For some, the new lokpal Act is the answer to all of India’s corruption woes. For others, it is political moonshine. The reality lies somewhere in between, as the success of the new law will ultimately depend on its implementation, writes BHAVYA NAIN
The lokpal and lokayuktas Act, 2013, came into force on January 1. This Central legislation may be said to be outcome of public uproar, public agitation and activism, rather than deep political will.
The 2012 agitation in Delhi particularly, for the passing of the Bill may be even said to be unprecedented. Recently, it has been seen that every player in the public arena, be they political parties, or self-styled activists are claiming credit for passing the lokpal Bill
On the one hand, the lokpal Act has been hyped by some as a panacea for the perennial and effectively all-pervading corruption in this country. On the other hand, it has been trashed by critics as all moonshine.
But, we must not draw any conclusions in this regard without careful examination of the legislation as well as the external social environment and the political milieu in which it has to operate. Any criticism of the lokpal Act must be grounded in facts and in the law.
Some say that the lokpal Act is a laudatory effort because of its following features: The lokpal is to be appointed by a selection panel of high public functionaries. The Act even mandates the States have their own statutorily backed lokayuta(s) within a period of one year.
The lokpal will have its own prosecution and inquiry wings. The lokpal will have jurisdiction over Group A, B, C and D Union Government officers and employees. The lokpal will even have jurisdiction over even the Prime Minister, subject to some exceptions. The Act provides for time-bound investigations.
But, the Act also has deep foundational drawbacks, such as: There is penalty in the form of hefty fines and even jail terms for those who lodge complaints that are found to be false. This clause will in all probability prevent even genuinely aggrieved people from approaching the lokpal.
The majority of the people on the selection or appointment panel belong to the political elite. The law is being brought against the political class also; so, if the political class is given the opportunity to elect a judge against itself, it may appoint a namesake lokpal.
The mechanism provided for the removal of the lokpal is also one that is highly cumbersome. Many say that this may reduce the accountability of the person(s) appointed as the lokpal.
Additionally, there is also no express mechanism for regular accountability of the lokpal. It is feared by many that the lokpal may become lax, negligent, and even indifferent to the people’s needs and complaints because the ombudsman is presently not accountable to them.
There is no provision for the Citizens’ Charter and for the protection of whistle-blowers. These issues need to be addressed for better implementation of the lokpal law.
The lokpal law does not deal with the issue of the corruption in the private sector. Corruption is an all-pervasive problem in India. It maybe argued that corruption is more prevalent in the public sector, but completely excluding the private sector from the jurisdiction of the lokpal is not wise because any corruption, after all, is corruption.
The lokpal law does not give any positive covenants to be followed by public servants. It only gives jurisdiction to the lokpal to deal with complaints against them.
This is not enough. The law should have articulated a model code of conduct for public servants.
In conclusion, though the passing of the lokpal Act may be a laudable effort, it may not be a panacea for the problem of corruption in India. Even Anna Hazare, a major lokpal activist, had opined that corruption cannot be completely eliminated by the lokpal law.
The reasons for this are two-fold: No law by itself can remove this underlying and deep-rooted malaise. There is need for its effective implementation and execution as well. For this, there has to be societal and political will.
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, was passed but did it stamp out the tradition of giving and taking dowryIJ
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and the Prevention of Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was also passed but have these pieces of legislation managed to completely stop circulation of spurious drugsIJ The answer here is a resounding no.
Corruption is also a social, moral and ethical problem. Many people don’t mind giving bribes. Thus, corruption continues to breed and spread across society.
There is need for increasing awareness in the people to have a zero-tolerance approach towards corruption.
(The writer is a lawyer and a research associate with various organisations)