‘Government has not conceded anything’

Anna Hazare - Delhi

Image by vm2827 via Flickr

FRONTLINE

CONSITUTIONAL expert and former Lok Sabha Secretary-General Subhash Kashyap says that the government has not conceded much, that it has not committed itself to anything, and that Team Anna has not gained much on its demand for the acceptance of a Jan Lokpal Bill. The only achievements of the fortnight-long agitation are public awakening and the fact that the issue of corruption has been placed centre stage. “It is still a long road ahead,” he said in an interview to Frontline. Excerpts:

The upsurge of support for Anna Hazare and the fact that Parliament held a sitting on a holiday to discuss the issues raised by him do herald the beginning of something big. What exactly has been the net outcome of the unprecedented anti-corruption movement?

Unprecedented no doubt it was because never before has Parliament held a sitting on a holiday to discuss an issue raised by a non-political entity. The issue had gripped the nation’s imagination for over 12 days. It was also unprecedented in the sense that never before has public support for any cause been so humongous. The government initially appeared in no mood to give in to Anna Hazare’s demands. But let us not get carried away by all this because the net outcome is tenuous in nature, to say the least. No substantive achievement has been made as far as acceptance of the demand for a Jan Lokpal Bill is concerned.

Why do you say this when Parliament has committed itself to accepting the three demands put forth by Hazare?

If you look at the ‘sense-of-the-House‘ resolution closely, you will notice that it was no resolution as such; so the House as such has not resolved anything. At best, it was only an ‘in principle’ agreement with the three demands, which have merely been ‘forwarded’ to the Standing Committee for its ‘perusal’. Hence, the government has not committed itself to anything, Parliament has not committed itself to anything, and the sense-of-the-House resolution forwarded to the Standing Committee is not binding on it. So, in strict legal or constitutional terms, the sense of the House has no meaning whatsoever, except a moralistic one. The committee may or may not honour it. So, in effect, the government has not conceded anything to Team Anna. It has stuck to its position that whatever it had to say would be put forth to the Standing Committee, which will take cognisance at the time of studying the Lokpal Bill.

Then why is the entire exercise being dubbed as a “victory of democracy”, as if this was history in the making?

It was history in the making in a different sense. It was for the first time since Independence that the government, and Parliament, was seen to be succumbing to public pressure, that it actually conceded that people too should be taken into account while drafting legislation. For the first time, people were seen to be taken seriously by the political class. Also, the fact that the entire exercise brought the issue of corruption to the fore makes it significant. But let us not lull ourselves into believing that this is a big victory against corruption. It is just the beginning. The proposed law will only be a curative solution, it will not attack the causes for corruption, nor will it prevent corruption. For that we need wide-ranging systemic reforms in all sectors.

If this is the case, what explains the massive support for the cause?

Dissatisfaction with the government, which has never been so pronounced, except during the Emergency in its second year. The situation today is akin to what Marx says, ‘the state has withered away’. There is total chaos, people are fed up with high prices, there is corruption at every level, there is massive governance deficit, the government has failed the people at all levels. It was a tailor-made situation for such an outpouring. People genuinely believed that they were participating in the second freedom struggle, to rid the country of corruption. But let me warn you, one such Bill cannot be the panacea for all that is wrong with the system. And let me also warn you that one should not be overambitious in expecting the re-drafted Lokpal Bill to include all these suggestions. It may or may not happen.

So what have we achieved, finally?

Anna Hazare has broken his fast! I am sure we will need him for many more such mobilisations in this fight against corruption.

Source: http://www.frontline.in/stories/20110923281901800.htm

Advertisements

Constiuent Assembly Debate -“If the elected fail the masses of India will through up men of resolve

Rajendra_Prasad and R.L.Lakhina

Image via Wikipedia

When the country needs men of character, they will be coming up and the masses will throw them up- Dr Rajendra Prasad while accepting the Constitution of India

Whatever the Constitution may or may not provide, the welfare of the country will depend upon the way in which the country is administered. That will depend upon the men who administer it. It is a trite saying that a country can have only the Government it deserves. Our Constitution has provision in it which appear to some to be objectionable from one point or another. We must admit that the defects are inherent in the situation in the country and the people at large. If the people who are elected are capable and men of character and integrity, they would be able to make the best even of a defective Constitution.

