Jan Lokpal Bill
The Jan Lokpal Bill (Hindi: जन लोकपाल विधेयक), also referred to as the citizens' ombudsman bill, is a proposed anti-corruption law in India. It was proposed by anti-corruption social activists as a more effective improvement to the original Lokpal bill, which is currently being proposed by the the Government of India[1]. The prefix Jan (translation: citizens) was added to signify the fact that these improvements include input provided by "ordinary citizens" through an activist-driven, non-governmental public consultation.[2][3]
The Jan Lokpal Bill aims to effectively deter corruption, redress grievances of citizens, and protect whistle-blowers. If made into into law, the bill would create an independent ombudsman body similar to the Election Commission of India called the Lokpal (Sanskrit: protector of the people). It would be empowered to register and investigate complaints of corruption against politicians and bureaucrats without prior government approval[4]. First introduced in 1968[5], the bill has failed to become law for over four decades.[6]
In 2011, Gandhian rights activist Anna Hazare started a Satyagraha movement by commencing a fast unto death in New Delhi to demand the passing of the bill. The movement attracted attention in the media, and thousands of supporters. Following Hazare's four day hunger strike, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh stated that the bill would be re-introduced in the 2011 monsoon session ofthe Parliament[7].
Accordingly, a committee of five Cabinet Ministers and five social activists attempted to draft a compromise bill merging the two versions but failed. The Indian government went on to propose its own version in the parliament, which the activists reject on the grounds of not being sufficiently effective[8].
Background
The Lokpal bill was first introduced by Shanti Bhushan in 1968[5] and passed in the 4th Lok Sabha in 1969. But it did not get through in the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the Parliament of India. Subsequent versions were re-introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008,[9] but none of them passed.
Renewed calls for the bill arose over resentment of the major differences between the draft 2010 Lokpal Bill prepared by the government and that prepared by the members of the associated activists movement — N. Santosh Hegde, a former justice of the Supreme Court of India; Lokayukta of Karnataka; Shanti Bhushan; Arvind Kejriwal; Prashant Bhushan, a senior lawyer in the Supreme Court; and members of the India Against Corruption movement[2].
The bill's supporters consider existing laws too weak, full of contradictions and insufficiently empowered to combat corruption.[10][11] On the other hand, critics of the Jan Lokpal Bill argue that the bill attempts to supercede existing constitutional bodies and attempts to create a super-institution with sweeping powers, which can be dangerous for the future of democracy.[12]
Key features of proposed bill
Some important features of the proposed bill are:[2]
1. To establish a central government anti-corruption institution called Lokpal, supported by Lokayukta at the state level.
2. As in the case of the Supreme Court and Cabinet Secretariat, the Lokpal will be supervised by the Cabinet Secretary and the Election Commission. As a result, it will be completely independent of the government and free from ministerial influence in its investigations.
3. Members will be appointed by judges, Indian Administrative Service officers with a clean record, private citizens and constitutional authorities through a transparent and participatory process.
4. A selection committee will invite shortlisted candidates for interviews, videorecordings of which will thereafter be made public.
5. Every month on its website, the Lokayukta will publish a list of cases dealt with, brief details of each, their outcome and any action taken or proposed. It will also publish lists of all cases received by the Lokayukta during the previous month, cases dealt with and those which are pending.
6. Investigations of each case must be completed in one year. Any resulting trials should be concluded in the following year, giving a total maximum process time of two years.
7. Losses caused to the government by a corrupt individual will be recovered at the time of conviction.
8. Government officework required by a citizen that is not completed within a prescribed time period will result in Lokpal imposing financial penalties on those responsible, which will then be given as compensation to the complainant.
9. Complaints against any officer of Lokpal will be investigated and completed within a month and, if found to be substantive, will result in the officer being dismissed within two months.
10. The existing anti-corruption agencies (CVC, departmental vigilance and the anti-corruption branch of the CBI) will be merged into Lokpal which will have complete power and authority to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.
11. Whistleblowers who alert the agency to potential corruption cases will also be provided with protection by it.
Difference between Government and activist drafts
Highlights
Draft Lokpal Bill (2010) | Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's Ombudsman Bill) |
Lokpal will have no power to initiate suo motu action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public. It can only probe complaints forwarded by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. | Lokpal will have powers to initiate suo moto action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public. |
Lokpal will only be an Advisory Body with a role limited to forwarding reports to a "Competent Authority". | Lokpal will have the power to initiate prosecution of anyone found guilty. |
Lokpal will have no police powers and no ability to register an FIR or proceed with criminal investigations. | Lokpal will have police powers as well as the ability to register FIRs. |
The CBI and Lokpal will be unconnected. | Lokpal and the anti corruption wing of the CBI will be one independent body. |
Punishment for corruption will be a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of up to 7 years. | Punishments will be a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of up to life imprisonment. |
Detailed
The following table details differences between the Government and activist backed versions[14][15].
