Lok pal bill - An Analysis

India is a country where honesty and integrity in public and private life have been glorified and upheld in great epics such as the Vedas, Upanishads and in the books and practices of every religion practiced here.

Yet, India today is one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

Bringing public servants under a scanner which makes them strictly accountable is the start of a movement against corruption in India. And one significant step in attacking the spectre of corruption in India will be the implementation of the lok pal bill.

The Indian Lokpal is synonymous to the institution of Ombudsman existing in the Scandinavian countries. The office of the ombudsman originated in Sweden in 1809 A.D., and adopted eventually by many nations 'as a bulwark of democratic government against the tyranny of officialdom'. Ombudsman is a Swedish word that stands for "an officer appointed by the legislature to handle complaints against administrative and judicial action. Traditionally the ombudsman is appointed based on unanimity among all political parties supporting the proposal. The incumbent, though appointed by the legislature, is an independent functionary - independent of all the three organs of the state, but reports to the legislature. The Ombudsman can act both on the basis of complaints made by citizens, or suo moto. She/he can look into allegations of corruption as well as mal-administration.[1]

The functionary is called by different names in different countries; its power and functions also vary. In the Scandinavian countries[2] (Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway) he is called the 'Ombudsman'. He can take cognizance of the citizens' grievance by either directly receiving complaints from the public or suo moto on the basis of information provided by the interested persons, or from newspapers, etc. However, in the U.K. the functionary - known as the Parliamentary Commissioner - can receive complains only through members of parliament.

The ombudsmen can investigate a complaint by themselves or through any public or private agency. After investigation, in Sweden and Finland, the Ombudsman has the power to prosecute erring public servants; whereas in Denmark, he can only order prosecution. However, the power of prosecution is very rarely used. The strength of the ombudsman lies in the publicity attached to the office, and the negative view that attaches itself to all that the office scrutinises. In Sweden and Finland, ombudsmen can also supervise the courts. In other countries, their authority is only over the non-judicial public servants. In almost all the cases they deal with complaints relating to both corruption and mal-administration.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The misdeeds committed during the Emergency remind us of the necessity of including the PM within the purview of the Lokpal.

The basic idea of the Lok Pal is borrowed from the office of ombudsman, which has played an effective role in checking corruption and wrong-doing in Scandinavian and other nations.[3]

In early 1960s, mounting corruption in public administration set the winds blowing in favour of an Ombudsman in India too.

The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) set up in 1966 recommended the constitution of a two-tier machinery - of a Lokpal at the Centre, and Lokayukt(a)s in the states.[4] The ARC while recommending the constitution of Lokpal was convinced that such an institution was justified not only for removing the sense of injustice from the minds of adversely affected citizens but also necessary to instill public confidence in the efficiency of administrative machinery. Following this, the Lokpal Bill was for the first time presented during the fourth Lok Sabha in 1968, and was passed there in 1969.

However, while it was pending in the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha was dissolved, resulting the first death of the bill. The bill was revived in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and most recently in 2008.

 Each time, after the bill was introduced to the house, it was referred to some committee for improvements - a joint committee of parliament, or a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry - and before the government could take a final stand on the issue the house was dissolved.

There are as many as 17 states where the institution of Lokayukta has been constituted, beginning with Orissa in 1971. However the power, function and jurisdiction of Lokayuktas are not uniform in the country.

In some states it has been applicable to all the elected representatives including the CM. In some other states legislators have been deliberately kept out of his purview. Often, lacunae have been left in legislation creating the office, apparently to keep the elected representatives outside meaningful jurisdiction of the Lokayukta, even when the laws appear to include them. Lokayuktas have not been provided with their independent investigative machinery making them dependent on the government agencies, which leaves enough scope for the politicians and the bureaucrats to tinker with the processes of investigation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Very recently a highly discouraging phenomenon has come to light, that is, the prevalence of corruption in the subordinate courts and even in High Courts. Probably due to this, the present government has planned to bring the Judiciary within the purview of Lok pal; this is one reason why the Bill has been referred to the Group of Ministers.However given the history of Lok pal bill, there is a constant risk that the bill will simply lapse because no conclusion is reached within the life of this Lok Sabha!

The political fraternity is understandably opposed to a Lok pal, since the purported target of the Lokpal is mainly the politicians themselves. The publicly stated reason for the current delay is that some important issues are as yet unresolved.[6]

 

In the regular dispensation of government there are implicit and explicit ways that citizens can voice their grievances and demand change. But these are often difficult. Within administrative departments, for example, any decision of one official can be appealed to a higher official, all the way up to the head of a department. However, this mechanism has inherent flaws. Higher officers enjoy departmental fraternity with those against whom complaints are made, and both sail the same boat. Therefore their impartiality in judging appeals is always doubted. On the legislative side, an individual can approach the member representing his constituency for his demands. But given the absence of easy access of an ordinary citizen to his representative, this has more remained a myth more than reality. Among the organs of state, the Judiciary has proved itself to have highest credibility in protecting individual rights. However, due to procedural complexities involved in court cases - right from filing a case to the delivery of final verdict - there are inevitable delays of justice, which often are also denial of justice.

The existing devices for checks on elected and administrative officials have not been effective, as the growing instances of corruption cases suggest. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is designed to inquire into allegations of corruption by administrative officials only. The CBI, the premier investigating agency of the country, functions under the supervision of the Ministry of Personnel, Public grievances and Pensions (under the Prime Minister) and is therefore not immune from political pressures during investigation. Indeed, the lack of independence and professionalism of CBI has been castigated by the Supreme Court often in recent times. All these have necessitated the creation of Lokpal with its own investigating team in earliest possible occasion.

Therefore, there is a need for a mechanism that would adopt very simple, independent, speedy and cheaper means of delivering justice by redressing the grievances of the people. Examples from various countries suggest that the institution of ombudsman has very successfully fought against corruption and unscrupulous administrative decisions by public servants, and acted as a real guardian of democracy and civil rights.

 

 

 

 

 

---