Lokpal Bill

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/what-is-the-jan-lokpal-bill-why-its-important-96600 The Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's ombudsman Bill) is a draft anti-corruption bill drawn up by prominent civil society activists seeking the appointment of a Jan Lokpal, an independent body that would investigate corruption cases, complete the investigation within a year and envisages trial in the case getting over in the next one year. Drafted by Justice Santosh Hegde (former Supreme Court Judge and present Lokayukta of Karnataka), Prashant Bhushan (Supreme Court Lawyer) and Arvind Kejriwal (RTI activist), the draft Bill envisages a system where a corrupt person found guilty would go to jail within two years of the complaint being made and his ill-gotten wealth being confiscated. It also seeks power to the Jan Lokpal to prosecute politicians and bureaucrats without government permission. Retired IPS officer Kiran Bedi and other known people like Swami Agnivesh, Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Anna Hazare and Mallika Sarabhai are also part of the movement, called India Against Corruption. Its website describes the movement as "an expression of collective anger of people of India against corruption. We have all come together to force/request/persuade/pressurize the Government to enact the Jan Lokpal Bill. We feel that if this Bill were enacted it would create an effective deterrence against corruption." Anna Hazare, anti-corruption crusader, began a fast-unto-death today, demanding that this bill, drafted by the civil society, be adopted. The website of the India Against Corruption movement calls the Lokpal Bill of the government an "eyewash" and has on it a critique of that government Bill. It also lists the difference between the Bills drafted by the government and civil society. A look at the salient features of Jan Lokpal Bill: 1. An institution called LOKPAL at the centre and LOKAYUKTA in each state will be set up 2. Like Supreme Court and Election Commission, they will be completely independent of the governments. No minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations. 3. Cases against corrupt people will not linger on for years anymore: Investigations in any case will have to be completed in one year. Trial should be completed in next one year so that the corrupt politician, officer or judge is sent to jail within two years. 4. The loss that a corrupt person caused to the government will be recovered at the time of conviction.

5. How will it help a common citizen: If any work of any citizen is not done in prescribed time in any government office, Lokpal will impose financial penalty on guilty officers, which will be given as compensation to the complainant. 6. So, you could approach Lokpal if your ration card or passport or voter card is not being made or if police is not registering your case or any other work is not being done in prescribed time. Lokpal will have to get it done in a month's time. You could also report any case of corruption to Lokpal like ration being siphoned off, poor quality roads been constructed or panchayat funds being siphoned off. Lokpal will have to complete its investigations in a year, trial will be over in next one year and the guilty will go to jail within two years. 7. But won't the government appoint corrupt and weak people as Lokpal members? That won't be possible because its members will be selected by judges, citizens and constitutional authorities and not by politicians, through a completely transparent and participatory process. 8. What if some officer in Lokpal becomes corrupt? The entire functioning of Lokpal/ Lokayukta will be completely transparent. Any complaint against any officer of Lokpal shall be investigated and the officer dismissed within two months. 9. What will happen to existing anti-corruption agencies? CVC, departmental vigilance and anti-corruption branch of CBI will be merged into Lokpal. Lokpal will have complete powers and machinery to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician. 10. It will be the duty of the Lokpal to provide protection to those who are being victimized for raising their voice against corruption. http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-faq-what-is-lok-palbill/20110405.htm

The Lok Pal (anti-corruption body) Bill has generated widespread interest in the past few days.
The Bill is an attempt by the government, under massive pressure due to corruption charges, to gain some of its lost ground. However, civil rights activists, including Anna Hazare, Swami Agnivesh, Kiran Bedi and Arvind Kejriwal, have termed the draft legislation as weak and demanded that fifty per cent of the members in the committee drafting the bill should be from the public. But the common man appears to be in the dark about the scope of the poposed bill. Here's an FAQ on the controversial bill. What is the controversy between the government and Anna Hazare about?

Anna Hazare and other civil society activists have proposed a draft Lok Pal Bill to tackle the menace of corruption. The prime minister formed a sub-committee of the Group of Ministers to discuss the issue with these activists. However, these two groups were unable to reach an agreement on the provisions of the Lok Pal Bill. According to the government, the activists demanded that the government should accept the Bill drafted by them without any changes.

