The Lokpal Debate: If activists are pragmatic, Lokpal will surely work

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 to establish 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 “public servant” 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 — the Judicial Accountability Bill, for example — 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 minister 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 CBI 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 with corruption 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 able to handle. It would be drowned in a sea of grievances in a country of more than a billion people.

The institution of the Lokpal should be supported with that of the lok ayuktas. In fact, 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 lead us anywhere.

— The writer is an ex-DGP (Assam, UP, BSF)