The Lokpal Debate: Keep prime minister out of Lokpal ambit

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 the Lokpal, 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 and the Lokpal must scrutinise the affidavits and initiate investigations if needed.

Even otherwise, the Lokpal should liaise closely with the election commission and also with the 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 any private company for at least two years.

— The writer is a former cabinet secretary