decision-making
powers, be it mining leases or spectrum allocation, that corruption is rampant. The market isno panacea but is much better at aligning behaviour in socially and economically desirable
directions and rewarding efforts than governments and ideologies.
I am not a constitutional legal expert and hence would not venture to give an opinion on the
fine print. Broadly speaking, the Lokpal should cover all organs of the state apparatus, except
possibly the higher judiciary; he or she should be selected by a panel that is not controlled by
the government; and all major organs of the state dealing with corruption, certainly the CVC
Also, subject to legalities, the Lokpal Selection Committee should include a senior judge of
the Supreme Court, a retired chief justice of the Supreme Court, the prime minister, the homeminister, and the leaders of opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha.
I am not in favour of social award winners, Indian or foreign, being automatically selected aschairman/members of the Lokpal. There is nothing against such a person being a member but
this should not be a pre-requisite.
I remain hopeful that given a sagacious Pranab Mukherjee and a persistent Anna Hazare, a
good bill will emerge.
Besides an effective Lokpal, there are a series of measures needed to reduce corruption,which include reasonable state funding of elections, decriminalisation of politics, reform o
our policies and procedures from their current state of over regulation and under governance,especially in sectors like real estate and land transactions. Economic adviser Dr Kaushik Basu
has fresh and interesting things to say in this regard and we would do well to pay heed to him.To curb the generation of black money and to ensure that correct decisions are taken by the
central and the state governments, elections to Parliament and state assemblies should be held
simultaneously and only once every five years as was the case till 1967. This can be achieved
in a democratic way by following the practice that prevails in countries like Germany.
There is some doubt regarding the engagement of the urban middle class with this issue. I am
encouraged. It is the mental emigration of the middle class of our country that created
vacuum which was filled at times by less than desirables. A growing economy creates a
broad-based middle class. If it widens its concerns, then it could alter our politics from that of
tokenism and entitlements to supporting the productive forces in our society.
Hacker: "Are you saying that winking at corruption is government policy?"
Sir Humphrey: "No, no, Minister! It could never be government policy. That is unthinkable!It's only government practice."
This exchange between the fictional British prime minister and his cabinet secretary from the
TV series 'Yes Prime Minister' pretty much sums up the state of governance in our country.
It's not funny. It's tragic that corruption has seeped into the very nervous system of therepublic, and, make no mistake, every Indian attempting to lead a normal life and raise and
provide for a family is paying the cost of this corruption.
The groundswell of public support for the amendments to the Lokpal Bill has clearlyestablished that ordinary Indians want a recast of their democracy and governance.
Today, the voters' mandate is easily violated by political parties purchasing majority inParliament and government priorities are subverted by paying for such majority. The nexus of
big money from big business and politics is the real driver of this distortion, and the influenceof business on government and politics is virtually unchallenged because there are almost no
institutions capable of doing so. This is compounded by the almost complete failure of most
of Indian media.
That's why the demand for Lokpal and Lok Ayukta is essentially a cry for a watchdog on
behalf of the citizens. The Lokpal will be a super cop ² not the best way to address
malfeasance in government but, unfortunately, the only option left.
This is essentially a historic renegotiation of rights and obligations between the government
and the citizen. Governments and politicians have to be moved to the role of 'public servants
and public service' from the current 'ruling elite' mindset.
The Lokpal Bill will be the catalyst for this change. Hence, it is vital that the Lokpal Bill provisions are beyond reproach and practical.
To begin with, transparency and public participation in redrafting of the bill is absolutely
necessary. The proceedings of the Lokpal committee meetings must be telecast live on Lok
Sabha TV, as demanded by the leaders of the redrafting campaign. The redrafting is going to
be a tug-of-war between the natural reluctance of a political/bureaucratic system that thrives
only in a hazy, non-transparent world versus the demand by citizens for transparency an
honesty.