If they are lacking in these, the Constitution cannot help the country.

After all, a Constitution like a machine is a lifeless thing. It acquires life because of the men who control it and operate it, and India needs today nothing more than a set of honest men who will have the interest of the country before them. There is a fissiparous tendency arising out of various elements in our life. We have communal differences, caste differences, language differences, provincial differences and so forth.

It requires men of strong character, men of vision, men who will not sacrifice the interests of the country at large for the sake of smaller groups and areas and who will rise over the prejudices which are born of these differences. We can only hope that the country will throw up such men in abundance. I can say this from the experience of the struggle that we have had during the period of the freedom movement that new occasions throw up new men; not once but almost on every occasion when all leading men in the Congress were clapped into prison suddenly without having the time to leave instructions to others and even to make plans for carrying on their campaigns, people arose from amongst the masses who were able to continue and conduct the campaigns with intelligence, with initiative, with capacity for organization which nobody suspected they possessed.

I have no doubt that when the country needs men of character, they will be coming up and the masses will throw them up.

Let not those who have served in the past therefore rest on their oars, saying that they have done their part and now has come the time for them to enjoy the fruits of their labours. No such time comes to anyone who is really earnest about his work.

In India today I feel that the work that confronts us is even more difficult than the work which we had when we were engaged in the struggle. We did not have then any conflicting claims to reconcile, no loaves and fishes to distribute, no powers to share. We have all these now, and the temptations are really great. Would to God that we shall have the wisdom and the strength to rise above them, and to serve the country which we have succeeded in liberating.


Anna Hazare, the Constitution and the Government

Though Gandhi never called himself a Hindu nat...

Image via Wikipedia

V RAGHUNATHAN IN THE TIMES OF INDIA

I wrote in this blog on April 7, 2011 about Anna Hazare, saying, “Perhaps after Loknayak Jayaprakash Narayan‘s call for sampoorna kranti, … Anna’s fast may be the next most significant mass movement in modern India yet.” Soon thereafter, when the ruling Government seemed to respond to Anna sensibly and sensitively offering a joint dialogue with and say to the civil society for drafting a suitable Lokpal Bill, one thought it a sagacious gesture on the part of the UPA government and a victory for the maturity of our democracy.

Alas, that hasn’t been the case. Of late, with every single passing day, the ruling polity has come out looking increasingly petty, cussed and vindictive, targeting Anna with every gun that it has at its disposal. It has accused Anna Hazare and his Trust as being “seeped in corruption“.  It is questioning the funding of Anna’s website. It is digging up his ancient army records in the hope of finding something – anything – to chuck at him, hoping something may stick.  It is leaning on the weak spine of the Delhi Police to deny him a place to fast, placing uncalled for and unconstitutional limits of time and the size of crowd .  It is not that our politicians have usually stood so tall that we are surprised at how low they can stoop; but to accuse a simple and straight forward soul like Ana Hazare, who is the first major voice against corruption in independent India to stir the conscience of the nation, dwarfs even their pigmy standards.

In a democracy of a billion people, it is understandable to have a billion different views on the issue of the Lokpal Bill versus Jan-Lokpal Bill.  It is understandable if some think PM should be kept out of the ambit of Lokpal. It is understandable if some think civil society (read Anna Hazare) should be more practical and more patient or yielding in their demand or protest.  It may also be understandable if some think that Anna Hazare’s Satyagraha is not to be compared to Bapu‘s Satyagraha, or even that inarticulate Anna himself is in no way comparable with the suave Mahatma. It is understandable too if some question the somewhat intemperate language deployed by Anna Hazare in his communication to our straight as sphinx-like Prime Minister.  It may be understandable too if a section of the society is apprehensive about the liberties Civil Society seems to be taking with our constitutional mechanism. For that matter, it may also be understandable if some seem to think Anna Hazare to be a greater danger to our Constitution for seeking “extra-constitutional” remedies to cure our sick society of utter, run-away and rampant corruption, than the malaise of corruption itself.  I even came across a very intelligent, articulate and genuinely sensitive young professional who was “entirely against corruption, but who disagreed with Anna Hazare’s methods”, even if he did not have an alternative to suggest.  In his view, one couldn’t be led into a Bush-like stance – “You are either with us (or Anna Hazare) or against us (or Anna Hazare)”. Well, in short, we can understand all these various views in a democracy, and then some.