Issue | ||
Can be investigated with permission of seven member Lokpal bench.[14] | PM cannot be investigate by Lokpal.[16] | |
Can be investigated, though high level members may be investigated only with permission of a seven member Lokpal bench.[14] | Judiciary is exempt and will be covered by a separate "judicial accountability bill".[15] | |
Can be investigated with permission of seven member Lokpal bench.[14] | Can be investigated, but their conduct within Parliament, such as voting, cannot be investigated.[15] | |
Lower bureaucracy | All public servants would be included.[15] | Only Group A officers will be covered.[15] |
The CBI will be merged into the Lokpal.[15] | The CBI will remain a separate agency.[14] | |
Removal of Lokpal members and Chair | Any person can bring a complaint to the Supreme Court, who can then recommend removal of any member to the President.[14] | Any "aggrieved party" can raise a complaint to the President, who will refer the matter to the CJI.[14] |
Removal of Lokpal staff and officers | Complaints against Lokpal staff will be handled by independent boards set-up in each state, composed of retired bureaucrats, judges, and civil society members.[14] | Lokpal will conduct inquiries into its own behavior.[14] |
Lokakyukta and other local/state anti-corruption agency would remain in place.[15] | All state anti-corruption agencies would be closed and responsibilities taken over by centralized Lokpal.[15] | |
Whistleblower protection | Whistleblowers are protected law.[14] | No protection granted to whistleblowers.[14] |
Punishment for corruption | Lokpal can either directly impose penalties, or refer the matter to the courts. Penalties can include removal from office, imprisonment, and recovery of assets from those who benefited from the corruption.[14] | Lokpal can only refer matters to the courts, not take any direct punitive actions. Penalties remain equivalent to those in current law.[14] |
Investigatory powers | Lokpal can obtain wiretaps, issue rogatory letters, and recruit investigating officers. Cannot issue contempt orders.[14] | Lokpal can issue contempt orders, and has the ability to punish those in contempt. No authority to obtain wiretaps, issue rogatory letters, or recruit investigating officers.[14] |
False, frivolous and vexatious complaints | Lokpal can issue fines for frivolous complaints (including frivolous complaints against Lokpal itself), with a maximum penalty of 1 lakh.[14]. | Court system will handle matters of frivolous complaints. Courts can issue fines of Rs25,000 to 2 lakh.[14] |
Scope | All corruption can be investigated.[15] | Only high-level corruption can be investigated.[15] |
Campaign for the Jan Lokpal Bill
Gandhian activist - Anna Hazare
Main article: 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement
The first version of the Lokpal Bill drafted by the Government of India in 2010 was considered ineffective by anti-corruption activists from the civil society [17]. These activists, under the banner of India Against Corruption, came together to draft a citizen's version of the Lokpal Bill later called the Jan Lokpal[17]. Public awareness drives[18] and protest marches[17] were carried out to campaign for the bill. However, public support for the Jan Lokpal Bill draft started gathering steam after Anna Hazare, a noted Gandhian announced that he would hold an indefinite fast from April 5, 2011 for the passing of the Lokpal/Jan Lokpal bill[7][19][20].
To dissuade Hazare from going on an indefinite hunger strike, the Prime Minister's Office directed the ministries of personnel and law to examine how the views of society activists can be included in the Lokpal Bill.[21]. On April 5, the National Advisory Council rejected the Lokpal bill drafted by the government. Union Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal then met social activists Swami Agnivesh and Arvind Kejriwal on 7 April to find ways to bridge differences over the bill[22]. However, no consensus could be reached on April 7 owing to several differences of opinion between the social activists and the Government.
On April 7, Anna Hazare called for a Jail Bharo Andolan (translation: Fill jail movement) from April 13 to protest against Government's rejection of their demands[23]. Anna Hazare also claimed that his group has received six crore (60 million) text messages of support[24] and that he had further backing from a large number of Internet activists. The outpouring of support was largely free of political overtones; political parties were specifically discouraged from participating in the movement[25]. The fast ended on April 9, after 98 hours, when the Government accepted most demands due to public pressure. Anna Hazare set an August 15 deadline for the passing of the bill in the Parliament[26], failing which he would start a hunger strike from August 16. The fast also led to the Government of India agreeing to setting up a Joint Drafting Committee, which would complete its work by June 30[26].