The issue of suo motu investigative and prosecution powers with the Lokpal is vital. There
could be threshold evidence criteria required to be produced before this power is exercised to
prevent misuse. I have no doubt the political/bureaucratic class will oppose this tooth and
nail, and invent all kinds of excuses for it. But this suo moto power will either make or break
the success of the Lokpal.
Next, the Lokpal must supersede and/or subsume all existing anti-corruption institutions like
the CVC. Otherwise there will be the classic obfuscation by forum shopping, that is, Lokpal
can't investigate it because CVC is 'seized' of the matter or 'CBI is investigating it'! Only the
Supreme Court should be able to intervene/adjudicate on Lokpal's decisions and findings.
Further, all bureaucrats and MPs should be covered by the Lokpal. There should no immunity
for anyone either using Parliament or government as a cover. This is critical to ensure that the
fight for probity reaches everyone, including prime ministers and chief ministers.
The Lokpal must be mandated to function in the most transparent and disclosure-driven
manner - with the use of public hearings and video and other broadcasts and transcripts toinvolve the people.
The appointment of the Lokpal is important, given its powers and the truth that an institution
is only as good as the people in it. The appointment should be by a Supreme Court-monitored
committee of Indians with a track record of work against corruption and for probity ingovernment. The five-year term is excessive; terms should be of 30 months and no more than
two terms per person. The second term should be allowed only under exceptional
circumstances that are defined.
The proposed structure of 10 members and a chairperson looks good. The proposal that they
will work in benches of three or four on each matter would add both efficiency and credibilityto the functioning of Lokpal.
The proposal to have a panel of minimum four lawyers should be improved to create a
concept of a special prosecutor. The Lokpal should be able to bring in outside counsel inareas of sophisticated financial crimes and graft where normal criminal or civil lawyers may
not be enough.
The demand for a Lokpal Bill by the Indian citizen is only the first tentative step to rebuilding
our democracy. But this first step needs to be taken, and to paraphrase Neil Armstrong when
he stepped on the moon: "It will be a small first step, but a giant leap for Indian democracy!"
The 'Lokpal' has become the symbol for a movement against corruption. Everyone assumes it provides the single most complete answer to our ills. But does it? In my view, the Jan Lokpal
proposal is out of focus and could prove to be self-defeating.The Lokpal's chequered history shows that it has always been mired in political and
administrative intrigue. The Administrative Reforms Commission's Lokpal included state andUnion ministries and was considered anti-federal though its maladministration proposal for
the bureaucracy was within the federal framework. The 1971 proposal distinguishing betweenmaladministration grievances and corruption allegations was passed by the Lok Sabha in Mrs
Gandhi's heyday. But after the Emergency, the Janata Bill 1977 targeted political corruption
amongst ministers ² as did the Congress bill of 1985, which was hurriedly withdrawn by
Chidambaram on the excuse of including the bureaucracy, but actually to save Rajiv Gandhi
from Bofors.
From then on, in 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2005, it was the political corruption model that
prevailed. Politicians were only interested in targeting each other, with controversies limited
to whether the PM should be included - the Constitutional Commission (2002) having
pleaded for his exception. Thus, we can see that the Lokpal initiatives were a game, an
bureaucrats were laughing at their exclusion.
In walks Anna Hazare and the trouble-shooting PIL impresarios, the Bhushans, the free-for-
all Agnivesh, the self-publicist Kiran Bedi, and the conscientious Kejriwal. What worked in
their favour was the huge outcry against corruption. The 'fast' became a national campaign.
Few supporting the campaign had really considered the Lokpal idea. It was readily, an
without foundation, supposed to bring redemption.
The fact is that Lok Ayuktas have been miserable failures, with frustrated retired judges
reduce to impotence by politicians. In 2010, former Supreme Court judge Santosh Hegde's
abortive resignation supposedly demonstrated that a strong Lokpal could be effective under
the right conditions. It was on this premise that a Jan Lokpal Bill was mobilised and a team of
Hazare, Hegde, Bhushans and Kejriwal conferred with the government. If the proposed act
succeeds, the government gets the credit. If it fails, the 'Jan' is to blame.
