Difference between Jan Lokpal bill and Government's Lokpal Bill?

What is the difference between Jan Lokpal bill and Government's Lokpal Bill?

There are many differences between Jan Lokpal bill and Sarkari Lokpal bill. Some of them are as under:-


Government's Lokpal Bill provides illegitimate protection to the corrupt officials.

According to it, If a citizen complains against a government officer's corruption to Lokpal then:-

• Government officer can file a Cross Complaint directly to the Special court without Preliminary enquiry that whether complain was frivolous.

• A free advocate will be given to government officer while Citizen has to defend himself.

• If complains proved frivolous then Citizen gets minimum 2 years jail.

• If corruption of government officer proved then He gets minimum 6 months jail.

Government's Lokpal Bill pro-accused investigation process?

• After preliminary enquiry, accused given a hearing before filing an FIR to explain why an FIR should not be registered against him. 

• After completion of investigation, presented evidence & again given a hearing to explain why a case should not be filed in the Court.

During investigation, If investigation are to be started against any new persons, They too would be presented with evidence against them and given hearing. 

Critical Issues : Prime Minster

In Jan Lokpal bill, Lokpal should have power to investigate allegation of corruption against PM. Government wants investigations to be done by CBI which comes directly under him, rather than independent Lokpal. 

Critical Issues : Judiciary


In Jan Lokpal bill, Lokpal should have power to investigate allegation of corruption against Judiciary. Government wants it to be included in Judiciary Accountability Bill (JAB). In JAB permission to enquire against a judge will be given by a three member committee, Two judges and a retd chief justice of SAME Court. 

• Judiciary Accountability Bill (JAB), drafted by government , does not talk of bribery by the judges. It only talks of "misbehavior".

• National Oversight Committee sought to be created through JAB will not have the police and investigate powers and machinery to deal with the criminal complaints of bribery, which Lokpal would have. Therefore two bills actually complement to each other. 

• Even if Judicial corruption were included in JAB, it is not clear when would an effective JAB become a reality? 

Critical Issues : MPs


In Jan Lokpal bill, Lokpal should be able to investigate allegations that any MP had taken bribe to vote or speak in Parliament. Government has excluded this from Lokpal's purview.



Critical Issues : Grievance Redressal


In Jan Lokpal bill, Violation of CITIZEN'S Charter(if any officer does not do a common man's work in prescribed time) by an officer should be penalized and should be deemed to be corruption. In government's Lokpal bill there is no penalties proposed. 




Critical Issues : CBI


In Jan Lokpal bill, Anti-corruption branch of CBI should be merged into Lokpal. Government wants to retain its hold over CBI.


Critical Issues: Accountability(Lokpal Members)


In Jan Lokpal bill, Accountable to people, Any citizen can make complaint to Supreme Court and seek removal. Judicial review over the actions of the Lokpal by the High Courts and Supreme Court. While in Government's Lokpal, It is accountable to Government. Only government can seek removal of Lokpal.



Critical Issues: Accountability(Lokpal Staff)


In Jan Lokpal bill, Complaint against Lokpal staff will be heard by an independent authority. While in Government's Lokpal, Lokpal itself will investigate against its own staff, thus creating serious conflicts of interest.



Critical Issues: Method of Enquiry


In Jan Lokpal bill, Method would be same as provided in CrPC like in any other criminal case. After preliminary enquiry , An FIR will be registered. After investigation, case will be presented before court, where the trial will take place. While in Government's Lokpal, After preliminary enquiry, all evidences provided to accused and hearing for why an FIR should not be registered against him. 

After completion of investigation, again all evidences provided and hearing for why a case should not be filed in the Court against him.
During investigation, If investigation are to be started against any new persons, They would be also presented with all evidence against them and heard.



Critical Issues: Lokayakta


In Jan Lokpal bill, the same bill should be provided for Lokpal for center and Lokayakta in the State. While in Government's Lokpal, only Lokpal at the center would be created through this bill. 



Critical Issues: Whistleblower Protection


In Jan Lokpal bill, Lokpal will be required to provide protection to Whistleblower, witnesses and victims of corruption. While in Government's Lokpal, Nothing mention in this law.