What steps has the government taken to enact the Lok Pal Bill?
In January 2011, the government formed a Group of Ministers chaired by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee to suggest measures to tackle corruption, including examination of the proposal of a Lok Pal Bill. What is the purpose of the office of Lok Pal? The office of the Lok Pal is the Indian version of the office of an Ombudsman, who is appointed to inquire into complaints made by citizens against public officials. The Lok Pal is a forum where the citizen can send a complaint against a public official, which would then be inquired into and the citizen would be provided some redressal. What are issues that have generated debate on the Lok Pal Bill? There are diverging views on issues such as the inclusion of the office of the Prime Minister, ministers and Members of Parliament, inclusion of judges, and powers of the Lok Pal. Some experts contend that all public officials should be accountable while others feel that the autonomy and privilege of Parliament require the Prime Minister, ministers, and Members of Parliament to be accountable only to Parliament.

Have there been other attempts to establish the institution of Lok Pal at the central level?
Yes. The Lok Pal Bill has been introduced eight times in the Lok Sabha (1968, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2001). However, each time the Lok Sabha was dissolved before the Bill could be passed, except in 1985 when it was withdrawn. Have any expert commissions made recommendations on the office of Lok Pal? Yes, a number of commissions have made various recommendations regarding the necessity of the office of the Lok Pal, its composition, powers and functions, and jurisdiction. The commissions, which dealt with the Lok Pal include the First Administrative Reforms Commission of 1966, the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution of 2002 and the Second Administrative Reforms Commission of 2007. The Lok Pal Bills that were introduced were referred to various parliamentary committees (the last three Bills were referred to the Standing Committee on Home Affairs).

What are the present laws that deal with corruption of public officials in India?
Public servants (such as government employees, judges, armed forces, and Members of Parliament) can be prosecuted for corruption under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

However, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the 1988 Act require the investigating agency (such as the CBI) to get prior sanction of the central or state government before it can initiate the prosecution process in a court. Have the state governments been more successful in setting up bodies to redress public grievances against administrative acts? So far 18 state governments have enacted legislation to set up the office of Lokayukta and Uplokayukta (deputy Lokayukta). The 18 states are: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh. Which other countries have the office of the Ombudsman for grievances? Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Spain, New Zealand, Burkina Faso and the United Kingdom are some of the countries which have the office of an Ombudsman.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/why-hazare-others-oppose-govt-s-lokpal-bill-201096609 Lokpal will not have any power to either initiate action suo motu in any case or even receive complaints of corruption from general public. The general public will make complaints to the speaker of Lok Sabha or chairperson of Rajya Sabha. Only those complaints forwarded by Speaker of Lok Sabha/Chairperson of Rajya Sabha to Lokpal would be investigated by Lokpal. This not only severely restricts the functioning of Lokpal, it also provides a tool in the hands of the ruling party to have only those cases referred to Lokpal which pertain to political opponents (since speaker is always from the ruling party). 1. Lokpal has been proposed to be an advisory body. Lokpal, after enquiry in any case, will forward its report to the competent authority. The competent authority will have final powers to decide whether to take action on Lokpal's report or not. In the case of cabinet ministers, the competent authority is Prime Minister. In the case of PM and MPs the competent authority is Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, as the case may be. In the coalition era when the government of the day depends upon the support of its political partners, it will be impossible for the PM to act against any of his cabinet ministers on the basis of Lokpal's report. For instance, if there were such a Lokpal today and if Lokpal made a recommendation to the PM to prosecute A. Raja, obviously the PM will not have the political courage to initiate prosecution against A. Raja. Likewise, if Lokpal made a report against the PM or any MP of the ruling party, will the house ever pass a resolution to prosecute the PM or the ruling party MP? Obviously, they will never do that. 2. The bill is legally unsound. Lokpal has not been given police powers. Therefore Lokpal cannot register an FIR. Therefore all the enquiries conducted by Lokpal will tantamount to "preliminary enquiries". Even if the report of Lokpal is accepted, who will