While we understand all of the above, we must also understand the low-stoop of the senior Congress functionaries in the personal mud-slinging against Anna for what it is — the last-ditch defense of a political class running scared.  And let us not get it wrong. Let us not believe for a moment as if it is only the Congress politicians who are running scared. The reality is that the major opposition, the UPA politicos, have not comported themselves much better on the ground and in the parliament, beyond opportunistic lip service to Anna.  Thus, it may be equally naïve to believe that even a Jana-Lokpal Bill blessed by Anna, shall sail smoothly through the Parliament, as a simple Anna seems to do. But then, Anna does seem to believe that at least in that case the country would know which parties support or do not support the people’s bill, the knowledge of which could decide the fate of the parties at the next hustings.   I, for one, can understand that.

True, participation of “Civil Society” in a parliamentary process is hardly the standard constitutional process in our democracy. The constitutional process provides only for the Legislature, the Executive, and the Judiciary; it provides for no un-elected Civil Society to play a role.  But this is because the constitutional processes are ordinarily supposed to work. When constitutional processes work reasonably, for example, all citizens are genuinely equal before law, ministers and government servants are accountable to people, parliament functions and passes laws to govern the country rather than being in a perennial state of adjournment for one reason or the other, nor does it take over four decades to pass a law against corruption, justice is available to all and speedily, and 60% of the population does not remain bereft of food, education, health and justice due to large-scale corruption six decades after independence. None of these conditions has been made available under our constitutional processes.  The so-called 9% growth is despite these.

These are the reasons why the call of Anna Hazare has stirred the nation’s conscience. Never mind whether public support for Anna is 50%, 85%, 95% or 100%.  Even if Anna were in a minority of one, it stands to reason that given that our constitutional processes worked by the legislature, executive, and the judiciary have failed us in all these decades, the constitutional mechanism is perhaps already in a damaged condition in any case. Bringing in the “Civil Society” is unlikely to do any more damage to it.

Anna Hazare has offered the nation an opportunity which all the constitutional mechanism and its political ‘leadership’ did not give it since independence. If we are smart as a people, we shall seize the opportunity and lend our shoulders in whatever little way we can to him – not for his sake, but for our own.  But if we are not smart, we can continue to debate the issue to shreds while Anna Hazare acts tomorrow.

V Raghunathan is a former academic (professor of finance, IIM, Ahmedabad), a former banker (president, ING Vysya Bank) and currently a corporate CEO. He has also been a visiting professor at the University of Bocconi, Milan, Italy, since 1990. Some of his books include “Games Indians play” (Penguin), “Don’t Sprint the Marathon” (Harper Collins) and “The Corruption Conundrum and Other Paradoxes and Dilemmas” (Penguin). He is also a columnist of long standing, with over 450 papers and articles to his credit. He sits on numerous boards and lectures extensively in India and abroad. Collecting old and ancient padlocks is his hobby.

Cabinet approves the Lokpal Bill, 2011

The Union Cabinet today approved the proposal for the enactment of a new legislation in the form of the Lokpal Bill, 2011. The Bill provides for the establishment of the institution of Lokpal to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

The Bill envisages setting up the institution of Lokpal consisting of Chairperson and eight Members with the stipulation that half of the Members shall be Judicial Members. It will have its own Investigation Wing and Prosecution Wing with such officers and staff as are necessary to carry out its functions.

The Lokpal shall inquire into allegations of corruption made in respect of Prime Minister, after he has demitted office; a Minister of the Union; a Member of Parliament; any Group ‘A’ officer or equivalent; Chairperson or member or officer equivalent to Group ‘A’ in any body/ Board/ corporation/ authority/ company/ society/ trust/ autonomous body established by an Act of Parliament or wholly or partly financed or controlled by the Central Government; any director, manager, secretary or other officer of a society or association of persons or trust wholly or partly financed or aided by the Government or in receipt of any donations from the public and whose annual income exceeds such amount as the Central Government may by notification specify. However, the organisations created for religious purposes and receiving public donations would be outside the purview of Lokpal.