Critical Issues: Special benches in HC


In Jan Lokpal bill, High Court will set up special benches to hear appeals in corruption cases to fast track them. While in Government's Lokpal, No such provision in it.



Critical Issues: Dismissal of corrupt government servant


In Jan Lokpal bill, After completion of investigations, in addition to filing a case in a court for prosecution, bench of Lokpal will hold open hearings and decide weather to remove the government servant form job. While in Government's Lokpal, the minister will decide to remove a corrupt officer or not.


Critical Issues: Punishment


In Jan Lokpal bill, Maximum punishment is ten years, Higher punishment if rank of accused is higher, Higher fines if accused is business entities, If successfully convicted, a business entities should be blacklisted from future contracts. While in Government's Lokpal, Non of these is accepted. Only maximum punishment raised to ten years. 


Critical Issues: Financial Independence 


In Jan Lokpal bill, Lokpal 11 members collectively will decide how much budget do they need. While in Government's Lokpal, Finance Minister will decide the quantum of budget. 



Critical Issues: Tap Phones


In Jan Lokpal bill, Lokpal bench will grant permission to do so. While in Government's Lokpal, Home Secretary would grant permission.





Critical Issues: Delegation of Powers


In Jan Lokpal bill, Lokpal members 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. While in Government's Lokpal, All work will be done by 11 members of Lokpal. Practically no delegation. 




Critical Issues: NGOs


In Jan Lokpal bill, only government funded NGOs are covered. While in Government's Lokpal, All NGOs , big or small, even unregistered are covered.



Critical Issues: False, Frivolous & Vexatious Complaints


In Jan Lokpal bill, No imprisonment, Only fines on complaints. Lokpal will decide whether a complaint is frivolous or vexatious or false. While in Government's Lokpal, 2-5 years imprisonment and fine, The accused can file complaint against complainant in a Court.






Reference From: IAC Site

Deficiencies in the present anti-corruption systems at State level.

Deficiencies in the present anti-corruption systems at State level.

All vigilance agencies (like state vigilance department, departmental vigilance wings) and anti-corruption agencies (like anti-corruption branch of state police, CID etc) are directly under the control of state government and therefore, ineffective in fairly investigating corruption cases against their political bosses. In addition, some states have the institution of Lokayuktas.

Lokayuktas:

•       Lokayuktas cannot initiate investigations on their own. They have to seek permission of state government to investigate cases involving officials above certain levels.

•          In some states, vigilance department has been given powers over bureaucrats and Lokayuktas have been given powers only over politicians. Such division of jurisdiction hampers investigations. So, in a case involving both politician and bureaucrats (which is the case most of the times), both Lokayukta and the vigilance department feel handicapped.

•    Lokayuktas merely have advisory roles. They do not have the powers to directly initiate prosecution. They make recommendations to the government, which may or may not agree with those recommendations.

•   They also do not have adequate resources to investigate the large number of complaints that they receive.

• Lokayukta is appointed by the state government in an intransparent and arbitrary manner. In some states, their independence has been questioned. 

Deficiencies in the present anti-corruption systems at Central Government level.

Deficiencies in the present anti-corruption systems at Central Government level.

At central Government level, we have Central Vigilance Commission, Departmental vigilance and CBI. CVC and Departmental vigilance deal with vigilance (disciplinary proceedings) aspect of a corruption case and CBI deals with criminal aspect of that case.

Central Vigilance Commission: 

CVC is the apex body for all vigilance cases in Government of India.

•          However, it does not have adequate resources to deal with the large number of complaints that it receives. CVC is a very small set up with a staff strength less than 200. It is supposed to check corruption in more than 1500 central government departments and ministries, some of them being as big as Central Excise, Railways, Income Tax etc. Therefore, it merely acts as a post office and forwards most of the complaints to the vigilance wings of respective departments. It directly enquires into very few complaints of its own. For instance, during 2009-10, it directly enquired into just 11 out of more than 1800 cases that it received. Rest all cases were merely forwarded.

