For all the recent anti-politician Jantar Mantar drama that constituted the starting point of the demand for an effective Lokpal Bill, and the subsequent muckraking that we saw which was intended to discredit some civil society elements on the joint panel to draft the legislation, the discussions within the forum itself appear to be going on in a businesslike manner, and seems free from rancour.
Indeed, the deliberations so far may even be called constructive, belying the impression some people harboured that the civil society members were a strange bunch who do little more than froth at the mouth, and government representatives are cussed status quoists. The three rounds of deliberations held so far appear to have been conducted in a spirit that suggests that all concerned do wish to deliver. The five ministers in the group and the five civil society nominees may have differing points of emphasis, and occasionally divergent views on specifics, but essentially they do not appear to be on a different page from one another. After round three on Saturday, human resources development minister Kapil Sibal, one of the five members from the government side, described the joint panel proceedings as “exceptionally constructive”. It is this that makes the prospect of clinching a draft bill in reasonable time look realistic.
It is reasonable to say that a clear area of agreement has already emerged. There is no difference of view in the joint committee that an independent Lokpal authority should be set up, endowed with financial and administrative autonomy. However, the details are to be worked out as on how many members there should be on the body, and the methodology of selecting the members as well as the chairperson. The civil society nominees are dead right when they say that anyone who is on the Lokpal authority, as a member or as chairperson, must not take up any government appointment subsequently or be an election candidate on behalf of any political party. Precisely because these criteria have not been adhered to has the institution of governor got debased. Some members of the higher judiciary too unfortunately think nothing of accepting post-retirement assignments from governments. The only way the Lokpal body can remain above the fray is by staying far away from governmental or political lure, and this needs to be built into the proposed legislation. Another area of consensus already reached in the joint panel is that governmental sanction (or the governor’s sanction, in case of a chief minister) will no longer be required to prosecute civil servants and political appointees above a certain rank for corruption. This is a happy augury. The proposed step takes away the virtual immunity the corrupt among higher officials enjoyed within the system as sanctions were difficult to obtain. It is just as well that the debate continues — not just in the joint committee but in the wider community at large — on whether the office of Prime Minister and members of the higher judiciary should also be brought under the ambit of of the Lokpal authority. It is a positive sign that within the joint panel there is no division between governmental and civil society nominees on the question. Differences of view pertain to individuals, not which side has sent them to the committee.
At its second meeting on May 2, the joint panel apparently agreed to meet even on a day-to-day basis if needed in order to conclude their work as early as practicable. This suggestion had been made earlier through these columns. While civil society elements had set the deadline of June 30 for completing the drafting exercise, we need to take a liberal view of things if we are persuaded that the committee is serious about its undertaking.