The Lokpal Debate: Change system to end corruption

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 by the 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, it has 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 — 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 political and 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 measures should 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. Since the 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 members should 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 special staff 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 answerable only 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 committees should not be interfered with, as indeed this cannot be done, nor is it necessary to do so.

— The writer is a former Supreme Court judge