•          CVC is merely an advisory body. The departmental vigilance wing of any Central Government Department first conducts an enquiry into any case and then seeks CVC’s advice on what punishment should be given in that case. However, the head of that Department is free to accept or reject CVC’s advice. Even in those cases, which are directly enquired into by the CVC, it can only advise government. Experience shows that whenever senior officers are involved in corruption, CVC’s advice is rarely accepted.

•          CVC has jurisdiction only on bureaucrats. It does not have powers over politicians. If there is an involvement of a politician in any case, then CVC can enquire only into the role of bureaucrats in that case.

•          It does not have any direct powers over departmental vigilance wings, to which it forwards all complaints. Often it is seen that CVC forwards a complaint to a department and then keeps sending reminders to them to enquire and send report. Many a times, the departments just do not comply. CVC does not have any powers over them to seek compliance of its orders.

•          CVC does not have administrative control over officials in vigilance wings of various central government departments to which it forwards corruption complaints. Though the government does consult CVC before appointing the Chief Vigilance Officers of various departments, however, the final decision lies with the government. Also, the officials below CVO are appointed/transferred by the Head of the same department only.

•          Appointments to CVC are directly under the control of ruling political party. The appointments are arbitrary and intransparent.

•         CVC Act gives supervisory powers to CVC over CBI. However, these supervisory powers have remained ineffective. CVC does not have the power to call for any file from CBI or to direct them to do any case in a particular manner. Besides, CBI is under administrative control of DOPT rather than CVC.

•          Therefore, though CVC is relatively independent in its functioning, it neither has resources nor powers to enquire and take any action. CVC has been reduced to merely a show piece.

Departmental Vigilance Wings: 

Each Department has a vigilance wing, which is manned by officials from the same department (barring a few which have an outsider as Chief Vigilance Officer. However, all the officers under him belong to the same department).

•          Since the officers in the vigilance wing of a department are from the same department and they can be posted to any position in that department anytime, it is practically impossible for them to enquire against their colleagues and seniors. If a complaint is received against a senior officer, it is impossible to enquire into that complaint because an officer who is in vigilance today might get posted under that senior officer some time in future.

•          In some departments, some field officials double up as vigilance officials. It means that an existing field official is given additional duty of vigilance also. So, if some citizen complaints against that officer, the complaint is expected to be enquired into by the same officer. Even if someone complaints against that officer to the CVC or to the Head of that Department or to any other authority, the complaint is forwarded by all these agencies and it finally lands up in his own lap to enquire against himself. There are hundreds of examples of such absurdity.

•          Many of the officials posted in vigilance wing by that department have had a very corrupt past. While in vigilance, they try to scuttle all cases against themselves. They also turn vigilance wing into a hub of corruption, where cases are closed by taking money.

•          Departmental vigilance does not investigate into criminal aspect of any case. It does not have the powers to register an FIR.

•          They also do not have any powers against politicians.

•         Since the vigilance wing is directly under the control of the Head of that Department, it is practically impossible for them to enquire against senior officials of that department.

•          Therefore, most of the time, the vigilance wing of any department are seen to scuttle genuine complaints or are used to enquire against inconvenient officers.

CBI: 


CBI has powers of a police station to investigate and register FIR. It can investigate any case related to a Central Government department on its own or any case referred to it by any state government or any court.

•          CBI is overburdened and does not accept cases even where amount of defalcation is alleged to be around Rs 1 crore.

•          CBI is directly under the control of Central Government. CBI Director and all other officials in CBI are directly appointed by Central Government.

•          CBI has to seek government’s permission to start investigation into any case involving joint secretary and above. It has to seek the permission of the government to initiate prosecution in any case. Sometimes, the people who have to give permissions are either themselves accused in some corruption cases or are under some political obligation of accused people.

•          After investigation is completed in any case, when a case is filed by CBI in a court, CBI’s lawyer is selected and appointed by the Law ministry. Therefore, if any minister is involved in any case, law ministry would appoint such a person, who would try to kill the case rather than get the accused punished.

•          So, if a complaint pertains to any minister or politician which is part of ruling coalition or a bureaucrat which is close to them, it is practically impossible for CBI to do a fair investigation. In such cases, CBI’s job is to scuttle these cases.

