Can't insist that only Anna's Lokpal version be passed: Aruna Roy-Aug 26, 2011,

Can't insist that only Anna's Lokpal version be passed: Aruna Roy

Manoj MittaManoj Mitta, TNN | Aug 26, 2011, 04.46AM IST


In many ways, the bill drafted by the Aruna Roy-led National Campaign for People's Right to Information lies between the government's notoriously weak version and Team Anna's allegedly extremist position. Hours after the Prime Minister proposed in Parliament that Roy's bill be discussed along with the other versions of Lokpal, Roy spoke to Manoj Mitta on the latest turn of events.

What do you feel about the Prime Minister's out-of-the-box idea that Parliament may discuss four different drafts of Lokpal before the standing committee is called upon to synthesize a Bill reflecting the consensus?

It is positively a step forward. It implies that the government has responded to Anna's demands and is in effect changing its Bill. Also, based on discussions a new Bill will be brought in. This could be one of the ways by which the best of different versions can be brought together to make a strong Lokpal Bill. This will also be a reflection of political consensus and therefore the best possible basis on which to take this bill forward.

Do you think the Government has conceded enough for Anna to call off his fast?

I think that it is important for the country that Anna respond to popular appeal to call off his fast. There is too much pressure because of public concern over his health for negotiations to take place in reasonable manner. The fast at this point puts undue pressure on both sides. Calling off his fast does not mean that he is ending the agitation. The continuance of his agitation and the pressure put on the government by all of us will ensure the passage of a strong Lokpal Bill.

Do you think the Government, despite drafting a weak bill and arresting Anna, could be trusted to make amends and come up with a strong and effective Lokpal?

Hopefully the government has understood that the public wants it to address this issue in all sincerity and seriousness. The mistakes of the past should only help it understand that what is needed now is vision and magnanimity. We must of course keep up the public pressure that will ensure it is not trust alone on which we have to rely on to ensure passage of a strong Lokpal Bill.

Do you share the perception that Team Anna's insistence on setting deadlines and keeping out the standing committee encroaches on Parliamentary domain?

I feel that the kinds of deadlines set by Team Anna would be counterproductive to the objective of having an effective piece of legislation. In any case Parliament and the Standing Committee plays a crucial role in our democratic framework where a multiplicity of views have to be taken into consideration. Nobody can insist that only their version has to be passed in their timeframe. People of course are still free to express their views and keep the pressure up to ensure that the law will be a reality without any undue procrastination.

Given the government's conflict of interest in tightening the accountability of politicians and bureaucrats, isn't the need for pre-legislative consultation all the more in the case of Lokpal?

Citizens and citizen groups should always have a say in pre-legislative consultation, whether on the Lokpal or any other law. However legislative decision making is the domain of the Parliament. There may always be conflict of interest but Parliament eventually has no choice but to listen to the voice of the people. It is one institution after all where public authority can be removed from office by the people themselves.

In retrospect, don't you think the critical factor in the enactment of a strong RTI law was not so much the standing committee but Sonia Gandhi's backing? Don't you agree that NCPRI would not have otherwise been able to push the standing committee into making all those progressive amendments?

If it was primarily because of Sonia Gandhi, there would have been no dilution/change by the Cabinet which consisted of members of her own party. In fact the Standing Committee is a multi-party forum where people express views not ruled by the party whip. If anything it indicates that the people's position was strengthened substantially by the views of the Standing Committee. It is an institution that has sometimes failed to deliver, but that only means it needs to be strengthened, and not undermined. Under these special circumstances, there is no reason why the Standing Committee in this case cannot fast-track its deliberations, hear different views and send its report immediately. The government can also announce its changed views on a bill even while committee is deliberating it.