Legal Stress

Bill emphasizes and expects the Lokpal chairman and members with ample legal background. Also each bench formed within Lokpal is mandated to have member with a legal background. This is unnecessary and could cut off nice people with good intentions.

Selection Issues

Method of selection defined is bit messy. In short, Selection Committee creates half of something called Search Committee. Search Committee creates rest of itself by itself. Search Committee gives 10x3=30 nos of shortlisted nominees to Selection Committee. Then Selection Committee selects 10 out of them and constitutes Lokpal. [Ch-II]

This is a very important step. But the bill defines the process using subjective words with lot of holes. For example, “moral turpitude”, “eminent individuals or such class of people”, “impeccable reputation of integrity” are the words that would create holes. Also there is a lower age limit of 45 set for Lokpal members, which is unnecessary and unjustifiable.

There are no details about the time period of Selection Committee or Search Committee(5 years, 10 years?), time limits for their creation, how often they convene, what if some one of them is convicted after their participation in selection process, how many times one can participate in such selection/search process(2 or 3 times or no limits). 

Also there are no details about selection procedures, how nominees will be ranked, how any conflict in Selection Committee will be addressed, whether any one holds accountability in Selection Committee in case some bad fruits leaks in. Every one in Search/Selection Committee should make their thought process in such selections,  public. Rather than just seeing the recorded activities of these committees, public should know full details of what went inside of every ones head. This bill misses such a level of accountability from the constituting committees.

Missing Items

Instead of being a flat 10 member panel, there is no reason why a chairman or chairperson is needed for Lokpal. Also, there is no clear description of what kind of powers such a chairman will have over the rest of the member and why it is needed.

In the bill, the term “as per regulations” is used in many places, but no such regulations are mentioned anywhere. The bill may be bit premature and it is important to discuss and gather public opinion on the so called “regulations”.

The bill makes use of help from Civil Societies, but nowhere it defines the same. Beware all Civil Society member may not be as good as you, in the intentions.

Inappropriate Powers

Corruption defined by this bill includes possible offense committed by MPs in respect of his speech inside the parliamentary house. This is outright wrong and it limits the freedom of expression. [Ch-I, Sec 2e]

The bill widely states that all other laws that come in conflict with this bill, will get automatically amended to the extent of this bill. This needs careful analysis and some amount of time needs to be invested to investigate all conflicts. [Ch-I, Sec 3]

Bill says Lokpal can take Suo Moto action against any one on receiving corruption related news from any source. First this is inappropriate. If people has a pain, they will complain for sure. Suo Moto + powers as mentioned in this bill can be lethal considering the current state of press and how it is politically associated. [Ch-III, Sec 6q]

Bill grants Lokpal to require any specific help from any public authority. This is too much of power and too board statement. Lokpal can require Intelligence Bureau to act in a way that conflicts with direct orders from home ministry which can be a catastrophe.[Ch-III, Sec 6v]

Once Lokpal takes up a corruption case, this bill grants power, such that Lokpal can investigate any offense under any other law related to that particular case. There, again possibilities of complications. Lokpal has to run the corruption case, if needed getting priority to proofs and documents, leaving the rest to the rest. [Ch-III, Sec 7(7)][Ch-XVII, Sec 29(9)]

Bill grants Lokpal permission to tape any form of communication. Bill states this is for the purpose of investigation. There are lot of questions here. Suppose if some conviction happens, will Lokpal release tapes in their entirety, as part of making full records of case public in website? This infringes upon the Constitution and whether Lokpal can handle it legally? What is the guarantee that Lokpal will not be biased and release only part of the tapes?[Ch-III, Sec 8]

Bill states that if a company or business is convicted, the loss is recovered from company’s assets and if it is not enough, the Lokpal will go after the personal assets of MD. This is not appropriate. [Ch-XII, Sec 23(3)]

Bill states that if any officer of a company or business is convicted, that company and any number of business promoted by the same parent promoters are all banned from taking any Government contracts. This is not appropriate as well. [Ch-XII, Sec 23(4)]

The bill gives Lokpal, the powers to direct any public office on the kind of service they should provide(in the name of citizen’s charter). The bill says the Lokpal officer will consult with public and the corresponding office before giving direction. All is well under the assumption, such public consultation are really effective. And this is, of course, parallel government. [Ch-XIII Sec 25(13)]

Bill requires every public servant to declare his assent and his spouse and children’s assets. This would infringe on the privacy of the non-dependent relations who has their own source of incomes. [Ch-XVI Sec 28(1)]

Budget Constraints

The bill asks for some allowances and pensions. Even though this is fine, a check should be there otherwise this goes in the same way as MP salaries/pensions/benefits.