Though initially supportive, I think this campaign is pitched too high and too wide. If theLokpal is a success, it will eclipse Parliament as the primary forum of accountability. Anyone
who wants to expose anyone will go to the Lokpal, whose processes can be as punishing asthe result. Parliament will be for noise, votes and legislation. To invoke examples of
Scandinavian countries with small populations and disciplined political morals is wasteful.The Lokpal and his team will be the most powerful in the country ± with no control over
them. Who will be the Lokpal? Any chief justice of India? Who else? Chosen by whom?How?
Even if these questions are settled, there remain concerns about the Lokpal's jurisdiction. The political corruption model targets PMs and ministers; the administration model includes
bureaucrats; and the Janwallahs want to include everybody stretching the Lokpal so much
The Lokpal Bill is not a Jan bill but an elite NGO venture. The proposed Lokpal will be a
great opportunity for elite NGOs to find a new platform in the public interest, of which theyclaim to be special trustees.
Why should the Lokpal cover the judiciary? The independence of the judiciary has to besaved from random attacks. A special National Judicial Commission is required.
But let us get away from this negative criticism. It is obvious that the Lokpal cannot be
shelved again after 45 years of misadventure. Today, corruption is rampant. It does not have
to be controlled but combated.
The answer is to have a more focused proposal that concentrates on corruption alone, asdefined in the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and which carries criminal conviction for
illegal acts or omissions for extraneous benefit. If the Lokpal's purview is limited in this way,its sweep should not. It should cover all cases of corruption amongst PMs, ministers, MPs,
and civil servants performing Union functions or answerable to it. Complaints against thlower judiciary should be sent to the respective chief justice; those against the higher
judiciary to the National Judicial Commission.
The Lokpal should have a special investigative capacity, with officers whose findings can be
sent for framing charges to special courts. After that, a special team under the Director for
Public Prosecutions should take the cases to their conclusion.
I do not doubt the need for examining 'maladministration' other than criminal corruption. We
need both intra and oversight mechanisms for them, which needs further thought, lest thLokpal be swamped.
Right now, we need an Anti-Corruption Commission that is focused and equipped with
sufficient capacity. A Lokpal for 1.2 billion people cannot change every misdemeanor. But itcan start the drive against corruption in real earnest.
If activists are pragmatic, Lokpal will surely work
Prakash Singh
The Economist, in one of its recent issues, referring to corruption in India, described
the country as "a rotten state". Transparency International has placed India at
number 87 in the Corruption Perception Index out of the 178 countries in the world.
India has also the dubious distinction of topping the list for black money in the entire
world, with approximately $1.4 trillion in Swiss banks.
It is obvious in this context that drastic measures are called for to curb the spiralling
corruption. The Jan Lokpal Bill is an honest effort in that direction.It seeks toestablish a Lokpal with a chairperson and 10 members with comprehensive powers to
initiate inquiries, conduct investigations, and order the prosecution of those involved
in corruption.
In doing so, however, the Bill has stipulated provisions that would impinge on the
basic structure of the Constitution. A clear division of powers and responsibilities
between the executive, legislature, and judiciary is one of the fundamental features of
the Constitution.
The judiciary, for all its flaws, remains one of the strongest pillars of our democracy.
Any attempt to tamper with its independence will have to be resisted. The Jan Lokpal
Bill includes judges of high courts and the Supreme Court in its definition of "publicservant" and thereby brings them within the purview of the Jan Lokpal. There is no
doubt that corruption within the judiciary is not to be condoned. However, we should
find an in-house mechanism ² the Judicial Accountability Bill, for example ² to deal
with the malaise.
The Jan Lokpal bill also seeks to bring the prime minister within its ambit. Looking at
some of the recent instances of corruption, which showed dereliction, if not collusion,
by the Prime Minister's Office, there is perhaps a case for the ombudsman having the
prime minister also on its radar.
However, as suggested by the government in its Lokpal Bill, it would be desirable that
the Lokpal does not inquire into any allegation against the prime minist er in so far as
it relates to matters of national security, national defence, or foreign relations.