•          Again, because CBI is directly under the control of Central Government, CBI has often been used settle scores against inconvenient politicians.

Therefore, if a citizen wants to make a complaint about corruption by a politician or an official in the Central Government, there isn’t a single anti-corruption agency which is effective and independent of the government, whose wrongdoings are sought to be investigated. CBI has powers but it is not independent. CVC is independent but it neither has powers nor resources. 

Reference From: IAC site

Is Lokpal a super cop?

Is Lokpal a super cop?

A myth is being created that the proposed Jan Lokpal will become a supercop and will become a threat to all democratic institutions. This is completely wrong. Let us see what does Jan Lokpal Bill propose to do?

1.       Against politicians (for their conduct outside parliament), judges and bureaucrats, Lokpal will only investigate complaints of corruption and file a case in court. The courts will have the power to try and award punishment. Lokpal will not have powers to award punishment.

2.       However, in case of bureaucrats, the institution of Lokpal will have powers to impose departmental penalties including dismissing them, if after investigations by the investigation wing of Lokpal, the guilt of that officer is established. For Joint Secretary and above, a bench of members of Lokpal will impose such penalty after giving an opportunity of being heard to all affected parties. However, if accused are below the rank of Joint Secretary, the same will be heard by a bench of senior officers of Lokpal. These orders of Lokpal can be appealed against in respective High Courts. This system is much better than the existing system, in which the accused and its friends are responsible for enquiring against themselves and awarding punishment to themselves. Presently, the enquiries are conducted by officers from the same department (often enquiries are conducted by junior officers against their bosses), penalties are decided by some officer in the same ministry and appeals also lie with some officer in the same ministry. Since the accused officer belongs to the same department/ministry, he is able to influence their decisions as they have been his colleagues, friends and subordinates. Many times, the disciplinary authorities are themselves accomplices in corruption.

Under existing system, the public or the complainant have no say in entire proceedings. Corrupt officers are let off after dishonest enquiries. Complainant cannot do anything. Under Jan Lokpal Bill, the complainant will be treated as a prime witness and case cannot be closed without giving an opportunity of being heard.

Therefore, the proposed system is far more fair, transparent and accountable.

3.       If any Member of Parliament or a Minister indulges in any corrupt activity inside Parliament, then a complaint could be made to the Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairperson of Rajya Sabha. They would forward the complaint to the Ethics Committee. If Ethics committee recommends, the Speaker or Chairperson would forward the complaint to the Lokpal for investigations. After investigations, Lokpal would submit its report to the Speaker or Chairperson, who would then present it in Parliament. The Parliament would decide what action should be taken on the report.

Reference From: IAC Site

What is the protection against frivolous and mischievous complaints?

Protection against frivolous and mischievous complaints

False complaints of corruption or false complaint against staff of Lokpal : 

If anyone makes a complaint which is without any basis and is meant only to harass someone, then a financial penalty could be imposed upon that complainant by Lokpal. However, merely dismissal of a case due to weak evidence would not be held against a complainant.

False complaint against member or Chairperson of Lokpal or Lokayukta: 

Supreme Court or High Court may impose fine and also sentence the complainant to jail in case of complaints which are without basis and meant only to harass the member or Chairperson.

Whistleblower Protection

Whistleblower Protection

What is the problem?

If anyone raises his voice against corruption, there is no agency that can provide effective and credible protection.  The person can only approach the police.  Police is usually subordinate to the same people who are corrupt.  For example, in the event a local MP or MLA is harassing the public, police won’t do anything. 

Proposal in Jan Lokpal Bill:

Lokpal, being an independent body, will have the responsibility and powers to provide protection from harm to the whistleblower and order investigation and prosecution in the case.  In the event the concerned officer of Lokpal fails to provide adequate protection to the whistleblower, and the person is actually harmed, the concerned officer would face a criminal charge unless he has sufficient reason to prove his innocence.

A whistleblower will have the option to seek protection from the local vigilance officer or the chairperson or the members of Lokpal, who will be required to act within stipulated times depending on the severity of the threat.  The person would have the right to seek an appointment with members of the Lokpal in person, on phone or through video conference if the whistleblower cannot practically come to the Lokpal building.

