Bill without will

42 years and waiting for Lokpal

prasanna

Prasanna Mohanty | April 22, 2011



The idea of the Lokpal, which was supposed to be an ombudsman on the lines of those in Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, was first mooted after two big financial scandals hit the free India in the 50s and 60s – a) Mundra scandal, which led to resignation of finance minister T T Krishnamachari and b) charges of corruption against Punjab province (Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh) chief minister Pratap Singh Kairon which led to his resignation in 1964. The first Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) of 1966, headed by Morarji Desai, pitched for such a body to fight corruption in high places. It envisaged a two-tier system – Lokpal at the centre and Lokayuktas in the states.

  • The first Lokpal Bill was drafted and introduced in parliament way back in 1968. This was passed by the Lok Sabha but was pending in the Rajya Sabha when the first mid-term elections were held in 1971.
  •   Thereafter, the Lokpal Bill was introduced in parliament seven times – 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2001. All these bills lapsed with the dissolution of respective Lok Sabhas, except for the one in 1985 which was withdrawn on “specious” grounds. The 2010 bill, is yet to be introduced in parliament.
  • All Lokpal Bills (except the 1985 one) lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha because of an inbuilt infirmity that continues till date – salary and allowances of the Lokpal is charged to the Consolidated Fund of India which makes it a money bill and, hence, has to be introduced in the Lok Sabha. This is a deliberate attempt and is attributed to the reluctance of the government and the members of parliament to treat it otherwise. Just as the salary and allowances of the Election Commission of India is part of the law ministry’s budget, if that of the Lokpal is made a part of, say, the home ministry (whose committee examined the last three bills), the bill can be introduced in the Rajya Sabha too and won’t lapse with every general election. But political parties don’t want the baggage.
  • Inclusion of the prime minister, the highest political executive, in the Lokpal’s ambit has been contentious. The expert panels, including the ARC 1 of 1966, ACR 2 of 2007 and the National Commission on Working of the Constitution of 2002, advocated his exclusion. Thus, the bills of 1968, 1971 and 1985 excluded him but public pressure ensured that he is included in those of 1977, 1989, 2001 and 2010. The 2010 bill excludes the bureaucrats – another contentious issue. 
  • Inclusion of MPs too has been contentious. Many of the bills, therefore, excluded them, except for the ones of 1996, 1998, 2001 and 2010. The MPs have argued that parliament being the highest democratic institution, an outside body like the Lokpal can’t be given jurisdiction over them.
  • Jurisdiction over the judiciary is another bone of contention. A parliamentary committee of 2001 recommended a separate legislation for the judiciary.
  • The 2010 bill suffers major handicaps. It covers PM, MPs and ministers but excludes bureaucrats. It is an advisory body. It has no suo motu power to register FIR, investigate or prosecute anyone. It will enquire into the cases referred to it by the presiding officers of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and will report back its findings and recommendations. This makes Lokpal as toothless as the central vigilance commission (CVC) and hence the disquiet among the people and civil society members.
  • Shockingly, however, 2010 bill provides Lokpal with power of summary trial and power to award punishment of up to three years of imprisonment and/or fine of Rs 50,000 to the complainant if it thinks the complaint is frivolous! This actually turns the Lokpal on its head.
  • While the centre has dithered, the states have taken a lead. Maharashtra was the first to set up the Lokayukta in 1972. Though Orissa enacted the law in 1970, it appointed a Lokayukta in 1983. So far, 18 states have Lokayuktas – Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Haryana, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Orissa, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. 
  • If the Lokpal Bill is still pending, the reason is simple: Politicians don't want a corruption watchdog. 

Comments

 

Other News

India lost Rs 52,000 crore to cyber fraud in five years: DoT

India has lost more than Rs 52,000 crore to cyber fraud over the last five years, officials have revealed. Out of approximately 60 lakh cyber fraud complaints received, more  than 3,000 cases have been resolved and six cyber fraud setups have been busted.   On the occ

India must not wait for its own Ella

In many Indian cities, children learn to wear masks before they are old enough to understand why. That reality should alarm us far more than it does.   In 2020, nine-year-old Ella Adoo Kissi Debrah became the first person in the world to have air pollution officially recognized a

An ode to the cradle of humankind

The Alphabets of Africa: Poems By Abhay K. Vintage Classics, 280 pages, ₹499.00   Abhay K

Ahmedabad district railway network to be expanded

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, chaired by prime minister Narendra Modi, on Wednesday approved the Ahmedabad (Sarkhej) – Dholera Semi High-Speed Double Line project of Ministry of Railways with total cost of Rs. 20,667 crore (approx.). It will be Indian Railways 1st semi high-speed project

Indian Ocean more contested than ever: Western Naval Command Chief

The Indian Ocean is becoming increasingly contested and strategically significant as the Indo-Pacific emerges as the defining geopolitical theatre of the 21st century, Vice Admiral Krishna Swaminathan, Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Western Naval Command, has said.   Spe

Why the judiciary needs much more than four more judges

India has a particular form of governance theatre: the bold declaration that appears to be action but is actually a way of avoiding action. The Union Cabinet on May 5 approved a Bill to increase the sanctioned strength of the Supreme Court from 34 to 38. The decision has been touted as a step toward judici


Archives

Current Issue

Opinion

Facebook Twitter Google Plus Linkedin Subscribe Newsletter

Twitter