The Government introduced the Lokpal bill in the Lok Sabha on Thursday amidst protests from the opposition over the non-inclusion of serving Prime Minister within its ambit. The focus incidentally is only on the inclusion or non-inclusion of the Prime Minister in the ambit, but the politicians – both ruling and opposition are, probably deliberately, are trying to take the focus away from other flaws in the bill.
For one, in a radical move, the Bill forbids the Lokpal to register any FIR without first giving a hearing to the accused. This is contrary to the general criminal law under which the police are obliged to register a case simply on the basis of information suggesting the commission of a cognizable offence.
Secondly, as if its additional requirement of giving a hearing to the accused at the pre-FIR stage is not bad enough, the Bill stipulates that the Lokpal, on completing the investigation, should give another hearing to the accused before filing a charge sheet in court. This is again a gratuitous safeguard. The legislation spares no thought for the increased risk to whistleblowers on account of such premature disclosure of evidence to the accused.
Third, the Bill provides that a cross case could be filed against the complainant and he would be liable to be punished severely if the complaint was found "false and frivolous or vexatious". The supreme irony lies in the provision that the minimum jail term for a "false or frivolous" complaint is two years, while the public servant in the event of conviction for corruption could get as little as six months.
In fact, such provisions make you wonder whether the Lokpal envisaged by the government can be effective at all.
Secondly, as if its additional requirement of giving a hearing to the accused at the pre-FIR stage is not bad enough, the Bill stipulates that the Lokpal, on completing the investigation, should give another hearing to the accused before filing a charge sheet in court. This is again a gratuitous safeguard. The legislation spares no thought for the increased risk to whistleblowers on account of such premature disclosure of evidence to the accused.
Third, the Bill provides that a cross case could be filed against the complainant and he would be liable to be punished severely if the complaint was found "false and frivolous or vexatious". The supreme irony lies in the provision that the minimum jail term for a "false or frivolous" complaint is two years, while the public servant in the event of conviction for corruption could get as little as six months.
In fact, such provisions make you wonder whether the Lokpal envisaged by the government can be effective at all.
Hence, is the government along with the opposition deliberately are trying to pass through a bill with anomalies so that in practicality, it is not possible to implement it.
The earlier Bill enjoined every department to come up with a citizens' charter spelling out its commitments relating to delivery of services or fulfilment of objectives. As a corollary, every department was required to designate a public grievance redressal officer to whom any aggrieved person may file a complaint for non-compliance of the citizens' charter. The Anna Hazare had demanded that a violation of the charter should carry sanctions. But, rather than providing teeth to it, the latest Bill drops the charter altogether. The message clearly is that inefficiency cannot be equated with corruption and so there is no need to give a statutory status to the citizens' charter.
No comments:
Post a Comment