file the chargesheet in the court? Who will initiate prosecution? Who will appoint the prosecution lawyer? The entire bill is silent on that. 3. Lokpal will have jurisdiction only on MPs, ministers and PM. It will not have jurisdiction over officers. The officers and politicians do not indulge in corruption separately. In any case of corruption, there is always an involvement of both of them. So according to government's proposal, every case would need to be investigated by both CVC and Lokpal. So now, in each case, CVC will look into the role of bureaucrats while Lokpal will look into the role of politicians. Obviously the case records will be with one agency and the way government functions it will not share its records with the other agency. It is also possible that in the same case the two agencies arrive at completely opposite conclusions. Therefore it appears to be a sure way of killing any case. 4. Lokpal will consist of three members, all of them being retired judges. There is no reason why the choice should be restricted to judiciary. By creating so many post retirement posts for judges, the government will make the retiring judges vulnerable to government influences just before retirement as is already happening in the case of retiring bureaucrats. The retiring judges, in the hope of getting post retirement employment would do the bidding of the government in their last few years. 5. The selection committee consists of Vice President, PM, Leaders of both houses, Leaders of opposition in both houses, Law Minister and Home minister. Barring Vice President, all of them are politicians whose corruption Lokpal is supposed to investigate. So there is a direct conflict of interest. Also selection committee is heavily loaded in favor of the ruling party. Effectively ruling party will make the final selections. And obviously ruling party will never appoint strong and effective Lokpal. 6. Lokpal will not have powers to investigate any case against PM, which deals with foreign affairs, security and defence. This means that corruption in defence deals will be out of any scrutiny whatsoever. It will become impossible to investigate into any Bofors in future.

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/how-is-the-jan-lokpal-bill-different-from-govtproposals-96599 http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/lokpal-bill-no-consensus-at-all-party-meeting-116485 It was expected to be fiery, and it didn't disappoint. The all-party meeting on the Lokpal Bill on Sunday saw a combative and largely united Opposition slamming the government for its handling of the Bill, which is meant to rout corruption among politicians and bureaucrats. (Read: The draft Lokpal Bill)

There was also some tense sparring with the BJP's Sushma Swaraj asking the PM to intervene after Farooq Abdullah used language that she found inappropriate. The meeting was meant to gather feedback from different parties on the Bill. Most, like the BJP, said they would not do this till the government presents them with an actual draft of the Bill. The BJP's Sushma Swaraj said, "We did not discuss specific provisions of the bill in today's meeting. We clearly said we want a strong Lokpal. The government should bring a bill and send it to the standing committee so that all the parties can give their points of view. (Watch) The BJP also raised serious objections to several elements in the draft bill prepared by the ministers. The BJP told the Prime Minister that all clauses regarding who appoints Lokpal, who is eligible to serve as part of the Lokpal and who can remove Lokpal are unacceptable. What has been circulated so far is the result of the cumulative differences between the four ministers appointed to draft the Bill along with five activists led by Anna Hazare. The ministers' version of the Bill is designed to fail in combating corruption, says Team Anna. The government says the sort of powers that the activists want to endow the Lokpal with are unconstitutional. In April, Mr Hazare's week-long fast, shouldered by massive public support, forced the government to agree that five non-elected representatives would formally be involved in preparing the bill. The wide and public dispute between the activists and the ministers on the committee has led the government to suggest that this is not an experiment it will consider repeating. In his opening remarks, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said, "Good law and strong institution is necessary to tackle corruption but these alone would never suffice. Lokpal has to work in harmony with other institutions and laws; it has to function within the framework of basic structure of Constitution". (Read: PM's opening remarks at the allparty meet) A joint resolution at the end of the meeting said, "The all-party meeting agreed that government should bring before the next session of Parliament a strong and effective Lokpal Bill following the established procedures". Kiran Bedi, a close associate of Anna Hazare in his campaign for the Lokpal Bill, told NDTV, "The government went to meeting unprepared. They should have cleared it with the Cabinet then gone for the all-party meeting". Ms Bedi added, "We can't guarantee Anna won't fast again, but we see now a sense of urgency". PM in Lokpal? Opposition Divided