We should also be careful not to damage institutions that are doing reasonably well.
The Bill proposes that the investigative wing of the CBI, which deals with offences
committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, be transferred to the Jan Lokpal.
If the Jan Lokpal needs an investigative wing, which it does, the answer lies in
building that by taking officers on deputation from the states or even the CB I rather
than dismantling an effective and functioning wing of the CBI. The Jan Lokpal would
also absorb the CVC and its entire vigilance machinery. The bill in its present form
would require an amendment of the Constitution; besides the CVC Act will have to be
repealed.
The Jan Lokpal bill seeks not only to raise an over-arching structure to deal withcorruption but also redress "grievances", which means claim by a person that he did
not get satisfaction as per the Citizen's Charter despite approaching the public
grievance officer of that department. The Bill lays down that every public authority
shall prepare a Citizen's Charter that will enumerate the commitments of the
respective authority to the citizens, and designate the officer responsible for meeting
each such commitment within a time-frame. This appears to be a little too ambitious.
The intentions of the civil society members may have been laudable, but the provision
will lead to an avalanche of grievances that the Lokpal institution would not be ab le to
handle. It would be drowned in a sea of grievances in a country of more than a billon
people.
The institution of the Lokpal should be supported with that of the Lok Ayuktas. Infact, both should form part of an integrated structure. The Lokpal should go after big
fishes while the Lok Ayukta should target smaller ones. It should also be our effort to
revive the existing anti-corruption mechanisms, both at the central and state levels,
which have been emasculated by the executive.
A Lokpal is an absolute must. The institution has to be raised. And the Lokpal must
have comprehensive powers. His presence should not only be felt but even dreaded by
the corrupt. However, the Lokpal should chew only as much as he can digest. It would
be best if he concentrates on the sharks. Any effort that he should be able to deal with
cases of corruption at all levels from patwari to the prime minister is bound to fail.
The civil society activists need to be pragmatic. An over ambitious approach will not
Anna Hazare's fast-unto-death for Jan Lokpal Bill to deal effectively with official corruption
was neither a "call for a revolution" nor for a "second freedom struggle". The resultant joint
drafting committee of five ministers and five "civil society representatives" was a
culmination of a process for the institution of an Ombudsman or Lokpal, which started in
1963 and passed through a series of futile draft bills from 1968 onwards. Even if such a law
is passed now, would it be an effective answer to the evil of corruption as it prevails today?
Corruption and abuse of power is inherent in a socio-economic and political system, and the
fight against corruption should be a challenge to the entire system. But that was not expected
from Hazare and his supporters, considering Hazare's disdain of the common Indian voter, his
hostility towards all politicians, his so-called 'apolitical' movement, and his concept of
development as reflected in his admiration of Narendra Modi's rural development in Gujarat.
Such narrowly conceived and ideological half-baked movements would prove to be very
dangerous, as such past movements have shown.
The demand for an Ombudsman or Lokpal came about after India adopted a planned
economy development model in the name of socialism, leading to an administrative- bureaucratic police state with a strangulating network of controls, licences and permits. This
led to a vast abuse of power and corruption in the government that neither Parliament nor thecourts could deal with. It was then felt that India needed an institution to take on corruption,
independent of political institutions and distinct from the judicial institution. As scams
increased in number and size, and political institutions became unresponsive, the demand for
When the government first came up with a Lokpal Bill draft, civil society activists denouncedit as "toothless", while the Jan Lokpal Bill draft put up by them was characterised as
"draconian", since it gave the Lokpal formidable powers relating to investigation, prosecution
and punishment.
The civil society draft includes Nobel Prize winners and Magsaysay Award winners as
members of the selection committee, which hardly seems appropriate. On the other hand, theexclusion ofthe prime minister and the leader of the opposition from the selection committeeor any other person holding high positions in government and Parliament cannot be justified.
