Aruna Roy's bill seeks to fine-tune clauses in Anna's Jan Lokpal-Aug 23, 2011

Aruna Roy's bill seeks to fine-tune clauses in Anna's Jan Lokpal

Manoj MittaManoj Mitta, TNN | Aug 23, 2011, 01.23AM IST


RTI|Right To Information|Lokpal Bill|Jan Lokpal Bill|india against corruption|Corruption in India|Aruna Roy|anna hazare anti corruption|Anna Hazare
Aruna Roy
Aruna Roy led-NCPRI agrees with the government that the higher judiciary and lower bureaucracy should be kept out of Lokpal's purview.
NEW DELHI: For all the dissensions within civil society, the third version of Lokpal, authored by the network that had campaigned for RTI, has more in common with Team Anna's draft than the bill introduced by the government in Parliament.

This is despite the fact that the Aruna Roy led-National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI), contrary to Team Anna's approach, agrees with the government that the higher judiciary and lower bureaucracy should be kept out of Lokpal's purview so that it can focus on big-ticket corruption cases involving ministers and senior officers.

Even as it differs with the demand the Jan Lokpal draft be passed by this month-end without waiting for the standing committee's report, NCPRI's critique of the government bill fine-tunes many of the clauses proposed by Team Anna. Consider the degrees of convergence and divergence in the two civil society alternatives to the government bill:

NCPRI and Team Anna equally disagree with the government's approach of limiting the bill to Lokpal at the Centre. Both civil society initiatives want that the same law should also establish Lok Ayuktas in the states.

While Team Anna has been clamoring that all the levels of bureaucracy should come under Lokpal, NCPRI believes that CVC should be strengthened to deal with lower bureaucracy.

NCPRI agrees with Team Anna that the Prime Minister should not be exempted from Lokpal's ambit. NCPRI, however, proposes additional safeguards: that there should be no investigation without the Supreme Court's clearance and that the Cabinet's collective responsibility should not expose him to vicarious liability.

Much in common with Team Anna's attempt to reduce the judiciary's dominance in the composition of Lokpal, NCPRI said that there was no justification in restricting the chairperson's office to judges.

Since the nine-member selection committee envisaged by the official bill is overrun by those who are either part of the government or appointed by it, NCPRI went further than Team Anna in making the process quicker and more inclusive. First, it reduced the selection committee to three members: Prime Minister, leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha and a SC judge. NCPRI also suggested that the 10-member search committee, which will short-list candidates, should consist equally of retired state functionaries and civil society representatives.

As for the accountability of Lokpal members, both NCPRI and Team Anna reject the government's proposal that allegations against them should not be probed by the SC without a reference by the President. NCPRI proposes the removal of the reference condition.

Like Team Anna, NCPRI is concerned with the conflict of interest inherent in the government's proposal of leaving it to Lokpal to deal with complaints against its officials. It said that the inquiry should instead be held by an ombudsman appointed by an independent committee.

About the government's controversial clause exempting MPs from Lokpal's remit for their conduct in Parliament, NCPRI agrees with Team Anna on its undesirability. The difference however lies in NCPRI's view that a constitutional amendment is required to remove the immunity enjoyed by MPs. It called for an undertaking from the government that it would make such an amendment within a year.

NCPRI agrees with Team Anna's objection to the extraordinary safeguard in the official bill requiring Lokpal to give a hearing to the accused public servant before registering an FIR against him.

NCPRI too denounced the official proposal that a complainant found to have filed a frivolous case be liable to imprisonment for at least two years. It instead suggested a monetary penalty not exceeding Rs 1 lakh.