Jan Lokpal Bill 2011 Version 2.3, a much better draft, but still needs fine-tuning
The Jan Lokpal Bill 2011 Version 2.3 which is now seized by Parliament for the purpose of enactment, is certainly a much better draft than its predecessors. If enacted, it would carry the anti-corruption crusade started with RTI Act 2005 to a logical conclusion. As all of us know, it is the RTI Act, through which we were enabled to detect mega scams around organising of CWG, Adarsh Housing Complex and 2-G Spectrum, but the same Act is bereft of any jurisdiction in respect of investigating, prosecuting and punishing the perpetrators of corruption. It is precisely to fulfill this indispensable need for building up a corruption free polity that Jan Lokpal Bill has been mooted by Anna Hazare, who was also a great protagonist of RTI movement over the years in the past.
However, in order that the Jan Lokpal Bill fulfills its historic destiny, it needs to be formulated and reformulated in such a way as not to leave any critical loopholes through which the cunning lot of our corrupt bureaucrats, politicians and judges would carve out their escape routes. However, all of us know that the great Anna, who is a strong and down-to-earth visionary for corruption free India, is also little proficient in law drafting skill and therefore dependent upon a coterie of seasoned persons, popularly called Team Anna who manage not only the entire drafting business but also the negotiations with government and public relations exercises on behalf of Anna. It is this very group, whom goes the credit or discredit of the Draft Bill being a rich or poor one. Notwithstanding the fact that Anna has both clarity of vision and courage of conviction, it is this very Team Anna, which would ultimately prevail in respect of what is out there in fine print of Jan Lokpal Bill.
While breaking his fast on 28th last Anna observed that his battle against corruption was half won in the sense that the Parliament yielding to the rising popular outcry did at last agree to accept his Jan Lokpal Bill as the main draft document for enacting a comprehensive Ombudsman law for the country, and it would be fully won when the draft bill is finally enacted into a full-fledged law by the Parliament. However, the moot question arises, is the Anna Bill itself a fool-proof draft from a civil society perspective, or for that matter, from Anna's perspective? To this author, like the half won victory of Anna which he achieved against a faltering Government and a puzzled Parliament, the Jan Lokpal Bill 2011 is a half finished document, which needs to be fully worked out in days to come by the Anna Team taking the appropriate cues from the watchful members of civil society.
First of all, the current version of Jan Lokpal Bill, unlike its preceding ones lacks conspicuously in covering the judiciary within the ambit of Lokpal. Though Anna used to underline such a need just as he did in respect of two other wings of the State namely legislature and executive, he however conceded at the last moment to its omission on the spacious ground that Government has already tabled the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill 2010 in Parliament for enactment. But neither Anna nor any member of Team Anna has ever reflected on the merit or nuances of this Bill, especially from Jan Lokpal perspective. They owe an answer to the mass of their supporters as to how far the proposed Bill on judicial standards and accountability can warrant, investigate, prosecute and punish a corrupt judge belonging to higher or lower judiciary. If the said Bill, like the Government Bill on Lokpal, be restrictive in its scope and toothless in its impact, will not Anna Hazare prove himself a loser in his bargain with Government for his decision to drop the judiciary from the purview of Jan Lokpal Bill?
Secondly, one of the sticking points between Anna and Government was Anna's insistence on making a single Lokpal law for the entire country with the provision for Lokauktas at the level of States on a pattern similar to that of Lokpal at the Centre. Now that the Government has conceded to this demand too, Jan Lokpal Draft Bill needs to be redrafted so as to incorporate the whole lot of provisions concerning the Lokayuktas at State level. Presently, a footnote appearing at the end of the Anna's Draft Bill reads, "This draft provides only for the Lokpal for central public servants. Similar provisions for Lokayuktas in the States to deal with public servants of the State will have to be incorporated in the bill." In fact, a task of gigantic nature is in wait for the Team Anna and the rest of the concerned members of civil society. It not only calls for replication of existing provisions for Lokpal at Centre in respect of Lokayuktas in States, but also demands of its drafters the unique skill of presenting the expanded and composite text of the reworked bill in an integrated and coherent mould. Instead of leaving this critical job to a nexus of wily bureaucrats and crafted politicians, the Team Anna should take upon themselves this unique challenge of reconstructing the draft bill, of course, taking inputs from the vigilant members of the civil society.