The Lokpal shall not require sanction or approval under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in cases where prosecution is proposed. The Lokpal will also have powers to attach the property of corrupt public servants acquired through corrupt means

Effective Lokpal not in sight

People determined to root out corruption

by Justice Rajindar Sachar (retd) IN THE TRIBUNE

AS expected, the government and Anna Hazare’s team have disagreed on vital points relating to the institution of Lokpal. The question of inclusion of Prime Minister within the ambit of the Lokpal is being falsely blown out of proportion by government apologists. The Prime Minister, though head of the government, is only the first among equals. In a democratic country, a political vacuum does not arise as the Cabinet has a collective responsibility. Also, our past experience does not show that all our Prime Ministers have been angels. Serious credible accusations have been made against them. The regret always was that in the absence of an independent mechanism like the Lokpal to enquire into these allegations, the ruling party was able to successfully scuttle any honest independent enquiry.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has in public consented to being included within the jurisdiction of the Lokpal as had his predecessor A.B. Vajpayee — the supposed concern of the ministers is puerile, being more loyal than the king.

The stand of ministers for the exclusion of Prime Minister is so incongruous when it is noted that the Standing Committee on Law and Justice, headed by Congress spokesperson Jayanthi Natarajan, has said that the Bill should cover Prime Minister also.

This cynicism is increased when we find that Mr Digvijy Singh, the self- proclaimed alter ego of Mr Rahul Gandhi, supports the Lokpal having jurisdiction over the Prime Minister — people are legitimately hoping that Mr Gandhi would also indicate his position on a matter which is causing such a division in society.

The suggestion to exclude the Prime Minister is sought to be justified by ministers by taking the puerile plea that the Prime Minister continues to be under the jurisdiction of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is surprising that ministers are comfortable for the Prime Minister being prosecuted at the report of junior police officials but not at the instance of a high-powered body like the Lokpal. Is this not the unspoken premise that under the Corruption Act the CBI will have to get sanction from the government? But which subordinate will dare to sanction the Prime Minister’s prosecution? For heaven’s sake, do not play joke with the people and be reminded of what John Adams, one of the founding fathers of the US Constitution, said, “The people have a right, an inalienable, indisputable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge — I mean, of the character and conduct of their rulers.”

Another laughable justification by ministers is that the exemption will not be applicable after the Prime Minister has remitted office — this is like locking the stable after the horses have run away. Incidentally, even the discredited toothless draft Lokpal Bill, 2010, included the Prime Minister and members of Parliament.

The inclusion of the higher judiciary consisting of judges of the Supreme Court within the purview of the Lokpal is undesirable. I am conscious of the shame that some in the higher judiciary have polluted the institution. I am only suggesting a separate National Judicial and Accountability Commission. Call it the Lokpal (Judicial) Commission with the same powers as the Lokpal. This will serve the purpose and still keep the distance between the executive and the judiciary as mandated by the Constitution.

The rhetoric of Mr Kapil Sibal challenging anyone to give an example that “which PM in office anywhere has been prosecuted in the world”, I am sorry at this ignorance. Possibly, this is due to Mr Sibal not being assisted by his usually competent juniors who were with him when he was appearing in courts. Now, possibly, he is being ill served by his public relations officer — otherwise he would have been told that the present Prime Minister of Italy is being prosecuted before a magistrate on charges of corruption, having mafia links and deviant sexual behaviour. In France, proceedings were started against the then President Chirac for misappropriation of public money. Also in Israel, a former President has been sentenced to imprisonment for his deviant sexual behaviour by a magistrate.

The near contempt of the masses protesting at the scourge of corruption is shown by Mr Sibal comparing Anna Hazare to “Pied Piper of Hamlin”. Mr Sibal cautiously did not complete the story because those who were said to have followed the Pied Piper were rats, and following the Piper they just drowned in the sea. I need not comment on such crude and insulting comparison of the masses who are waging a struggle against corruption.

The government’s spurious claim by purporting to project Parliament as the real sovereign is fallacious. Dicey, the British constitutional authority, says, “Electorate is, in fact, the sovereign of England and the conduct of the legislature… should be regulated by understandings of which the object is to secure the conformity of Parliament to the will of the nation.”

