Senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and advocate Prashant Bhushan have dubbed the proposed draft Jan Lokpal Bill 2015 as the “Jokepal Bill”, and have alleged that it is a ‘maliciously’ weakened draft of the original Lokpal Bill of 2011 by Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal and his Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). If at all the centre passes the bill it will be an instrument in the hands of the Delhi government to save its own legislative assembly members, allege the Bhushans.
On the other hand, the centre may not pass the bill at all owing to the fact that the proposed bill beings even the central government under its investigative jurisdiction, the Bhushans note.
In an emailed press note, they have commented: “The Delhi Jan Lokpal Bill, 2015 is not what the anti-corruption Lokpal movement had fought so deeply for. It is merely an eyewash and not the bill which made thousands and thousands volunteer for a crusade against corruption. The present bill to be tabled in the assembly is no less a cheating with the people of Delhi. In fact, the present bill is worse than the central government's Jan Lokpal Bill, against which the present Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal had spoken so vehemently.”
The Bhushans have asked Kejriwal to explain why he has passed a version of the Bill which he had originally opposed.
Here are five reasons why the Bhushans think the “Jokepal” Bill is a toothless version of the original:
This party is political
New: The Delhi chief minister, speaker of the state legislative assembly and the leader of the opposition party in the state legislature will be three of the four persons who will recommend ‘Jan Lokpal’ appointees to the Lieutenant Governor, according to Section 3(1)a of the Delhi Jan Lokpal Bill 2015.
The chairperson of this four-member selection committee will be the Delhi high court’s chief justice.
Old: The original Jan Lokpal Bill, drafted and introduced first in 2011, purported to have on the selection committee: Two judges of Supreme Court of India and two permanent Chief Justices of the High Courts selected by collegium of all Supreme Court judges; The Chief Election Commissioner of India; The Comptroller & Auditor General of India; All previous Chairpersons of Lokpal; The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha; India’s prime minister as chairperson
Bhushans: “The Janlokpal bill had envisioned that the appointments be made independent of the will of political class, but the provision in the present bill cheats the spirit of an independent Janlokpal.”
Merci, AAP government
New: To oust the Lokpal, a two-thirds majority in the Delhi assembly, of the members present and voting against the Lokpal, is sufficient according to section 6(1) of the proposed bill.
Old: Only the president on the recommendation of the Supreme Court, after an inquiry by the Supreme Court that one of four grounds of removal of the Lokpal have been satisfied, could remove a member of the Jan Lokpal.
Bhushans: “We had always argued that the anti-corruption and investigating agencies end up becoming instruments in the hands of ruling governments, so an effective Lokpal needs to be delinked from interference of ruling governments and political control. It is sad to see the AAP bringing a bill which would ultimately leave the Lokpal at the mercy of Delhi government, making it a joke.”
Investigation by the Sarkaar, of Sarkaar
New: The Jan Lokpal can constitute its own investigative agency which will have the procedural powers of a civil court, but it can also use the existing investigating agencies of the government, according to section 10(5):
“the Janlokpal may, for the purpose of conducting any inquiry or investigation, utilise the services of any officer or organisation or investigation agency of the Central Government or the Government or any other government of any state or Union Territory, as the case may be.”
Old: The Delhi Special Police Establishment’s Anti-Corruption Branch was to be transferred to the Jan Lokpal, and after the transfer the government would have ceased to have any control over the branch. The transferred branch would have formed the investigation wing of the Lokpal.
“32. (1) The part of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, dealing with investigation and prosecution of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, shall stand transferred, alongwith its employees, assets and liabilities to the Lokpal. The Central Government shall cease to have any control over the transferred part and its personnel.
(2) Such part of Delhi Special Police Establishment, which has been transferred above, shall form part of the Investigation Wing of Lokpal.”
Bhushans: “The Janlokpal movement had always stressed that investigating officers should be free of the influence or control of any government. It was argued that no less than an independent investigative machinery vested with the institution of Lokpal would be effective in curbing corruption.”
Accidental addition?
New: The Delhi Jan Lokpal has powers to investigate any public servant charged with corruption in Delhi – be it from the central government or the state government.
Old: The 2011 bill specified in the end that it was applicable only to central public servants, and that state Lokayuktas will have investigation powers over state government public servants.
“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.”
Bhushans: “This provision has been introduced with malafide intentions to ensure that the central government does not approve and the bill never gets passed. The AAP will then claim that it tried to pass the Jan Lokpal Bill but the central government obstructed it.”
Jail!
Both versions, the 2011 bill and the 2015 bill, provide for punishment for false complaints in the form one-year imprisonment.
Bhushans: “This is also what we had fought against since it will deter complainants. It is not there in the Uttarakhand bill which Kejriwal said this is modeled on.”
The Bhushans are former AAP campaigners who were sacked from the party for alleged “anti-party activities”.