I am not unduly worried by the muck being hurled at non-government members of the government-notified drafting panel for the Lokpal Bill and recall the beginning of the village-based RTI movement in 1996 in Rajasthan. One of the ridiculous allegations against the agitation leaders was that they had received a hefty commission from a Japanese manufacturer of photocopiers who would profit hugely from the demand for photocopied panchayat documents if RTI came about. Yet, the movement didn’t lose focus, and the RTI Act eventually became a reality, not only in Rajasthan but at the national level, the result of widespread public networking and consultation with citizens’ groups, jurists, journalists, political parties, the Press Council of India, and even government institutions like the Lal Bahadur Shastri Academy for Administration and the National Institute of Rural Development. There were significant differences within citizens’ groups even then. One difference, to give an example, was over whether people could directly demand information and documents from business corporations and NGOs. The government successfully batted for the corporate and NGO sectors and managed to keep them out of the purview of the RTI Act. Had it not been so, there would have been more information about activists and NGOs in the public domain by now, restricting room for mischief by either side. Even in a less than ideal form, the RTI Act is a huge gain.
Advertisement
The lessons for people wanting an effective ombudsman to restrain corruption is obvious: don’t lose focus; defeat mudslinging with transparency; well-meaning disagreements over substance and provisions only help evolve a better law; go for a wider public consultation spread out to bodies like the bar, media associations and political parties and various regions which often feel dictated to by metro-centric processes, especially regions as left out as Kashmir and the Northeast; have a deadline in mind but be open to reasonable flexibility; and even be prepared for a few alternative drafts which could give some more valuable inputs. It’s not the first time that a citizens’ movement has initiated the enactment of a law. Apart from the RTI Act, the Domestic Violence Act, too, is a recent example wherein women’s groups took the lead in drafting a bill. Earlier too, trade unions have been consulted for various labour laws. I see no point in the criticism that the sovereignty vested by a democratic constitution in Parliament and an elected government is being usurped by involving non-government members in drafting the Lokpal Bill, for it will be finally approved by the cabinet and passed by Parliament. And don’t forget that ultimate sovereignty in a democracy lies with the people, and all democracies and their laws evolve by direct interventions by citizens from time to time if they perceive their institutions and laws as failing. The impact of the civil rights movement in the US is an example.
Advertisement
Why do I insist on wider consultations? Due to my reservations about the Jan Lokpal Bill, even in its latest 2.2 draft. (The government draft bill is not worth serious consideration.) I will just mention a few points, two as hypothetical questions arising from recent news. Will Binayak Sen be eligible for appointment as Lokpal even if he is ultimately acquitted at or before 70, the age limit for Lokpal? No, says, the Jan Lokpal Bill. Any person merely chargesheeted under IPC is not eligible. And what if Amar Singh had filed a complaint with purported evidence in the form of four CDs about Justice Sanghvi and Prashant Bhushan after the former reserved his order in Singh’s case? Would the Lokpal then be forced to investigate at least the veracity of the CDs, thereby helping subvert the judicial process, and wouldn’t Singh have gone into appeal in the Supreme Court against the Lokpal if it ruled against him? I also shudder to think of a policeman with judicial powers, including the power to haul you for contempt of court, the twin powers the Lokpal would have. Others caution against an institution with absolute concentrated power with accountability only upwards in a bureaucratic-judicial structure. Why can’t there be periodic social audit (a valuable institution thrown up by the RTI movement for accountability to the people) of the Lokpal and why not a public hearing where the Lokpals could defend their selection? And why such a bias against the prime minister? Having him under the purview of Lokpal is okay, but why leave him out of the selection process and include two leaders of opposition who might have been previous prime ministers? Such deep suspicion of an elected government reflects a bureaucratic and corporate managerial bias against the democratic process and amounts to disdaining the wisdom of ordinary people.