Another heresy put forth against the holding of protest meetings by people to force the government to pass worthwhile legislation is that it is undemocratic and the only resort people have is to try to persuade the legislators to pass a particular law, and if they do not agree, then they should try their chance during elections. This is sheer heresy and negated by the Supreme Court (1960) in Dr Lohia’s case, who was arrested for asking farmers not to pay the increase in canal water rates to the UP government.

Ordering the release of Dr Lohia, the court said, “We cannot accept the argument of the learned Advocate-General that instigation of a single individual not to pay tax or dues is a spark which may in the long run ignite a revolutionary movement destroying public order. We can only say that fundamental rights cannot be controlled on such hypothetical and imaginary considerations. It is said that in a democratic set-up there is no scope for agitational approach and that if a law is bad the only course is to get it modified by democratic process and that any instigation to break the law is in itself a disturbance of the public order. If this argument without obvious limitations be accepted, it would destroy the right to freedom of speech, which is the very foundation of democratic way of life.”

A restrained approach by the government alone can prevent a collision with the masses, who are determined to vigorously pursue their struggle for an effective Lokpal.

The writer is a former Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110704/edit.htm#4

Govts Lokpal Bill Vs Jan Lokpal Bill: Comparative Chart

Rather than gunning for the corrupt and corruption, governments Lokpal seems to be gunning for those who complain against corruption. How will Governments Lokpal work?

Suppose some citizen files a complaint to Lokpal against some corrupt government servant. Before the investigations actually start, the government servant can file a cross complaint against the citizen straight to the special court, without any preliminary enquiry by any agency, that the complaint is false or frivolous. The government will provide free advocate to the government servant to file this case. The citizen will have to defend himself on his own!

Then there is stiffer punishment for the complainant than the corrupt government servant. If the Special Court concludes that the complaint is frivolous or false, the citizen faces a minimum of two years of punishment. But if the corruption charges against government servant are proved, there is a minimum of six months of punishment for the corrupt government servant!

Governments Lokpal will have jurisdiction over all NGOs in the country but it will have jurisdiction over less then o.5% of all government employees. Government argued that the Lokpal would get overwhelmed with too many cases if all public servants were brought under its ambit. So, government has restricted its jurisdiction only to 65,000 Group A officers. Also, state employees will not be covered by Lokpal. There are 4 million central government employees and 8 million state government employees.

In sharp contrast, all NGOs are covered under governments Lokpal, small or big, whether in state or centre. Even unregistered groups of people in remote villages are covered under the ambit of Lokpal. So, in a remote village, if a group of youngsters detect corruption in panchayat works using RTI, the youngsters can be hauled up by Lokpal but Lokpal would not have jurisdiction over Sarpanch, BDO or their corruption.

Whereas Lokpal would not have jurisdiction over Delhi government officials, it would have jurisdiction over all RWAs in Delhi. All small neighborhood groups who raise donations to do Ramlila or Durga Puja would be under Lokpals scanner. Lokpal could haul up activists from any of the farmers, labour, anti-corruption, land, tribal or any other movements. All the movements whether registered or not, are under the jurisdiction of Lokpal.

There are 4.3 lakh registered NGOs. But there would be several million unregistered groups across the country. Lokpal would have jurisdiction over all of them. No one can dispute the fact that corruption in NGOs needs to be addressed. But how can you leave most public servants out of Lokpals purview but bring NGOs upto village level within its purview?