The upper limit for Lokpal is 1/4% of total revenue of the Government, which is quite high. Also the Lokpal can incur the charges and don’t need any permissions from anyone. [Ch-XIV Sec 3]

Confusions

Bill asks for a secretary who will have same ranks as the Secretary of Government of India. But there are no details on what are the powers and limits of this position. [Ch-II, Sec 5]

Bill says the accused will get reasonable opportunities of being heard. This is very subjective and more detailed explanation is needed on how the accused gets his right to defend.[Ch-III, Sec 6c]

Lokpal is endowed with creation of sentencing policy within the framework of the Prevention Of The Corruption Act. But there are no details on whether it is a recommendation or binding direction.[Ch-III, Sec 6s]

Bill says orders of Lokpal can be challenged/stayed in court but, the courts has to give a decision within 2 months. This may not be possible always. [Ch-V, Sec 11(5)]

Parliament can give an appraisal on the working of Lokpal, but Lokpal decides whether or not to comply. How Lokpal bill will be amended is not clear? What if the Lokpal is diluted or amended to take political revenge in future? [Ch-V, Sec 13(2)]

Hypocrisies

Any Lokpal office should register complaint against anyone in Lokpal hierarchy not just Lokpal officers and staff. When the Anna team asks to include PM and CJI under Lokpal, then why not themselves?? [Ch-III, Sec 6j]

Once Lokpal is started it cannot be stopped or invalidated even if there are serious conflicts in the bill, or any defect in the appointment of its members. We blame others and we don’t take any?? [Ch-IV, Sec 10(2)]

In exceptional circumstances, the Lokpal proceeding will not be made public. But who judges which one is such an exceptional circumstance, using which yardstick?? We can argue that government does the same as of now, but literally for all of the cases except the ones the court interferes. Is it painful to be open 100%?? [Ch-IV, Sec 10(6)]

Why the Lokpal members can be removed only by president, that too with the recommendation of Supreme Court? That means a common man, if he knows that a Lokpal member is guilty, he has to put a case in Supreme Court and get a conviction and send it for President authorization. This is now same with others. This indirectly says, that just powers move out of one sect to another. On any accusation, the Lokpal member has to suspend himself, prove his innocence and then take up the job again. Or the members should vote and impeach themselves. Is this tough for such a people of eminent class with impeccable integrity?? [Ch-V, Sec 11(1)]

To complain against any Lokpal staff, common man has to travel to only one Complaints Authority office per state and makes his case. In case, a conviction is made Complaints Authority can at max dismiss/remove the Lokpal staff. Eat your own dog food. If Lokpal is so effective and open why do we need a separate Complaints Authority?? Also any convicted Lokpal staff should be treated on par with a convicted Government Officer, i.e. recover financial losses and send the Lokpal staff for life time imprisonment. [Ch-VI Sec 15(4)]

Grievance Redressal System

[Ch-XIII All Sections] The entire section is in appropriate and should not be brought into the Lokpal bill. Grievance and addressing it is no way related to corruption. Such a feedback system is needed not only for Government institutions, but also for all systems that involves consumer.

In spite of that, the solution proposed by this bill, is not appropriate as well. In short, each office will have Grievance Redressal Officer. Any common man can complain to him and he is obliged to solve the grievance within 30 days, else the common man will be compensated from the Officer’s salary. Even with all the eminent personalities, such a system cannot be implemented even in Lokpal. For example, a Grievance Redressal Officer may not be able to fulfill this requirement due to factors external to his control, may be due to budget restriction or a union strike etc. He should not be punished as he cannot be held responsible for such things. 

It is kind of a consumer forum and more extensive thought process is needed on how to address it.