Is Delhi Jan Lokpal Bill, 2015 merely a trick?

In 2014, Arvind Kejriwal the then Chief Minister of Delhi sacrificed his ministry when he was unable to get the Jan Lokpal Bill, 2014 through. After returning to power with a landslide victory many months later, he was determined to last out his term and also revive the Jan Lokpal Bill sooner than later.

In some time, the Opposition parties and former founder-leaders like Prashant Bhushan, Yogendra Yadav and Anand Kumar, all raised questions about the finalisation of the Jan Lokpal Bill. Various theories were floated.

The AAP government was wary of being indicted for anything it might have done. A significant number of noted activists insisted that the draft Bill be put in the public domain so its provisions and sections were suitably drawn up. There were claims that the AAP leadership was stalling the Bill.

Others including the redoubtable Shanti Bhushan, eminent lawyer and founder-member of AAP, charged that the AAP had become corrupt and dared not subject itself to investigation.

Prashant Bhushan claimed that the Bill's introduction when it stated "Whereas the government is steadfastly committed to the establishment of the National Capital Territory of Delhi as a "Corruption Free Zone...," and "the Jan Lokpal may...utilise the services of any officer or organisation or investigation agency of the central government...," was an intrusion in the domain of the central government. He and others went on to allege that this was deliberately done to get the Bill rejected by the central government.

Another criticism, purportedly based on Section 3, was that the selection of the Chairperson and two members of the Jan Lokpal, was decided by three politicians and the Chief Justice of the High Court. So, it was biased in favour of the ruling party.

However, the CM and the Speaker were the only two members from the AAP. The third politician was the Leader of the Opposition or an alternative selected by the Members of the Opposition. In all, two politicians from the AAP, and two non-AAP: the CJ of the High Court and the leader of the Opposition. Thus, it was evenly balanced. So this allegation is not correct.

The powers of the Jan Lokpal were questioned. Under Section 10, it was stated "The Jan Lokpal may appoint or, with the consent of the government, designate officers or agencies as Investigation Officers, authorised to investigate offences under this Act..." This was taken by critics to mean that the Jan Lokpal would depend on the government, and thus not be independent.

But the section begins as, "The Jan Lokpal may appoint..," so the emphasis is on him and not the government. Under Section 6: The removal of the Chairperson or members of the Jan Lokpal stated that one or more members/Chairperson could be removed "by a majority of the total membership of the legislative assembly" or "by a majority not less than two-thirds of the members thereof present and voting..." This has been criticised for making the Jan Lokpal subservient to the legislature. The AAP indeed has such a majority, but why should it use it after all that has happened?

Section 9 deals with malicious false complaints made, which can on conviction, "be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees or with both." Some felt that these punishments were too strong. But the maximum punishment is not mandatory, and malicious complaints can be very damaging to a citizen's reputation.

After all the angry debate, the 2015 Bill is a significant step forward. Of course, some might approach some of these issues separately. But once the dust has settled and some of the critics were accused of playing into the BJP's hands, the Janlokpal has not turned out to be a watered down version. As the proverb goes, "better should not be the enemy of good."