 Issue Our view Governments view Comments
Prime Minister Lokpal should have power to investigate allegations of corruption against PM. Special safeguards provided against frivolous and mischievous complaints PM kept out of Lokpals purview. As of today, corruption by PM can be investigated under Prevention of Corruption Act. Government wants investigations to be done by CBI, which comes directly under him, rather than independent Lokpal
Judiciary Lokpal should have powers to investigate allegation of corruption against judiciary. Special safeguards provided against frivolous and mischievous complaints Judiciary kept out of Lokpal purview. Government wants this to be included in Judicial Accountability Bill (JAB). Under JAB, permission to enquire against a judge will be given by a three member committee (two judges from the same court and retd Chief justice of the same court). There are many such flaws in JAB. We have no objections to judiciary being included in JAB if a strong and effective JAB were considered and it were enacted simultaneously.
MPs Lokpal should be able to investigate allegations that any MP had taken bribe to vote or speak in Parliament. Government has excluded this from Lokpals purview. Taking bribe to vote or speak in Parliament strikes at the foundations of our democracy. Governments refusal to bring it under Lokpal scrutiny virtually gives a license to MPs to take bribes with impunity.
Grievance redressal Violation of citizens charter (if an officer does not do a citizens work in prescribed time) by an officer should be penalized and should be deemed to be corruption. No penalties proposed. So, this will remain only on paper. Government had agreed to our demand in the Joint committee meeting on 23rd May. It is unfortunate they have gone back on this decision.
CBI Anti-corruption branch of CBI should be merged into Lokpal. Government wants to retain its hold over CBI. CBI is misused by governments. Recently, govt has taken CBI out of RTI, thus further increasing the scope for corruption in CBI. CBI will remain corrupt till it remains under governments control
Selection of Lokpal members 1. Broad based selection committee with 2 politicians, four judges and two independent constitutional authorities. 2. An independent search committee consisting of retd constitutional authorities to prepare first list. 3. A detailed transparent and participatory selection process. 1. With five out of ten members from ruling establishment and six politicians in selection committee, government has ensured that only weak, dishonest and pliable people would be selected.
2. Search committee to be selected by selection committee, thus making them a pawn of selection committee
3. No selection process provided. It will completely depend on selection committee
Governments proposal ensures that the government will be able to appoint its own people as Lokpal members and Chairperson. Interestingly, they had agreed to the selection committee proposed by us in the meeting held on 7th May. There was also a broad consensus on selection process. However, there was a disagreement on composition of search committee. We are surprised that they have gone back on the decision.
Who will Lokpal be accountable to? To the people. A citizen can make a complaint to Supreme Court and seek removal. To the Government. Only government can seek removal of Lokpal With selection and removal of Lokpal in governments control, it would virtually be a puppet in governments hands, against whose seniormost functionaries it is supposed to investigate, thus causing serious conflict of interest.
Integrity of Lokpal staff Complaint against Lokpal staff will be heard by an independent authority Lokpal itself will investigate complaints against its own staff, thus creating serious conflicts of interest Governments proposal creates a Lokpal, which is accountable either to itself or to the government. We have suggested giving these controls in the hands of the citizens.
Method of enquiry Method would be the same as provided in CrPC like in any other criminal case. After preliminary enquiry, an FIR will be registered. After investigations, case will be presented before a court, where the trial will take place CrPC being amended. Special protection being provided 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 regd 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 in the court. During investigations, if investigations are to be started against any new persons, they would also be presented with all evidence against them and heard. Investigation process provided by the government would severely compromise all investigations. If evidence were made available to the accused at various stages of investigations, in addition to compromising the investigations, it would also reveal the identity of whistleblowers thus compromising their security. Such a process is unheard of in criminal jurisprudence anywhere in the world. Such process would kill almost every case.
Lower bureaucracy All those defined as public servants in Prevention of Corruption Act would be covered. This includes lower bureaucracy. Only Group A officers will be covered. One fails to understand governments stiff resistance against bringing lower bureaucracy under Lokpals ambit. This appears to be an excuse to retain control over CBI because if all public servants are brought under Lokpals jurisdiction, government would have no excuse to keep CBI.
Lokayukta The same bill should provide for Lokpal at centre and Lokayuktas in states Only Lokpal at the centre would be created through this Bill. According to Mr Pranab Mukherjee, some of the CMs have objected to providing Lokayuktas through the same Bill. He was reminded that state Information Commissions were also set up under RTI Act through one Act only.
Whistleblower protection Lokpal will be required to provide protection to whistleblowers, witnesses and victims of corruption No mention in this law. According to govt, protection for whistleblowers is being provided through a separate law. But that law is so bad that it has been badly trashed by standing committee of Parliament last month. The committee was headed by Ms Jayanthi Natrajan. In the Jt committee meeting held on 23rd May, it was agreed that Lokpal would be given the duty of providing protection to whistleblowers under the other law and that law would also be discussed and improved in joint committee only. However, it did not happen.
Special benches in HC High Courts will set up special benches to hear appeals in corruption cases to fast track them No such provision. One study shows that it takes 25 years at appellate stage in corruption cases. This ought to be addressed.
CrPC On the basis of past experience on why anti-corruption cases take a long time in courts and why do our agencies lose them, some amendments to CrPC have been suggested to prevent frequent stay orders. Not included
Dismissal of corrupt government servant After completion of investigations, in addition to filing a case in a court for prosecution, a bench of Lokpal will hold open hearings and decide whether to remove the government servant from job. The minister will decide whether to remove a corrupt officer or not. Often, they are beneficiaries of corruption, especially when senior officer are involved. Experience shows that rather than removing corrupt people, ministers have rewarded them. Power of removing corrupt people from jobs should be given to independent Lokpal rather than this being decided by the minister in the same department.
Punishment for corruption 1. Maximum punishment is ten years
2. Higher punishment if rank of accused is higher
3. Higher fines if accused are business entities
4. If successfully convicted, a business entity should be blacklisted from future contracts.
None of these accepted. Only maximum punishment raised to 10 years.
Financial independence Lokpal 11 members collectively will decide how much budget do they need Finance ministry will decide the quantum of budget This seriously compromises with the financial independence of Lokpal
Prevent further loss Lokpal will have a duty to take steps to prevent corruption in any ongoing activity, if brought to his notice. If need be, Lokpal will obtain orders from High Court. No such duties and powers of Lokpal 2G is believed to have come to knowledge while the process was going on. Shouldnt some agency have a duty to take steps to stop further corruption rather than just punish people later?
Tap phones Lokpal bench will grant permission to do so Home Secretary would grant permission. Home Secretary is under the control of precisely those who would be under scanner. It would kill investigations.
Delegation of powers Lokpal members will only hear cases against senior officers and politicians or cases involving huge amounts. Rest of the work will be done by officers working under Lokpal All work will be done by 11 members of Lokpal. Practically no delegation. This is a sure way to kill Lokpal. The members will not be able to handle all cases. Within no time, they would be overwhelmed.
NGOs Only government funded NGOs covered All NGOs, big or small, are covered. A method to arm twist NGOs
False, Frivolous and vexatious complaints No imprisonment. Only fines on complainants. Lokpal would decide whether a complaint is frivolous or vexatious or false. Two to five years of imprisonment and fine. The accused can file complaint against complainant in a court. Interestingly, prosecutor and all expenses of this case will be provided by the government to the accused. The complainant will also have to pay a compensation to the accused. This will give a handle to every accused to browbeat complainants. Often corrupt people are rich. They will file cases against complainants and no one will dare file any complaint. Interestingly, minimum punishment for corruption is six months but for filing false complaint is two years.