The scope of the Lokpal's jurisdiction to cover the prime minister, ministers, civil servants,and members of the judiciary needs reconsideration. The independence of the judiciary is
guaranteed by the Constitution and would require that judges should not be clubbed alongside politicians and civil servants. There is no doubt that there is corruption in the judiciary, but an
independent judicial commission would be an appropriate authority.
The inclusion of civil servants along with the politicians holding positions in government
would mean that the present office of the CVC would be merged in the Lokpal. Also while
the government draft suggests complaints to be filtered by the speaker before being referred
to Lokpal, the civil society draft allows the Lokpal to take notice of complaints directlyreceived from citizens. This would require that the Lokpal must have an investigation wing -
perhaps the corruption branch of the CBI may have to be a part of the office of the Lokpal.
At the same time, the Lokpal should not be loaded with so many responsibilities as to
smother it. The Lokpal, as formulated by civil society, has been given the job of dealing with
complaints of ordinary citizens regarding delay in getting ration cards, birth and death
certificates, income tax refunds, etc. Such cases may run into thousands and the Lokpal, even
with all the paraphernalia of office, would be hard put to dispose of such cases. A Lokpalcannot be expected to run a parallel government and administration.
As in the case of the "Right to Information Act", extravagant expectations are being raised
about the Lokpal. The Right to Information Act was not able to prevent massive scandals
such as Adarsh, Commonwealth Games, and the 2G spectrum. It was only after the scandals
were exposed that information was sought! The same will happen if exaggerated expectationsare raised about the Lokpal, howsoever powerful it may be.
Anna Hazare was over-optimistic when he stated that 90% of corruption will vanish after the
Lokpal starts functioning. A huge expenditure was incurred to create the offices of
information commissioner at the Centre and state levels. But now these officers themselves
have so many pending cases that they have become the targets of criticism! The Lokayukta
functions in several states, but they have not been able to control corruption.
We should realise that the appointment of a Lokpal is only one important step in the direction
of eliminating corruption. Comprehensive and sustained effort is required to cleanse our
political, administrative, economic and social systems.
Civil servants are required to work within the framework of the Constitution. But we haveevolved a system in which civil servants are not allowed to function in an impartial manner.
Ministers are more interested in making civil servants bend laws and rules to favour their
own people rather than concentrating on their function of framing laws and policies.
Uninformed criticism is made that Article 311 gives too much security to civil servants. In
fact, what is required is giving full security and complete freedom to civil servants to take
decisions in individual cases in an objective manner without any extraneous considerations or
influence. Civil servants who fail to do their duties and perform their functions properly
should be penalised. Internal accountability within the civil service should ensure this.
Politicians often used their power of appointment and transfer of civil servants to make them
surrender to their will. The recommendations of the police commission to ensure that this
does not happen have been put in cold storage. What applies to the police applies to the civilservice as a whole. There should be a clear dividing line between politics and administration.
All this as stated above is a much larger agenda. However the Lokpal institution can play animportant role in fighting corruption. Civil society activists have done well in accelerating the
process of passing the bill. It is the ardent hope of Indian citizens that this time, thegovernment and Parliament would not fail.
Dr P R Dubhashi, a Padma Bhushan winner, is chairman, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Pune
Kendra. He is a former secretary, Government of India, and former vice-chancellor, Goa
The present debate over the institution of the Lokpal has attracted the attention of the elite
section of society thanks to some social activists and the hysterical hype provided to them bythe media.
An atmosphere has been created that the installation of the Lokpal is tantamount to end
corruption and that corruption cannot be eliminated without this institution. In the process, ithas completely forgotten that the prototypes of Lokpal have been existing in 18 states for a
long time in the form of Lok Ayuktas. But the cancer of corruption has been spreading in
these states by leaps and bounds. This re-emphasises the obvious truth ² no laws or
institutions can uproot corruption unless the system that breeds it is itself changed.
Some may point out that no system anywhere in the world so far has been free of corruption.
But that is taking too narrow a view of the concepts of "system". All that the whole world has
witnessed so far is the change in the "pattern" of political and economic management. The
system of administration has hardly changed. It remains as aristocratic and authoritarian as
ever.
