Non-govt, non-Anna draft against single, all-powerful Lok Pal

Under the banner of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI), activists led by National Advisory Council (NAC) member Aruna Roy have floated a new version of the Lok Pal Bill, which is divergent from the government’s draft as well as the one recommended by Anna Hazare. The envisaged Bill is a basket of reforms for multiple institutions rather than a single, all-powerful Lok Pal.

The Lok Pal, or, the Central Anti-Corruption Commission (CACC) as they call it, is a 11-member team mooted by Roy and her team. It covers top bureaucracy and elected members, including the prime minister. However, it excludes the judiciary. It also demands a national law for a grievance redressal commission.

It asks for an amended Central Vigilance Commission Act, with the vigilance officer in each department reporting to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and not just the department head, as is the case now. It also talks of an amended Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill that would ensure the instances of corruption in the judiciary, right from appointments to retirement, are taken care of within the judiciary through a National Judicial Commission.

The fourth leg of the Anti-Corruption Bill is an amended version of the existing draft of the Whistle Blowers Bill to protect complainants.

The group’s — which includes NAC member Harsh Mandar, activists Bharat Dogra, Maja Daruwala, Nikhil Dey Shekhar Singh and Sandeep Pande — other important proposal is the creation of a grievance redressal mechanism through a national grievance redressal commission.

This commission, with grievance redressal officers up to the panchayat level, was a structure parallel to the anti-corruption mechanism and was supposed to be the eyes and ears of the people for all sorts of grievances, said Nikhil De.

While the Lok Pal envisaged by the government and NGOs had a top-down approach, the commission would have a bottom up approach. The institution would be essential, especially, in view of the Right to Food Bill that was expected to be a law soon, and other grass root schemes and entitlements, De said.

The activists said they were for the prime minister’s inclusion under the Anti-Corruption Bill on the condition that no investigation involving the former be launched unless a full bench of the Central Anti-Corruption Commission (as the NGOs have called Lok Pal) recommended it and on a subsequent reference made by the Commission to the Supreme Court, a full bench had examined the evidence and concurred with the CACC.

It also says that no investigation should be done till a fortnight’s notice had been served to the ruling party that the CACC proposed to conduct an investigation.

The other difference the activists have is over the inclusion of the judiciary. According to the draft set of recommendations prepared by NCPRI, the judiciary should be made accountable through mechanisms developed within the Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill. They pointed out there was no way to ensure a court of law itself would not strike down a law bringing the higher judiciary under an ombudsman. It also asks for the exclusion of civil servants from the CACC or Lok Pal and says the alternative is to empower the Central Vigilance Commission.

According to Aruna Roy, it is better to have discussions and listen to all the views available rather than create an important law in haste. She said that expecting a single institution to deal with corruption at all levels would create an unwieldy mechanism, which would die under its own weight.

Justice Shah said no country had so far thought of appointing an ombudsman over its judiciary. He said the problem with the judiciary was not corruption but incompetence and nepotism. “We need the judicial commission proposed under the Judicial Accountability Bill to deal with all this,” he said.

Social activist Medha Patkar expressed concerns the government might take advantage of the differences among activists. However, participants pointed out that differences indicated a healthy and strong divergence among people’s movements and organisations.

Prashant Bhushan, member of the joint drafting committee that drafted the Lok Pal Bill with the government’s representatives, expressed unhappiness over the parallel Bill being floated by NCPRI. “They are giving a handle to the government by coming with a bill different from ours.”

NCPRI said it did not come with its views earlier as it didn’t want to intrude. Roy said the intent was to comment on the official draft Bill, but, as the government had failed to come with a single draft, they had no option but to give their views on what was available now.