In case of mental harassment, Lokpal will provide necessary protection within a maximum period of one month from the date of launch of a complaint by the whistleblower.

In case of physical threat, Lokpal will provide necessary protection to the whistleblower within few hours and maximum within one week of the launch of complaint depending upon the urgency of the case. If physical harm has already happened then Lokpal will provide protection from further physical harm within 24 hours of the launch of complaint. Lokpal will also direct the police to register criminal case against the people who caused the physical harm to the whistleblower.

If false cases get filed by authorities against the whistleblower, Lokpal will ensure that such cases are withdrawn. 

Reference From:-IAC Site

Jurisdiction of Lokpal

Jurisdiction of Lokpal

a. High Court and Supreme Court Judges

(i) Removal of a Supreme Court or High Court Judge

Present system: Under the present system, a judge can be removed for misconduct by the process of impeachment specified in the Constitution of India.

Proposed system: Jan Lokpal Bill does not propose to change this system.

(ii) Investigating Cases of Corruption of Supreme Court or High Court Judges

Present system: Today, if there is an allegation of corruption against any Supreme Court (SC) or High Court (HC) judge, an FIR cannot be registered and investigations cannot be started into those allegations without the permission of the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Experience shows that Chief Justices have hesitated in giving permissions, despite overwhelming evidence of corruption being presented against any judge.

Even those Chief Justices, who have been well known for their honesty, did not give permissions. For instance, Mr P Chidambaram sought permission to register an FIR against Justice Sen Gupta of Kolkata High Court. Permission was sought from the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Venkatachaliah, who is very well known for his integrity. However, Justice Venkatachaliah did not give permission. Was the evidence against Justice Sen Gupta strong enough? The strength of the evidence can be gauged from the fact that Justice Sen Gupta was raided and arrested soon after he retired because after retirement, permission of CJI was not required.

There are many more instances when permission for registration of FIR has been denied. Some such cases are mentioned below:

•        Despite overwhelming evidence, request of the Campaign on Judicial Accountability (represented by Shanti Bhushan, Prashant bhushan, Ram jethmalani, Justice Rajender Sachhar, Indira jaisingh, Arvind Nigam etc) seeking permission to register an FIR against Justice Bhalla of Allahabad High Court is pending before the Chief Justice of India since 2006.

•          Similarly, the request of Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Judicial Reforms seeking to register FIR against Justice F I Rebello is pending since September 2010.

Therefore, the present system of seeking permission from the CJI to register an FIR against a judge of SC or HC appears to have protected the corrupt and encouraged corruption in higher judiciary.

Proposed system: An impression is being sought to be created that judiciary is being brought under the control of Jan Lokpal. This is completely incorrect.

What is being proposed is that the permission to register FIR against corruption of any judge should be granted by a seven member bench of Jan Lokpal (the bench may have majority of judicial members) rather than the Chief Justice of India. That is the only real difference in the system proposed in Jan Lokpal Bill and the existing system.

Post registration of an FIR, the police or CBI investigates and prosecutes (if a case is made out) under the existing system. Since we are proposing that the anti corruption branch of CBI would be merged into Jan Lokpal and would form the investigation and prosecution wing of Jan Lokpal, therefore, obviously the investigations and prosecution after registration of FIR is proposed to be done by the new investigation and prosecution wings of Lokpal.

After completion of investigations, a full bench of Lokpal would decide whether to initiate prosecution or not. Lokpal will not have any powers to award punishment or to remove judges. The case would go to the normal courts for trial and punishment.

Therefore, effectively, there is just one change being proposed from the existing system – that rather than CJI giving permission to register FIR, a seven member bench of Lokpal should grant such permission.