Only the class of managers changed. The "system" further does not mean only the politicaland economic affairs of society. It also essentially includes its educational and cultural ethos,
which have to be tuned to bring about the desired transformation in individual and societal
values, attitudes and conduct. Without this transformation, a new society cannot be built or
maintained.
This does not mean that till the present system is replaced by a model one, no measuresshould be taken to control the evils in the present dispensation. But we must do so keeping in
mind their limitations lest we miss the woods for the trees and in the process divert peoples'
attention from the cause to its consequences.
In any regime, the need for surveillance over those in authority is understandable. In fact,
however faultless a social structure may be, not all human beings can be transformed into
saints. You may keep to the minimum the scope for misconduct and punish miscreants to the
maximum. But human ingenuity is limitless and avarice insatiable.
No human institution can be perfect since human beings themselves are imperfect. Moreover,the misconduct or the miscreants may vary according to the social system in operation. But it
is only in a democracy that people can succeed in setting up a supervisory authority. Sincethe primary function of such an authority is to be the watchdog on behalf of society over the
conduct of those wielding power, it is axiomatic that it should be independent of those in
power, like the judiciary, lest it fails to command the confidence of the people.
The Lokpal institution should ideally have three members with equal powers. These membersshould be selected by a body, preferably consisting of a representative of the ruling party, a
representative of opposition parties, and a representative of the highest judiciary such as the
chief justice of India. The institution should have jurisdiction over all central institutions
(including the prime minister), excluding, however, the judiciary, which should have a
separate supervisory body.
It should have all the powers of investigation into all matters of corruption, waste, delays,
negligence, undue favours, and also the necessary funds and personnel with appropriate
powers to carry out on effective investigation. It should also have the power to prosecute the
delinquent. And for this purpose, a special court or courts should be created with a specialstaff for prosecution. It should also have the powers to take suo motu cognisance of
delinquency in any sphere. All the staff at its disposal must be recruited by it and answerableonly to it. The present requirement of sanction for prosecution should be dispensed with.
In view of the above jurisdiction vested in the institution, the CVC will become redundant.But the CBI will have to continue as an essential institution and its assistance should be
available to the institution on a priority basis. The work of the parliamentary committeesshould not be interfered with, as indeed this cannot be done, nor is it necessary to do so.
Corruption trials: Fix a time-frame
MK Madhusoodan
The present criminal justice system and the anti-corruption legislations have lost their sheen
over the years.
What we require is speedy trials that will bring culprits to book. Both the criminal justice
system and the anti-corruption laws have no set time-frame for trials and convictions. Incorruption cases, there is no provision to confiscate the ill-gotten money/assets from those
who are convicted.
Both the prime minister's office and judicial officers should be brought under the purview of the proposed Jan Lokpal Bill as it will bring in the much-needed accountability. In case of the
judiciary, there should be set rules of impeachment of judges without showing any mercy.
There should not be any political interference like it happened during the impeachment of justice Ramaswamy in the early 1990s.
The present criminal justice system is slow and often gets delayed in granting punishment to
the accused persons. The process should be speeded up and the victims should be
compensated properly so that there are no repeat offences committed by those against whom
the courts have pronounced conviction. Similarly, the corruption cases that may largely affectthe economy of the country should also be taken seriously and severe punishment should be
slapped on the perpetrators.
The quantum of punishment in the case of corruption cases should be more severe and
stringent. Apart from seizure of ill-gotten money and assets of those convicted, there is a
need for a mechanism to ex-communicate the perpetrators the society so that a sense of
shame prevails among them for having resorted to corrupt activities. This will also help
discourage others from resorting to similar malpractices in future. It will act as a deterrent for
others who are indulging in such acts.
Well, the civil society itself should maintain some distance from those who are charged under
the anti-corruption laws.
The accountability among the judicial officers will strengthen the judicial process. Judges
will become more responsible and thereby will bring in more faith in the judiciary from the
civil society. I feel judges should also be brought under the proposed Jan Lokpal Bill.