The lack of consensus could prove to be a major headache for the government which is already at loggerheads with members of the civil society in the draft panel over various points, primarily, the inclusion of the Prime Minister and the higher judiciary under the purview of the Lokpal. This is a point which also has the Opposition divided - Left parties have said that they want the Prime Minister to be included in the Lokpal, but parties like the TRS, SAD and the AIADMK are opposed to any such move. AIADMK at today's meeting said frivolous complaints against the Prime Minister will derail the process. http://www.hindustantimes.com/editorial-views-on/columnsothers/The-corrupt-areafraid/Article1-716930.aspx t is being alleged that the jan lokpal will become a parallel government since it would not come under the government and will be a threat to parliamentary democracy. Both these assumptions are wrong. The government will remain powerful. The jan lokpal will only keep a check on it from becoming arbitrary, unjust and corrupt. Several independent institutions such as the Supreme Court, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), the Chief Election Commission (CEC), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Chief Information Commission (CIC) already exist. Some of these institutions were created through law and some through the Constitution. Are they parallel governments or a threat to democracy? No. Similarly, the jan lokpal will be one such independent institution. Instead of being a threat to democracy, it will be a threat to the corrupt. Another important question that is being asked is this: who would be the jan lokpal accountable to? To answer this, we must see who are the existing independent institutions accountable to. What can a citizen do if a judge, the CAG, CEC, CIC or CVC is corrupt? He can do nothing. In some cases, Parliament can impeach the wrongdoers. But despite strong and credible evidence of corruption in so many cases, no one has been impeached in the last 62 years. Compare this with the level of accountability provided in the Jan Lokpal Bill. It will be directly accountable to the citizens, as per the drafted provisions, contrary to the one provided by the government's bill. Under the people's bill, an ordinary citizen can complain against a jan lokpal member to the Supreme Court. And if found guilty, the court can remove the member. The Supreme Court will also have the power to punish complainants who make frivolous or malicious complaints. We are not aware of any other institution or authority in India that is directly accountable to the people. Unfortunately, the government has rejected this proposal. According to the government-drafted lokpal bill, the lokpal would be accountable to the government only. Only the government can approach the Supreme Court for his removal. This means that if any lokpal member becomes inconvenient for the government, it would move the Supreme Court for his removal. This will only erode the lokpal's independence.

What if the jan lokpal staff becomes corrupt? We had suggested several measures to address this issue like complete transparency in the lokpal's functioning, an independent complaints authority to receive complaints against the lokpal staff, time-bound investigation of complaints against the staff and their summary removal if found guilty, social audits, annual financial and performance audits by CAG, annual performance appraisal by a parliamentary committee. The government has rejected all these proposals, thus ensuring that there are very high chances of the government's lokpal turning corrupt. A corrupt lokpal will serve vested interests within the government. This is what the government has been doing with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Recently, the CBI has been taken out of the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. These vested interests increased the scope of corruption within the CBI and also the possibilities of its misuse. It is also being alleged that the jan lokpal is a 'Frankenstein's monster'. Barring powers to recommend dismissal of a corrupt officer, no other power has been suggested for the lokpal that is not already vested in the CBI. The lokpal would obviously need these powers if he has to do any worthwhile investigation. Vested interests want a weak and ineffective lokpal. We should demand a strong lokpal but with adequate checks and balances. In contrast, the government is offering us just the opposite. Should a lokpal have the power to dismiss a corrupt officer? Our suggestion: after completion of investigations by the jan lokpal's team, a three-member bench of the jan lokpal would hold open hearings and pass orders on whether or not to remove the officer. If dissatisfied, the officer could challenge that order in the high court. In contrast, the government's bill proposes that the ministers should have the power to dismiss a corrupt officer. Experience shows that ministers are direct or indirect beneficiaries of corruption. Rather than punish the corrupt, they have been brazenly rewarded. Recently, the CBI arrested a senior officer of the National Highways Authority of India with unaccounted cash but the concerned authority refused to permit the investigators to even register a case against the corrupt officer. Do we really think that such ministers would even order dismissal of corrupt officers? Even today, the ministers enjoy the powers to dismiss corrupt officers. But no senior officer has ever been dismissed in the last 62 years by any minister for corruption. The government's bill proposes to maintain the status quo. It is being alleged that if the lokpal has jurisdiction over the PM, judges, MPs and officers, it will become a superpower. This is wrong. An income tax officer has powers to scrutinise the returns of the chief justice of India, the prime minister, the president, ministers and MPs. He even has powers to impose taxes and penalties on them. Does that mean that he will become a superpower? No. Likewise, an investigative officer in the lokpal would only and only investigate any allegation of corruption against these authorities. Unlike income tax officers, the lokpal would not have powers to impose any taxes or penalties also on any of these authorities. The lokpal would only do investigations and the courts will decide on the punishment.

When Anna Hazare sat on a fast for the lokpal bill, he received tremendous support from the people. The government hopes that its misinformation campaign will decrease his popularity. People should guard against such propaganda because it is only being done to protect vested interests and will hurt the general public.