(iii)    Objections by some friends to the inclusion of higher judiciary within the purview of Jan Lokpal Bill

Critique of our proposal	Our response
This would affect the independence of judiciary.	How will it affect the independence of judiciary? We have greatest respect for our judiciary and we strongly stand for its independence. Most of the judges in higher judiciary are honest. However, a few of them bring bad name to the whole judiciary due to their wrongdoings. They ought to be identified and acted against. A system which effectively does that would strengthen the independence of judiciary and increase its credibility in the eyes of the public. Present system tends to protect the corrupt and encourages corruption. Therefore, the present system tends to lower the prestige and credibility of judiciary in the minds of the people and compromises its independence. Jan Lokpal Bill seeks to create a system, which is independent of judiciary, to grant permission to register an FIR and initiate investigations against a judge.
This would tremendously increase the workload of Lokpal	There are less than 1000 SC and HC judges in our country. Justice S P Bharucha had once commented that less than 20% of higher judiciary is corrupt. Obviously, complaints will not come against all of them at the same time. But even if all complaints came together, there will be less than 200 complaints. That is a very small number and would not increase the workload of Lokpal in any manner.
Judicial matters are very technical. Therefore, Only people from judiciary should deal with complaints against judges.	Jan Lokpal Bill does not empower Lokpal to go into or question the judicial procedures or decisions of judiciary. It does not empower Lokpal to peep into professional (mis)conduct of judges. It only empowers them to grant permission to register an FIR against a judge against whom there are allegations of bribery. Giving and accepting bribe is a criminal offence. There is no technicality involved in that. If that logic were accepted, then the income tax people would also say that income tax is a very complex subject and only people with income tax backgrounds should deal with allegations of corruption against income tax officers. There would be similar demands from politicians, customs officers and other sections of bureaucracy.
But the proceedings for impeachment of judges is already provided in the Constitution. Are you suggesting an amendment to the Constitution?	We are not seeking any amendment to the constitution. We are not even touching the provisions relating to impeachment of judges as provided in the constitution. We are not even talking of impeachment. All that we are saying is that the power to grant permission to register FIR against a judge should be given to a seven member bench of Lokpal rather than the CJI.
What will happen to the Judicial Accountability Bill presented by the Government?	Unfortunately, the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill presented by the Government does not inspire confidence that it would make judiciary accountable in any manner. This Bill seems to be driven by the belief that the judiciary must be essentially accountable to itself though it seeks to induct some people from the executive in the bodies as well. Thus the judicial oversight committee, which would receive complaints against judges, would be a body comprising of the former Chief Justice of India, a sitting judge of the Supreme Court, a sitting judge of the High Court, the Attorney General and one "eminent person" nominated by the President. This means three persons in the judiciary, including two sitting judges, and two persons from the executive. Moreover three out of the five members are ex officio, being very busy in their official work. The oversight committee is therefore neither independent of the government nor the judiciary. Moreover they can hardly devote adequate time to the task of looking at complaints against all judges of the higher judiciary. Even worse is a provision in the Bill requiring a complaint to be sent to the scrutiny committee consisting of two sitting judges and a retired Chief Justice of the same court. This will make it virtually impossible to the scrutiny committee to give an unbiased report against a person who is, and has been, a professional colleague and brother judge on the bench at the same court. Besides, Judicial Accountability Bill does not talk of bribery by the judges. It only talks of professional misconduct. Jan Lokpal talks of criminal misconduct. Therefore, the two bills complement each other. The Judicial oversight committee will not have the police and investigative powers and machinery to deal with criminal complaints of bribery. It could be done only by Lokpal.
Complaints against Lokpal members will go to Supreme Court and those against Supreme Court judges will go to Lokpal. Would that not create some kind of circularity?	Such circularity is a part of internal checks and balances at top levels in any democracy. For instance, Supreme Court keeps a check on legislature and Executive and the Legislature has powers to legislate on judicial matters. If there is a complaint against a Supreme Court judge and a Lokpal member at the same time, then obviously, the accused judge or the accused member will recuse himself from the benches. If ever such an eventuality happens, the transparency of proceedings in the two institutions will keep a check on the possibility of any misuse. The hearings at the two places will be open for the public and media.
Won’t we need to amend the constitution to allow a seven member bench of Lokpal to give permission rather than the CJI under the existing system?	No, we won’t need any amendment. There is no provision either in the constitution or in any law which empowers the CJI to give permission before registration of an FIR against any judge. Such a system was created by the Supreme Court through an order in Veeraswamy case, in which the SC made it mandatory that permission would need to be sought before registration of an FIR against any judge. Interestingly, no frivolous FIR had ever been filed against any judge before that judgement and such a judgement was completely uncalled for.

b. Elected politicians including ministers and Prime Minister

(i) For their conduct outside parliament

If any politician indulges in any corruption outside Parliament, he could be investigated against by the Lokpal or Lokayukta on either a complaint from any citizen or suo moto. After completion of investigations, if a case is made out, Lokpal or Lokayukta shall file prosecution in court. The court will have to complete its trial and pass orders within one year.