A reduction in the time taken for investigation and a set time-frame for trial of the cases of
anti-corruption will also be an important issue when the Lokpal Bill is framed. The cases
against a corrupt officials, public servants and elected representatives cannot go on and on for
years, to make people feel helpless to deal with such cases.
A set time-frame is always needed as in its absence, the case itself will get lost along the way.
If cases go on and on for ever, it gives a chance for the accused to dilute the case by
influencing the witnesses or by destroying evidence.
An unwieldy legislation and a proper agency to investigate the cases is a must for such a
legislation to work to tackle the burning issue of corruption. There should be a special
investigation team like Lok Ayukta in the states. A special team of officers under the
watchful eyes of Lokpal will also help get the expected results in corruption cases.
I have found that the Lok Ayukta of Karnataka is handicapped when it comes to getting
government sanctions. This will again work against the purpose of the Lokpal Bill. The
Lokpal himself should get the powers of taking disciplinary action against the erring public
servants. It should not be told to go back to the government to get the sanction to prosecute
them whenever a case is detected against the corrupt officials and elected representatives.
On the issue of PMO to be brought under the Lokpal bill, it is the urgent need of the hour. Inrecent times, we have heard about a Japanese prime minister being removed followingcorruption charges. We have some prime ministers who were above the board, but we cannot
say what is in store for us in future. There were also allegations against some of the primeministers. But until they undergo a litmus test, nobody can be called an angel.
The Union government has set up a joint committee with civil society representatives to
produce a draft Jan Lokpal Bill, which it has promised to introduce in Parliament.
But vested interests are now seeking to obstruct the joint committee's efforts, arguing that the
Lokpal won't be able to combat corruption as it is a multi-faceted problem. This is too clever
an argument: though the Lokpal Bill cannot be the only weapon against corruption, it is one
of the most important ones.
It is not possible to examine the merits of the civil society's arguments on the Lokpal Bill in a
short article. So, I'll deal with only some key aspects, while pointing out others that remain
untouched though they are important.
The Lokpal should be a multi-member body (it can be called the Lokpal Commission) that
has teeth. In other words, it should have the power and competence to deal with a given task.It should not be an advisory body as it would not serve any purpose. It should be free of
government/political patronage or control.
The Lokpal should have the powers of the highest court and the police establishment in its
ability to conduct inquiries, call witnesses through summons and warrants, and produce
evidence or documents. It should also be vested with powers similar to that of the judiciary's
'contempt of court' provision.
The Lokpal should have no jurisdiction over the prime minister and the judiciary.
It should also not take up any matter for enquiry if it is already sub judice or being dealt with
by a parliamentary committee or a constitutional authority.
Instead of depending on any agency to conduct investigations, it should have one of its own,
something like the anti-corruption wing of the CBI. It would help ward off political
interference.
The Lokpal should have the authority to file an FIR and have its own prosecution wing as
well. The office of the chief vigilance commissioner (CVC) should be transferred to the
Lokpal, who can then delegate the functions and powers to the CVC to ensure the latter's
effectiveness. The appellate authority over the CVC would be a high court, and over theLokpal, the Supreme Court.
Also, the Lokpal should have the freedom to receive directly from the public complaints of
corruption or misconduct on the part of any official with the government or a public sector
undertaking. It should be able to take suo moto action. The Lokpal's findings regarding MPs
found to be corrupt should be sent to presiding officers. Those pertaining to ministers should be sent to the prime minister with a copy to the president.
All the cases taken up by the Lokpal and their results should be put up on its website. If the
Lokpal so desires, it can send its findings to the competent authority or department and the
department head should take action within four months.
Those standing for the Lok Sabha elections need to file an affidavit declaring their assets andthe Lokpal must scrutinise the affidavits and initiate investigations if needed.
Even otherwise, the Lokpal should liaise closely with the election commission and also withthe various parliamentary committees, especially the public accounts committee and the
CAG.
