The nation feels relieved that social activist Anna Hazare has ended his fast. But if the Jan Lokpal Bill he has been pushing becomes a law, Mr Hazare may have to undertake yet another fast demanding its repeal because the intended institution to deal with corruption in high places is more likely to be a parallel body that

can paralyse the government without being answerable to the people. A guarantee for anarchy.
The cumbersome process of the selection of Lokpal begins with the conception of an unwieldy and unsafe selection committee. “Unsafe” because while involving a huge number of ex-officio individuals, the chances of getting on board a few avoidable ones are real. Any apple farmer will tell you that bigger the lot larger the rot. The Lokpal Bill prescribes that the chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission shall be one of the selectors and so shall be two senior-most chief justices of high courts. This means that if the selection committee is set up in the near future, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice P.D. Dinakaran will be its members. The proposed law requires all Nobel laureates of Indian origin, the latest two Magsaysay awardees and all Bharat Ratnas to be in the selection committee. Hopefully, Sachin Tendulkar, too, will be there to select the first Lokpal.
Consider the near impossibility of congregating all of them at one place on a day “to meet and discuss” the material, not just once in a lifetime but whenever the need arises.
Why indulge in such a tamasha? The presiding officers of the two Houses, the Prime Minister, two leaders of Opposition, holders of constitutional offices like the Chief Justice of India, the Chief Election Commission and the Comptroller and Auditor General can together handle the job. And if they cannot, one can presume that the situation in the country is beyond the hands of any Lokpal.
The bill proposes that four out of the 11 Lokpals should be “with legal background” — into this vague phrase anyone can be fitted — a lawyer’s clerk, to wit. “Un-impeachable integrity” is now a well-understood phrase, thanks to P.J. Thomas, the former Chief Vigilance Commissioner (CVC). But the search for candidates “having demonstrated their resolve and efforts to fight against corruption in the past” may be a euphemism for marked persons like Magsaysay awardees or public interest litigations masters. Our media, too, can produce a few of them. Every selector has to justify his/her recommendation and grading. And in its anxiety to be transparent, the bill requires the names of the persons evaluated and grading done by the galaxy of selectors to be published on a website. Remember, no candidate applies to the post — the public is expected to sponsor names of their choice. Chances are that one may find one’s name among the rejects without having applied to the post.
“Trust no one” is apparently the philosophy behind this Lokpal Bill. It stipulates the Bench strength of the Supreme Court to hear a petition against a Lokpal, a presciption till now made only by the Constitution of India. The bill commands that the apex court shall not dismiss a petition against a Lokpal in limine, however frivolous it may be. And many details about the conduct of business within the court are sought to be regulated by the bill. Even the chairperson of the Lokpal is not allowed to constitute the benches or assign cases — it is to be done by computers. While prescribing video cameras for all proceedings, the Supreme Court is mercifully spared.
Mr Hazare’s call is to deal with corruption, but the bill expects the Lokpal to deal with all “complaints, mal-administration, misconduct” and more, to be added to the list from time to time. Lokpal was conceived as a body with high political functionaries on its radar. But the bill targets every “public servant”, including judges of the high court and Supreme Court, who have special protection under the Constitution. Every government servant, chairman or vice-chairman of public sector undertakings and such other authorities as the Central government may also, by a notification from time to time, come under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal. Consequently, the CVC becomes redundant and is recommended to be scrapped.
Pray, restrict Lokpal’s scope to only the high functionaries of the political administration and those, including in the private sector, who are party to the conspiracy in a corruption case. Leave the rest to the CVC.
The judiciary needs to be dealt with separately not only because its problems cannot be appreciated by a Lokpal having just a “legal background”, but also because the growing corruption among the sitting and retired judges acting as arbitrators or mediators calls for a full-time agency. The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, now pending before Parliament, after suitable amendments, should be able to deal with corruption without affecting the constitutionally-guaranteed independence.
This criticism of the well-meaning Jan Lokpal Bill is intended to warn against the promise of extending or recommending blind support to it. In its present form, the bill reminds one of a toothpaste advertisement that sees only germs everywhere and recommends repeated brushing leaving little time for anything else. But, on the other hand, the official draft bill can, in all fairness, be termed as a “Corruption (Protection and Promotion) Act”. A single provision prescribing prior sanction of the presiding officers of the Houses as a pre-condition for the Lokpal to entertain a complaint is enough to render the law useless. Exclusion of matters relating to defence and the like, where corruption is known to breed and thrive, makes that bill suspect. Designing of a realistic and workable machinery to deal with corruption in high places of public life is vital — television coverage of the proceedings is not; it will be inhibitive of free and frank exchange of views.
So, was Mr Hazare’s fast futile? Surely not. It has commanded the attention from quarters that matter on a vital issue; attention that was needed but was missing for too long. Further, the agitation has resulted in the constitution of a drafting committee that could be surpassed in terms of ability and acumen only by the Constituent Assembly that framed our Constitution in November 1949. I trust them to be equally sagacious. But, perhaps, harnessing the experience of former Indian Police Service officer Kiran Bedi in place of a lawyer could have at once neutralised the obvious pro-lawyer and gender tilt and also avoided the odious allegation of nepotism.

K.N. Bhat is a senior advocate of the Supreme Court and former Additional Solicitor General of India