In the case of ministers including Prime Minister and Chief Minister, the permission for starting investigations or initiating prosecution will have to be given by a full bench (seven members) of Lokpal or Lokayukta.

In the case of ministers barring Prime Minister, if a case is made out, Lokpal or Lokayukta may recommend removal of the minister to the Governor or President. Such recommendation will also have to be made by a full bench of Lokpal or Lokayukta.

(ii) For their conduct inside Parliament

If any politician indulges in any corruption inside Parliament, then either suo moto or on a complaint from anyone, the Chairperson of respective House shall forward the case to the Ethics Committee. If Ethics Committee so recommends, the Chairperson shall forward the complaint to Lokpal or Lokayukta for necessary investigations. Lokpal shall be responsible for conducting investigations and shall submit its report to the Chairperson, who will then present it in that House for necessary decision.

c. Bureaucrats

Lokpal may, either suo moto or on receipt of a complaint, may initiate investigations against any bureaucrat. After completion of investigations, if a case is made out, Lokpal or Lokayukta may file prosecution in court. The court will have to complete its trial and pass orders within one year.

In the case of bureaucrats, after completion of investigations, if a case is made out, Lokpal or Lokayukta will have the powers to recommend departmental penalties including dismissal. Such recommendations shall be binding on the government. However, in imposing such penalties, the evidence would be examined on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. If the accused are of the level of Joint Secretary or above, such penalties will be imposed by a bench of members of Lokpal or Lokayukta after giving an opportunity of being heard to all parties. For others, the penalties will be imposed by a bench of senior officers of Lokpal or Lokayukta. These orders could be appealed against in High Court.

Reference Site: IAC Site

How to ensure that there is no corruption within Jan Lokpal?

How to ensure that there is no corruption within Jan Lokpal?

a. Firstly, by ensuring that the right person is selected for this role!

Selection process for the members and Chairperson of Jan Lokpal and Jan Lokayukta has been kept transparent, broad based and participatory.

•   The 10 members and the chairperson of Jan Lokpal will be selected by a Selection Committee that would comprise of the PM, Leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha, two youngest judges of Supreme Court (SC), two youngest Chief Justices of High Courts, Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and the Chief Election Commissioner (CEC). The Selection Committee will make the above appointment from a pool of shortlisted candidates that has been identified by a “Search Committee”.

•   The “Search Committee” is a 10-member committee formed as follows:  First, the Selection Committee selects five members from retired Chief Election Commissioners and retired CAGs. However those CECs and CAGs who have any substantive allegation of corruption against them or who have joined any political party after retirement or who are still in any government appointment shall not be eligible. These 5 members will then select another 5 members from the civil society to make the 10-member Search Committee.

•   The Search Committee will invite recommendations from various eminent people (like journalists, academics, etc). These names will be put up on a website and public feedback invited. The search committee will then, by consensus, choose 3 times the number of vacancies.  This list will be forwarded to the Selection Committee which will then make final selections through consensus.

•   All meetings of the Search Committee and Selection Committee shall be video recorded and will be made public.

•   Jan Lokpal and Jan Lokayukta will then select and appoint its own officers and staff.

b. Secondly, by ensuring that they work well!

•   Every complaint to Jan Lokpal or Jan Lokayukta shall have to be compulsorily disposed. No complaint could be rejected without giving a hearing to the complainant. If any case is closed, all records related thereto shall be made public.