The Lokpal should have a clear constitutional standing. Not more than one-fifth of its
members should be retired civil servants and a retired Supreme Court judge should be the
chairman. It should have a representation from the legal fraternity and civil society as well.
The selection committee can comprise the vice-president, the prime minister, the leader of the
opposition in the Lok Sabha and maybe two representatives of other political parties
nominated by the vice-president. The final nomination should be done by the president.
The process of removing a member from the Lokpal should be like that of removing a judge
from the Supreme Court or any of the high courts. Also, it should be mandatory that a
member retiring from the Lokpal cannot take up any position in any government agency or in
On April 9 this year, Anna Hazare and his supporters achieved a great victory against arecalcitrant administration.
A combination of fortuitous circumstances created a synergy that overwhelmed the
administration. But let us be wary because the moment has passed and politicians of all hues
will get together and chalk out a strategy to prevent a powerful, independent and no-nonsense
Lokpal.
The CAG report on the 2G scam; Commonwealth Games scam culminating in the Shunglu
Report; the energetic, bold and hands-on approach of the Supreme Court Bench dealing with
the 2G scam case; the disqualification of the CVC by the Chief Justice's judgment whichconsiderably tarnished the image of the PMO and the Home Ministry ² all played their part
in creating a groundswell against corruption. A key role was also played by the print and theelectronic media which, by their unrelenting campaign against corruption contributed to the
administration's acquiescence.
The concept of Lokpal in its modern form is based on distrust of government officials and asuspicion that they will not act honestly.
It is said that in 1713, the Swedish King Charles XII was in exile and needed a representative
in Sweden to ensure that judges and civil servants acted honestly. So he appointed the
Supreme Ombudsman (HOGSTE Ombudsmannen), who would have the right to prosecute if
they didn't. In 1809, Sweden became the first nation to appoint a parliamentary Ombudsman
(independent of the executive branch) in its modern form to safeguard the rights of the
citizens.
The following needs to be taken into consideration in the drafting of the Lokpal Bill:
For starters, the appointment of a Lokpal and his deputies (Up-Lokpals) are of pivotal
importance. All civil servants who have occupied positions at joint secretary or higher levels,
whether serving or retired in the last five years, should automatically be disqualified from
these posts. Constitutional positions like CAG, CEC or the higher judiciary should be
exempted from disqualification.
Secondly, there should be stringent penal provisions against 'perjury' committed before the
Lokpal authorities. Summary trials and heavy financial penalties should be provided for.
Thirdly, the Lokpal must have its independent separate cadre of investigators empowered to
perform police functions. Once in the cadre, they should be prohibited from going back toany state or central cadre so that no allurement can be offered. They should be prohibited
from post-retirement positions for a specified number of years and should be completelyindependent of the executive.
Fourthly, to avoid criticism of overloading, and over-extension of activities, the Bill should
provide for implementation in three or more phases. In the first phase, the activities of theLokpal and deputies (not more than five in number) should be confined to high public
officials including ministers, former ministers, legislators, bureaucrats above a particular
level, and other non-officials who are suspected of conspiring or colluding with them. In the
second phase, lower-level public officials may come under purview. In the third phase, a
General Public Redressal complaints' machinery should be put in place through organisation
of the Lok Ayuktas.
It is essential that jurisdiction for the entire spectrum of three or more phases be enacted and
inserted in the Bill straightaway, but thereafter be brought into force by the Lokpal gradually,
without any further parliamentary or governmental approval.
Further, all public servants should be required to forego confidentiality and respond to
queries from the Lokpal except when national security, defence, or foreign relations are
compromised. Orders and contracts by defence or security forces should not be exempted
from disclosure.
Finally, one major pitfall to be guarded against is that the Bill is not deferred or defeated or
rendered toothless in Parliament. For this, the cooperation of all political parties is necessary.
It is foolish to alienate them by raising other contentious issues. Anna Hazare and the
members of the Committee should be careful of their own supporters. Silence is the best
option for Anna Hazare and his team - his 'halo' should not be dimmed by other avoidable
