Eighteen states have already setup their own Lokayukthas but they are not uniform. In some states, the chief minister is included in its purview, and, in some other states, they are not. The office of an ombudsman is not unique as it is prevalent in Sweden, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Spain, New Zealand, Burkina Faso and the United Kingdom.

Anna Hazare’s movement has touched the right chords of the people of India who are getting vexed with a series of scams involving thousands of crores of rupees. He chose the right movement to press for the bill and has successfully mobilized mass support. He is also ready with the draft of a Citizen’s Ombudsman bill drawn up by prominent civil society activists, The bill seeks the setting up of a Lokpal, an independent body to deal with corruption in high places among other things. The result was the government’s acceptance of the demands put forth by Anna Hazare and other activists to form a joint drafting committee consisting 50 per cent of the activists in an unprecedented manner.

Why did the government yield to their pressures? The government is looking weak already in the wake of several scam expose. There was fear that it may further hurt the already sagging image of the government, going by the groundswell of support the Gandhian garnered through his movement. Secondly, Hazare was able to connect with and get the support of the growing middle classes. The Congress party saw that the middle class votes, which it had snatched from the BJP, may now very well slip out of its hands, and therefore, quickly tried to damage-control the image of the party as the political haven for the Aam Admi. Thirdly, the NGOs are getting increasingly belligerent and with the number of “jholawallahs” in the National Advisory Council, they begin to feel that there is someone in the Congress who is willing to listen to them. When Sonia Gandhi jumped into Hazare’s support that effectively clinched it.

However, this raises several questions. Will this set a precedence for other bills also? For instance, Anna Hazare is already talking of electoral reforms bill. What stops the other sections like Gujjars who would like to have a say in reservation bills? In future, there could be many more issues, which are not foreseen now. Will this new experiment succeed? Is it a good practice to involve the citizens in the formulation of a bill when that is the job of the executive and legislative assemblies and the Parliament? The people’s elected representatives are in Parliament to study, debate and pass these bills, and how could one suddenly give this right to non-elected individuals and groups? There are some who feel that the government should not have yielded to the pressure tactics of Hazare and should have merely consulted all groups instead of allowing them to become part of the process. They apprehend that in a democracy this may become a dangerous trend where there is a role devised for citizens, their representatives and their government. This new element may upset the balance, if not now, but at a later date, they fear. Already suggestions have come from the Congress that the NGOs and the corporate sector should also be brought under the LokPal.

Now that the social activists have tasted blood, this may only be the beginning for them to come up with more demands in the future. From all over the country, they will soon raise more edgy and contentious demands and want more representative space in the drafting of future bills pertaining to civil liberties and social causes. How is the government going to tackle this remarkable new trend?

Coming back to the Lokpal bill, it is true that the government has been dilly dallying with it for too long, The alternate bill known as the Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's Ombudsman Bill) is a draft anti-corruption bill drawn up by prominent civil society activists seeking the appointment of a Jan Lokpal, This independent body would investigate corruption cases, complete the investigation within a year and envisage completion of trials by the second year. Drafted by eminent jurists like Santosh Hegde and Prashant Bhushan, the bill also seeks to prosecute politicians without the permission of the government.

How is this different from the government‘s Lokpal bill, which is being examined by the group of ministers? There are some sticky issues such as inclusion of the prime minister, ministers and MPs, and judges under the Lokpal purview. There are divergent views on this as some contend that all public officials should be accountable while others feel that it would encroach the autonomy of Parliament as the ministers, PM and MPs are accountable to Parliament. 
Also, the government bill does not provide for inclusion of the Prime Minister under the purview of the Lokpal. The methodology of complaints is also more cumbersome. The Lokpal does not have powers to initiate any suo motto action. The Lokpal cannot investigate the Prime Minister on issues of defence and external affairs, nor does it have any jurisdiction over MPs.

Moreover, the Lokpal will be an advisory body and it will forward its report to the competent authority. The social activists feel that the present bill is legally unsound. It is going to be difficult to find a common ground between the government version and the civil activists version of Lokpal bill. The effort should be to create an efficient and accountable Lokpal.

Already, the NAC has become a super-government body, which sits on all bills including food security bill, and communal harmony bill after the Group of Ministers have cleared it. Now, the kind of committee the government has agreed for will be yet another super body, which may weaken the system. There is absolutely no harm in the involvement of the people in making law, but that should be done at the drafting stage. Widest consultations are welcome in this regard, but the role of the citizens, their representatives, the Prime Minister, Parliament and the executive should be protected as envisaged in the Constitution. (IPA Service)