Thirdly, the current draft Bill though marked by much lesser incidence of loopholes compared to the preceding drafts, its omissions and commissions are nevertheless of serious nature, which if not squared up right now, would surely defeat its radical objectives. For instance, its Chapter-XIII entitled 'Grievance Redressal System' quite rightfully addresses certain issues, which in fact concern every common citizen and have therefore galvanized the mass of people across the country to stand in solidarity with Anna's crusade for Jan Lokpal Bill. It says that every office of each public authority shall appoint a Public Grievance Redressal Officer, whose duty shall be to accept grievances from any citizen arising from violation of citizens' charter and redress the same within 30 days of its receipt. If the said Officer fails in his duty, a complaint can be lodged against him before the Appellate Grievance Officer appointed by Lokpal for each district, who has the power not only to get the concerned grievance redressed but also to penalize the defaulting PGRO to the tune of maximum Rs.500/- against a day's delay upto Rs.50,000/- in total. The AGO shall also subject himself to a six-monthly social audit by the members of public in the presence of a senior officer from Lokpal. But the Bill doesn't provide a time limit within which the complaint shall be lodged before the AGO or within which the AGO shall redress the lingering grievance of the citizen or within which the AGO shall pronounce the penalty against the defaulting PGRO. In absence of a time-limit in respect of such crucial provisions, the massive expectation of the public from the Jan Lokpal Bill is sure to be belied.
Fourthly, the Section 7 titled 'Powers of Officers under Lokpal' in its Sub-section (8) says that the Lokpal, if it feels necessary to stay the implementation or enforcement of any decision by a public authority in the interest of preventing the incidence of corruption, it may make a recommendation to the concerned public authority in the said light. The public authority shall either comply with the said recommendation or reject the same within 15 days of the recommendation thereof. In the event of rejection, the Lokpal may approach the appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to be issued to the public authority. Now, the question arises, what is the time limit within which Lokpal shall seek the directions of High Court and also what is the time limit within which the concerned High Court shall issue its directions, and moreover what shall happen if the High Court fails to give its decision within the given time limit. Absence of time limit in such matters, apparently a trifle, is however fraught with the critical implication of atrophying the very anti-graft object of the proposed law, since the public authorities having vested interests would always cherish their cases to linger at the level of High Court ad infinitum.
Fifthly, unlike the Jan Lokpal Bill of the preceding version (V 2.2), in which there existed an explicit provision for compensating the person who suffered loss on account of corruption (Vide Section 21A-5 –ii) the present Draft Bill (V 2.3) has no such provision to offer, though its Chapter XV is spaciously titled 'Seizure and Confiscation of Property and Recovery of Compensation from Corrupt Government Servants'. Its Section 27(3) speaks of estimation of the "loss caused to the exchequer or any other person", but stops short of compensating the loss of the individual person. Needless to say, the provision for compensating somebody who has lost in whatever terms due to corruption by a public servant would always draw the common people towards the campaign for Jan Lokpal Bill.
Thus, what is required of Team Anna at the moment is to fine-tune the Draft Jan Lokpal Bill Version 2.3 in such a manner as it meets the aspirations of millions of people, who have been of late roused by the Anna led campaign for a corruption free India. And those members of civil society who have stayed with Anna Hazare through the thick and thin of his campaign, solely glued to the agenda of Jan Lokpal, have also no less stakes in the whole matter than the Team Anna.
Chitta Behera, 4A Jubilee Tower, Choudhury Bazar, Cuttack-9, Mobile: 9437577546, Dt 30.8.2011
No comments:
Post a Comment