essay on lokpal bill

8/11/2019 essay on lokpal bill

1/5

annas lokpal vs. government lokpal

annas lokpal vs. government lokpal Satyagraha can rid society of all evils,

political, economic, and moral.Satyagraha thrives on repression till at last the

repressor is tired and the object of Satyagraha is gained.Satyagraha does not

depend on the outside [for] help; it derives all its strength from within....The

method of Satyagraha requires that the Satyagrahi should never lose hope, so long

as there is the slightest ground left for it- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

Gandhijis theory of Satyagraha was revived when a country-wide peaceful

agitation against corruption gained momentum under the leadership of a 73-yearold civil activist Anna Hazare. With thousands of dissenting aam aadmi flooding

the streets in support of the Citizens Ombudsman Jan-Lokpal Bill (JLP) over

the Government Lokpal Bill (GLP), the nation throbbed and a renaissance has

begun within Indian democracy. However, most of the agitators do not cognize

what JLP contends.

Although the movement reached its destination half way on 28th August, 2011;

when Parliament adopted a resolution to include three crucial demands by Annaa

Camp i.e. inclusion of lower bureaucracy, appointment of Lokayukta at the State

level and incorporation of a Citizens Charter under GLP, it becomes necessary to

know where exactly the two bills diverge and also to analyze significant points of

their differences.

One of the most debated points is the inclusion of Prime Minister within the ambit

of the Lokpal. On one hand where GLP includes. Another important point of

difference is the Selection procedure and composition of Lokpal members. JLP

provides for an independent Search Committee consisting of retired


2/5

constitutional authorities (like judges, eminent IAS officers etc.) to shortlist

potential candidates. The Lokpal chairperson and members are to be b selected

from this shortlist by an independent Selection Committee. The Selection

Committee shall comprise of two politicians, four judges and two retired

constitutional authorities, minimizing the scope for government interference in the

selection process.

On the other hand GLP provides for a panel of 10 members, 6 of whom are

politicians, 5 of whom are from the ruling party, to select the Lokpal members.

Even the Search Committee which searches for eligible Lokpal members shall be

selected by the same panel. Undoubtedly, such a panel will facilitate the

Government to appoint its own people thereby reducing the role of the Lokpal to a

mere puppet.

The two Bills also differ on the point of accountability of the Lokpal. Where on

one hand JLP makes the Lokpal accountable to the people, by giving them enough

freedom to lodge a complaint in the Supreme Court and seek removal of a corrupt

Lokpal, GLP makes the Lokpal accountable to the Government wherein only the

government can seek removal of Lokpal by filing a petition in the Supreme Court.

Such concentration of power will not only give a licence to the government to

appoint inefficient and corrupt Lokpal but will also defeat the very purpose of

enacting a citizens ombudsmen bill which aims at greater citizen participation.

With respect to allegations or complaints of corruption against Lokpal Members,

the JLP provides for a comparatively better machinery by establishing an

independent authority to address such complaints contrary to the provision laid

down in GLP which makes the Lokpal itself the concerned body to hear cases

against its own staff. That will do more harm than good as it may not only

prejudice the mind of the Lokpal but also induce inherent corruption.


3/5

The dismissal of a corrupt public servant under JLP is proposed to be carried out

by a bench of the Lokpal which shall hold open hearings and decide whether to

remove the official or not, after the completion of investigations and filing a case

in a court for prosecution. Whereas under GLP such dismissal is left to the minister

of the concerned department. Like a relay race requires a chain of participants and

the efficient and timely exchange of a baton, corruption also involves chain of

corrupt officials and the exchange of gains arising out of such collaboration. In

almost all such cases, the ministers are found to be beneficiaries at some or the

other level which renders justice impossible.

A good legislation is one with simplified procedure, effective remedies and most

importantly speedy justice. Keeping this in mind the JLP proposes to set up Special

benches in the High Courts to expedite the appeal cases of corruption. To our

dismay this provision is not accommodated in the GLP.With regard to the tapping

of phones, the required permission is to be granted by Lokpal Bench under JLP

while under GLP approval of the Home Secretary is needed. So the next time you

spot Richie-Rich hobnobbing with the Home Secretary, do not be surprised if he

comes under the scanner and exits dirt-free. JLP intends to enact not only a

corruption-free legislation but also a fearless and secure platform for its citizens. It

is for this very reason, that protection is provided to the whistle-blowers, victims

and witnesses of corruption. It is indeed unfortunate to note that no such protection

is provided under GLP. According to the Government, protection for

whistleblowers is being provided through a separate law. But the said law is so

incompetent that it has been badly trashed by the Standing committee of the

Parliament itself last month. The much debated aspect of establishing a Lokayukya

at the State level which would probe into corruption cases of State level ministers,


4/5

MLAs and State Government officials has also gained victory after the government

nodded in approval for the inclusion of this provision in the GLP.

With corruption spreading its wings, even the NGOs have not been able to keep

themselves out of this ditch. Although JLP intends to bring only government-

funded NGOs under its ambit, the Government intends to have jurisdiction over all

the NGOs in the country, be it small or big, registered or unregistered. Delegation

of authority has been considered as the key for effective management worldwide.

A similar structure is also made under the JLP where Lokpal members will only

hear cases against senior officials and politicians or cases involving huge amounts

rest cases shall be heard by other officers of Lokpal. On the other hand, the GLP

provides that all work must be done by the 11 member team of Lokpal which is

likely to result in unnecessary piling up of cases.

The method of inquiry into the cases of corruption also differs in both the bills.

Under JLP, the method would be the same as provided in Criminal Procedure Code

(CrPC). After preliminary enquiry, an FIR will be registered. After investigations,

case will be presented before a court, where the trial will take place. On the

contrary GLP seeks to amend CrPC in order to provide special protection to the

accused. After preliminary enquiry, all evidence will be provided to the accused

and he shall be heard as to why an FIR should not be registered against him.

After completion of investigations, again all evidence will be provided to him and

he will be given a hearing to explain why a case should not be filed against him inthe court. Such a process would not only severely compromise all investigations

with easy availability of evidences at every stage but would also disclose the

identity of the whistleblowers thus threatening their security. Such a dim-witted

process is unheard of in criminal jurisprudence. Another heated point, which has


5/5

now received governments consent is the creation of a Citizens Charter, which

will specify which work to be done by which official and in how much time.

Violation of the Charter will attract a penalty and shall be deemed to be corruption.

In the light of the above mentioned differences and taking into consideration the

seriousness of growing corruption in our country, it is necessary to enact a

Draconian legislation rather than a feeble and toothless one. As citizens of the

largest functional democracy, it is our duty to not let the Government give any

false illusion of creating an anti-corruption law. We hope the Government sticks to

its promises for the inclusion of three crucial demands put forward by Camp Anna

as discussed earlier. Democracy is a system by the people, for the people and of the

people, and therefore today more than ever, the words of the Mahatma resound

loudly in every Indians heartbeat ..Be the change that you wish to see...

Documents

essay on lokpal bill