Notable supporters and opposition
Union HRD Minister - Kapil Sibal, a notable critic of the citizens' version of the Bill
In addition to the activists responsible for creating and organizing support for the bill, a wide variety of other notable individuals have also stated that they support this bill. Spiritual leaders Sri Sri Ravi Shankar[27] and Yog Guru Ramdev[28] expressed support. Notable politicians who indicated support for the bill include Ajit Singh[29] and Manpreet Singh Badal[30] as well as the principal opposition party, Bharatiya Janta Party.[31][32] In addition, numerous Bollywood actors, directors, and musicians publicly approved of the bill.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]
Notable opposition to the citizens' version of the Bill was expressed by HRD minister Kapil Sibal and other Congress leaders; Chief Minister of West BengalMamta Banerjee; Punjab Chief Minister and Akali Dal leader Prakash Singh Badal; Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray, and former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Jagdish Sharan Verma. [41] Although BJP showed their support earlier, there were reports that BJP shared Congress's concern "over letting the civil society gain the upper hand over Parliament in lawmaking".[42]
Drafting Committee
The drafting committee was officially formed on 8 April 2011. It consisted of the following ten members, including five from the government and five drawn from the civil society[43][44].
Member | Qualifications and status |
Finance Minister, Co-Chairman | |
Former Minister of Law and Justice, Co-Chairman | |
RTI Activist. |
The Government's handling of the formation of the draft committee, involving the civil society in preparation of the draft Lokpal bill, was criticized by various political parties including BJP, BJD,TDP,AIADMK, CPI-M, RJD, JD(U) and Samajwadi Party. [45][46]
The committee failed to agree on the terms of a compromise bill and the government introduced its own version of the bill in the parliament in August 2011. [47]
Criticisms of the bill
Pro-bill activitist Arvind Kejriwal
The bill has been criticized as being naïve in its approach to combating corruption. According to Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President of the Center for Policy Research Delhi writes[48] that the bill "is premised on an institutional imagination that is at best naïve; at worst subversive of representative democracy". The very concept of a Lokpal concept has received criticism from HRD minister Kapil Sibal in that it will lack accountability, be oppresive and undemocratic[12].
The pro-bill activist Arvind Kejriwal rejects the claim of Lokpal being extra-constitutional with the explanation that the body will only investigate corruption offences and submit a charge sheet which would then tried and prosecuted through trial courts and higher courts. And that other bodies with equivalent powers in other matters exist. And also that the proposed bill also lists clear provisions for the Supreme Court to abolish the Lokpal[49].
Despite these clarifications, critics feel that the exact judicial powers of LokPal are rather unclear in comparison with its investigative powers. The bill [50]requires "...members of Lokpal and the officers in investigation wing of Lokpal shall be deemed to be police officers". Although some supporters have denied any judicial powers of Lokpal,[51] the government and some critics have recognized Lokpal to have quasi-judicial powers. [52].
The bill also states that "Lokpal shall have, and exercise the same jurisdiction powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High court has and may exercise, and, for this purpose, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Central Act 70 of 1971)shall have the effect subject to the modification that the references therein to the High Court shall be construed as including a reference to the Lokpal." [53] [54] [55]. Review of proceedings and decisions by Lokpal is prevented in the bill by the statement "...no proceedings or decision of the Lokpal shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court of ordinary Civil Jurisdiction.". As a result, how the trials will be conducted is unclear in the bill, although the bill outlines requiring judges for special courts, presumably to conduct trial that should be completed within one year. The critics hence express concern that, without judicial review, Lokpal could potentially become an extra-constitutional body with investigative and judicial powers whose decisions cannot be reviewed in regular courts.[56].
The matter of whether the Indian Prime Minister and higher judiciary should or should not be prosecutable by the Lokpal remains as one of the major issues of dispute. Anna's own nominee for co-chairing the joint panel Justice Verma, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, has expressed his constitutional objections for including the Prime Minister and higher judiciary under Lokpal[57]. According to him, "this would foul with the basic structure of the constitution"[58].
Critic - Aruna Roy
Magsaysay Award winner Aruna Roy has said "Vesting jurisdiction over the length and breadth of the government machinery in one institution will concentrate too much power in the institution, while the volume of work will make it difficult to carry out its tasks". She and her colleagues at the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) have proposed an alternative mechanism consisting of five institutions[59].
Controversies
In April 2011, the involvement of the bill co-chairman Shanti Bhushan was questioned after a CDROM emerged with audio clippings of a telephone conversation allegedly between him, Mulayam Singh Yadav and Amar Singh about influencing a judge.[60] All involved reacted to the allegation saying that the CD was fabricated and demanded a formal investigation to verify its authenticity.
On August 16, 2011 Hazare was placed under arrested at his residence by Delhi Police just as he was leaving for the JP Park to commence his unlimited hunger strike. He was arrested on the grounds that his protest would cause law and order problems in the city. The police also simultaneously arrested Arwind Kejriwal and other supporters. Large crowds gathered in protest of this action forcing the police to detain thousands[61]. Many in the city also participated in a candle light protest at India Gate in response.
