What’s the difference between the Jan Lokpal Bill (backed by Anna Hazare) and the Lokpal Bill (being pushed by the Sonia Gandhi-headed National Advisory Council (NAC)? And why are their proponents suspicious of each other? That it is a complex legislation, where differences of opinion are bound to be there, is not lost on anyone. As far as India Against Corruption (IAC), the organisation spearheading the agitation in favour of the Jan Lokpal Bill is concerned, this is a people’s movement and must have the participation of the people. Arvind Kejriwal of IAC says, “The inclusion of people in a committee drafting the Bill is absolutely necessary.” This view is counter to the NAC position.
For the NAC, on the other hand, the Lokpal Bill should be seen in the context of addressing systemic problems and must be discussed in detail before any mass agitation is launched. It is in this context that two meetings held on April 3 and 4, under a subcommittee of the NAC and by the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information respectively, to discuss the provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill gained importance.
One aspect that the Jan Lokpal Bill is insisting on is the inclusion of all public grievances within its ambit. Harsh Mander, an NAC member, says that addressing all public grievances, although it’s a legitimate concern, has to be thought over again. “Can the Lokpal look into all possible grievances of the public? Morever, absolute transparency as envisaged in the Jan Lokpal Bill could weigh against privacy as well as limitations prescribed in Section 8 of the RTI Act.” NAC member Aruna Roy says the provisions of the bill have to be discussed threadbare. And, as in a democratic process, discussions do not often progress in linear fashion, particularly in an inclusive process necesary for a mature piece of legislation. Also, she fears that the Jan Lokpal Bill envisages a watchdog that subsumes everything and everyone. Shouldn’t there be checks and balances?
Also, according to NAC members, the inclusion of civil society members in a committee to draft the bill is not desirable. They say they are fighting for robust discussions at the pre-legislation stage, which concerns the public. They argue that the NAC only provides space for discussion and debate when the government begins a process of legislation. This platform has its own process of functioning and its internal democratic nuances cannot be seen in simplistic adversarial terms.
