Existing investigative agencies such as the CBI and CVC in India are ineffective because in many cases they are subservient to the very same people whom they are expected to investigate. That is why they have been so susceptible to political manipulation and so few cases of scams involving the powerful have ever been punished. The instance of appointment of CVC PJ Thomas showed how the selection process allows the Government to ensure that pliant officials are appointed. The Government’s draft Lokpal Bill will change none of this. The Lokpal members will be selected by a committee in which the majority of representatives are from the Government.

Restricted Scope of Lokpal

If the Government had its way, most of today’s major scams would fall through the gaping holes in the Lokpal’s net. Take the 2G scam: the Lokpal could not investigate it because it would not cover the Prime Minister.

Since the Lokpal cannot investigate the conduct of MPs inside Parliament, it would be unable to investigate cases such as oil pricing, vote on the Nuke Deal, or cash-for-questions scam, whereby the behaviour and positions taken by of MPs inside Parliament is suspected to be influenced by bribes or corporate interests.

The Lokpal could not investigate the Bellary mining, CWG, Adarsh, UP’s CMO or Bihar’s BIADA scams because it would not have power to investigate state government officials, and it has no provision of appointment of Lokayuktas.

It could not even investigate the scams faced by the rural poor in PDS and NREGA because it would have no jurisdiction over lower bureaucracy. It could not investigate the judges PF scam or any of the other scams involving judiciary.

What would be the point of such a Lokpal, which would not be able to investigate or ensure punishment in any of the huge scams which have angered people in recent times or in their daily lives?

PM, Judges Out of Lokpal’s Scope

The Lokpal Bill excludes the PM from the scope of investigation until he demits office. As of now, the PM is not immune from investigation by CBI. In the JMM ‘suitcase’ scam in Narasimha Rao’s tenure, the CBI has investigated the PM, so the sarkari Bill is actually retrograde even in comparison with the existing system.

The Government’s argument against giving the Lokpal powers to investigate judiciary is that it would affect the independence of the judiciary. It says judicial corruption would be covered by the Judicial Accountability Bill – but the Government’s draft of the JAB stipulates that permission for investigation would have to be sought by a panel comprising two justices of the same court and a retired Chief Justice, also of the same court. This is unacceptable because these judges of the same court are likely to be cronies of the accused judge.

Harassment of Anti-Corruption Activists

The sarkari Bill provides for extraordinary protection for the accused – while it not only fails to protect the whistleblower, it provides ample scope for anti-corruption activists to be harassed.

Right at the outset of the investigation, the accused would be provided with all the evidence against them, and would be asked why an FIR should not be registered against them! This means that the accused would be able to destroy evidence, identify and threaten or even eliminate witnesses or whistleblowers and sabotage the investigation. Further it provides for imprisonment and fines in cases of ‘false complaints.’ The accused can file a complaint against the complainant, and the Government would fund the case!

Janlokpal Bill

The Janlokpal Bill is certainly more comprehensive and serious than the sarkari Bill. Its selection process is more independent of the Government and more transparent and open to public intervention. It also provides for more empowered Lokpal and Lokayuktas. The charge that the JLP would be a ‘Frankenstein’ with draconian powers seems unwarranted. After all the same powers to investigate and prosecute are now enjoyed by existing investigative agencies – the only change is that the JLP would be independent of rather than subservient to government.

The JLP Bill provides for the anti-corruption wing of the CBI to be brought under the control of the JLP, so that it would have the requisite investigative machinery to perform. It also similarly empowers the Lokayuktas in the various states.

The big gap in the JLP is that is has no provisions to deal with corporate corruption or corruption in the army. In most of the big scams like 2G, mining scams etc, it is the corporates who benefited most. Similarly, in the Bofors scam and other defence deal scams, Tehelka scam, coffin scam or Adarsh scam, top army officers were also involved. What would be the mechanism to ensure that they are investigated and prosecuted impartially? The anti-corruption movement must demand mechanisms to investigate corporate and army corruption.

The JLP provides only for government-funded NGOs to be investigated by the Lokpal, while the sarkari draft provides for all NGOs, big and small to be included. It would be just for all big NGOs to be included irrespective of the source of their funding.

The sarkari draft Lokpal Bill must be scrapped. A strong and effective Bill on the lines of the JLP must be introduced in Parliament.