•   The functioning of Jan Lokpal and Jan Lokayukta will be completely transparent. All records will be open to the public, barring those which will affect national security or security of the whistle blower. Those which will impede the process of investigation, may be withheld during investigations but these records will also have to be disclosed after conclusion of investigations. 

•   Lokpal will publish every month on its website the status of cases received, disposed, closed, reasons for closure and the list of cases pending.

c. Thirdly, by ensuring that Jan Lokpal and Jan Lokayukt are not influenced!

The Chairperson and members will not be eligible for appointment to any position in the government or for contesting elections after they leave office.

d. Fourthly, by ensuring that if not working well, they can be removed!

(i)   Removal of corrupt staff in Lokpal or Lokayukta

Complaints of corruption against the staff could be made to an independent platform, which will be set up in each Commissionerate or at the level of each state and at national level. These complaints will be enquired into within a month. If the allegations are proved, the corrupt staff will be dismissed from the job in the next one month and a criminal case will be registered under various sections of Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act.

(ii) Removal of Lokpal or Lokayukta members or Chairperson

Complaints against members and chair person could be made to Supreme Court or respective High Court. A bench of respective Court, after hearing, may order the formation of a Special Investigation Team that will conduct an inquiry and submit its report within 3 months. On the basis of this enquiry report, the respective Court may order removal of the member or Chairperson. 

Reference Site: IAC Site

What action will be taken by Lokpal against corrupt people?

What action will be taken by Lokpal against corrupt people?

There is corruption at all levels – in panchayat works, in construction of roads, in NREGA, mid day meals, rations, 2G spectrum, leasing of mines, Common Wealth Games etc. Jan Lokpal will ensure that corrupt people are punished through the following provisions.

a. Time bound investigations

Investigation in any case of corruption will have to be completed within one year. Jan Lokpal or Jan Lokayukta will have powers to employ more officers, if required, to complete investigations in time. After investigations, Lokpal or Lokayukta shall take two actions:

•          Dismiss corrupt officers: After investigations, if adequate evidence is found, then after giving an opportunity of being heard, Jan Lokpal or Jan Lokayukta will have powers to remove a government officer from job or to impose any other departmental penalties like reduction in rank, stopping promotion etc. These orders could be challenged in High Court.
• 
  
•          Time bound trial: In addition to imposing departmental penalties, if a case is made out, Jan Lokpal or Jan Lokayukta will file a case in trial court. The court will have to complete the trial and announce punishment within next one year. If required, Jan Lokpal or Jan Lokayukta will have powers to direct the government to set up additional courts to complete the trial in time.
• 
  

b. Recovery of loss caused to government

During investigations,if there is strong evidence against corruption, Jan Lokpal or Jan Lokayukta shall ban the transfer of assets of the accused or the assets of those who would have benefitted from the accused. At the time of conviction, the court will assess the loss caused by the accused to the government. This loss will be recovered from these assets and as land revenue. (Currently, there is no provision in our law to recover the bribes earned by corrupt people or the loss caused by them to the government).

c. Confiscation of assets

Each bureaucrat, politician and judge would be required to submit a statement of moveable and immoveable assets owned by him and his family on an annual basis, which will be put on the official website. If an asset is subsequently found to be owned by a public servant, it would be deemed to have been obtained through corrupt means and would be confiscated. Prosecution proceedings would be initiated against the accused.

Similarly, after each election, the Jan Lokpal will verify the assets declared by each candidate. If undeclared assets are found, a case will be registered and investigations started.

d. Increased punishment for corruption

Presently, the maximum punishment for corruption is seven years, which is believed to be very less. This is proposed to be increased to life sentence.

e. Illegally obtained benefits are deemed to be obtained through corruption

In the current system, if anyone obtains any benefit from the government illegally, it is difficult to prove that he did so by paying bribes. Therefore, it has been provided in Jan Lokpal Bill that if a person obtains any benefit from the government in violation of a law or rules and regulations, that person along with concerned public servants shall be deemed to have indulged in corrupt practice.

f. Power to punish if its orders are not followed

If orders of the Jan Lokpal or Jan Lokayukta are not obeyed, it will have the powers to impose financial penalties and also initiate contempt proceedings against the guilty officials.

Reference site: IAC Site