Why I am skeptical about Jan Lokpal Bill

It is wonderful to see people coming together and voicing support to a good cause, to a great man. Though I appreciate the spirit behind this protest, and the huge support it is garnering which is very heartening to see, the question is, will it achieve the desired result at all?

The salient features of Jan Lokpal bill (JLP), which is what most of us are fighting for, are :

1. An institution called LOKPAL at the centre and LOKAYUKTA in each state will be set up
2. Like Supreme Court and Election Commission, they will be completely independent of the governments. No minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations.
3. Investigations in any case will have to be completed in one year. Trial should be completed in next one year so that the corrupt politician, officer or judge is sent to jail within two years.
4. The loss that a corrupt person caused to the government will be recovered at the time of conviction.
5. If any work of any citizen is not done in prescribed time in any government office, Lokpal will impose financial penalty on guilty officers, which will be given as compensation to the complainant.
6. Any whistleblowing can be done with Lokpal.
7. Members will be selected by judges, citizens and constitutional authorities and not by politicians, through a completely transparent and participatory process.
8. The entire functioning of Lokpal/ Lokayukta will be completely transparent. Any complaint against any officer of Lokpal shall be investigated and the officer dismissed within two months.
9. CVC, departmental vigilance and anti-corruption branch of CBI will be merged into Lokpal. Lokpal will have complete powers and machinery to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.
10. It will be the duty of the Lokpal to provide protection to those who are being victimized for raising their voice against corruption.

This bill is very much similar to the Lokayukta Act (and its amendments) of Karnataka. The suo-motu powers, the structuring of the Lokpal's powers and office, the responsibilities all mirror the Karnataka Lokayukta's, which is not surprising, given that Justice N Santhosh Hegde is one of the arcitects of the bill. The only major difference is the way Lokpal is appointed - the Governor appoints the Karnataka Lokayukta on the advice of the Chief Minister, and here it is proposed that judges, eminent citizens and constitutional authorities appoint Lokpal - which is a very good measure, though not foolproof.

But, my apprehension is, will this office be immune from corruption? We've seen that every person who has raised his/her voice against corruption has either been eliminated or subdued or, in most of the cases, convinced to go along with and embrace the established "system of corruption". A strong-willed, unwavering, impartial person needs to be appointed as the Lokpal, and his staff should also be like-minded if this has to succeed. And success, will be very hard to come by, as the coterie of the corrupt, which is sizeable and also awfully powerful, will fight tooth and nail, by hook or by crook to protect their interests. And they do have easy enough ways to achieve it.

JLP suggests that the Lokpal should be appointed by a selection committee comprising of

1. Two seniormost judges of Supreme Court.
2. Two senior most Chief Justices of High Court.
3. Last three Magsaysay Award winners.
4. All Nobel Laureates of Indian origin.
5. Comptroller and Auditor General(CAG) of India.
6. Chief Election Commissioner(CEC) of India.
7. After the first set of selection process, the outgoing members and Chairperson of Lokpal.

Nobel Laureates of Indian origin? Are they kidding? Or are Messrs Santhosh Hegde, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan, J M Lyngdoh and Ms Kiran Bedi really this immature? When I came across this I was flabbergasted, unable to decide whether to laugh or despair!! People who probably have never stayed in India for more than a month choosing the candidates for a powerful Indian office? People who are not citizens of India representing us to select the Lokpal? People who probably have never known the head or tail of civics, legislature and administration suggesting who'll do them all best? We can as well ask the Top 10 Billboard artistes to sit in the committee and decide a suitable candidate for us. No, thank you, you may take them off.

Magsaysay awards are given for Government Service, Public Service, Community Leadership, Journalism, Literature and Creative Communication Arts, Peace and International Understanding and Emergent Leadership. These are more or less the areas which I believe a selection committee member should be proficient in, in order to test a candidate thoroughly. And the awardees are people who have achieved something extra-ordinary in these fields, and most of them have worked in the grassroots level, among the common people, and thus, the chances of them knowing the pulse of the people is high. Even then, one cannot rule out that such people are free from the influence of the "coterie of the corrupt".

CAG and CEC are.....bureaucrats. The very people we do not want to hand the power of appointing Lokpal. And there is a high chance that CAG & CEC would favour the hands that feed them, the political parties, rather than act independently. Well, even the appointments to these posts would then become an exercise driven by political interests more than ever, with the ruling party/parties unabashedly appointing their own cronies and fairness would take a backseat, so that they could have a say indirectly in the appointment of Lokpal.

The chief justices and judges are fine, as they are appointed to their posts free from the influence of babudom and political leaders. As long as they are not corrupt themselves, they would be unruffled and try their best to bring in suitable people to adorn that office.

This bill also states that the investigations should be completed within 1 year, and the trial within 2 years of the complaint being lodged. This would require considerble taskforce and investigating officers at Lokpal's disposal. It also says that it is the duty of Lokpal to provide protection to people who raise their voice against corruption, which again would require a special police force under this office. More people means more chance of sabotaging a virtuous Lokpal, or more power in dangerous hands if the Lokpal turns out to be a crook.

But more importantly, the point which worries me the most is the suo-motu powers. Probably, a Lokpal without suo-motu powers is a toothless office, but with suo-motu powers I believe, it becomes an office armed with tomahawk missiles. This gives the Lokpal immense powers, with which it can even break popular elected Governments. It would have a powerful tool to blackmail each and everyone, right from the PM to a peon in Tahsildar's office, from one who takes a bribe of 10 rupees to one who loots thousands of crores. In wrong hands, this could mean even bigger corruption, the likes of which has never happened. With no alternative investigation on charges levelled by this office on anyone, and given the restraint set by the bill that the trials should get over quickly, one may not even have enough time and resources to fight against any wrong accusation.

Finally, a basic question which I'm faced with is, is this office necessary? We have RTI Act to do this job ourselves, as common citizens. Why are we then creating a new bureucratic office which can as well become corrupt? And also handing over dangerous powers to it which could increase the degree of corruption? Are we not confident enough in our rights? Or do we want to shirk from our duty and responsibility and hand it over to someone else and wash our hands off it?

EDIT 11 April 2011 :

I had a wrong impression that "suo moto" means the "right to prosecute". Now, I know that it is not. In that paragraph about "suo moto powers", by "suo moto", I actually meant "power to take investigative on its own without any complaint and also prosecute the accused". Please pardon me for this mistake.