India ratify UN Conventions against Transnational Organised Crime and Corruption

India has ratified the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and its three protocols and the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime is the main international instrument in the fight against transnational organized crime. It recognizes the need to foster and enhance close international cooperation in order to tackle those problems. The convention is further supplemented by three Protocols, which target specific areas and manifestations of organized crime namely Protocols to combat (1) trafficking in persons (2) migrant smuggling and (3) illicit trafficking in firearms.

The United Nations Convention against Corruption complements the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime. The Convention introduces a comprehensive set of standards, measures and rules that all countries can apply in order to strengthen their legal and regulatory regimes to fight corruption.

The Convention enumerates in detail the measures to prevent corruption, including the application of prevention policies and practices, the establishment of bodies for that purpose, the application of codes of conduct for public servants, and public procurement. It recommends promoting transparency and accountability in the management of public finances and in the private sector, with tougher accounting and auditing standards. Measures to prevent money-laundering are also provided for, together with measures to secure the independence of the judiciary, public reporting and participation of society are encouraged as preventive measures. The Convention recommends the State Parties to adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish a whole series of criminal offences. These are:

• Corruption of national or foreign public officials and officials of public international organizations;

• embezzlement, misappropriation or other diversion by a public official of any public or private property;

• trading in influence;

• abuse of functions and illicit enrichment.

In the private sector, the Convention calls for the creation of offences of embezzlement and corruption. There are other offences relating to laundering the proceeds of crime, handling stolen property, obstructing the administration of justice, and participating in and attempting embezzlement or corruption.