Why PM must be in Lokpal ambit, explains Bhushan

What if Madhu Koda or A Raja becomes the prime minister of this country? What if a prime minister, who is privy to the entire security secrets, sell such crucial information? In a 14-page letter to Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee on Tuesday, these were some of the reasons raised by Anna Hazare-led civil society members while arguing for bringing the PM under the purview of Lokpal.

The Hazare team also put forth their arguments for the need of bringing higher judiciary and MPs under the ambit of the ombudsman and their view on the model of the Lokpal as well as whether Lokpal should deal with lower level graft.

In the letter, second in two days, panel co-chair Shanti Bhushan noted that the PM is privy to the entire security related information of this country.

"What if Madhu Koda or A Raja became the Prime Minister of this country, which is quite likely in this era of coalition? A Prime Minister enjoying complete immunity from any kind of investigations would himself become the biggest security threat! What if he or she sold such crucial information?" he asked.

"If a PM held 15 portfolios, would all these ministers be outside the ambit of the Lokpal?" he said, adding that a "corrupt" PM could become a conduit for receiving bribes on behalf of his ministerial colleagues if immunity is granted to him.

On the issue of Lokpal having powers to probe horse-trading of MPs, Bhushan referred to the cash-for-vote scam in July 2008 during UPA-I's tenure and said one cannot expect fair investigation under police which is directly under the government.

"Shouldn't such investigations be done by an independent body like the Lokpal? After investigations, the police will submit its report to the Speaker. Who will prosecute them? And in which court?" he said.

Bhushan said the Speaker has the power to prosecute them  and also announce punishment to them and asked if one should expect the Speaker to award punishment to her own partymen.

He contended that there were "strong" evidence of horse trading in many cases leading to expulsion of some members. They ought to go to jail for accepting bribe, he said asking in how many such cases criminal investigation has been ordered.

He also termed as "patently wrong" the Supreme Court judgement in the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha case where it held an MP taking a bribe for voting is protected by parliamentary privilege and said that taking bribe is not protected by any privilege.

"This bill will legislatively overrule the incorrect JMM judgement."

On the inclusion of higher judiciary under Lokpal, he reminded that Home Minister P Chidambaram had unsuccessfully tried to file an FIR against a corrupt judge of a Kolkata high court because of the then Chief Justice of India, himself a "very honest" judge, refused to give permission.

Bhushan said the seven-member Lokpal should grant permission to file an FIR against a judge rather than the Chief Justice of India.

He also said the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, which the government side says will deal with corruption in judiciary, does not deal with bribes taken by judges.

He outlined their vision of the Lokpal, which he termed as "comprehensive" anti-corruption system in which the members will not directly deal with any case.

"They will have an entire machinery of staff under them to deal directly with the cases," he said.

Bhushan, a former law minister, said the government wants a system which will pass all orders either collectively or in benches like Supreme Court.

"There would be many types of orders to be passed in each case...in addition, the Lokpal members would also be required to supervise and administer."

"If this model is accepted, the Lokpal would collapse within a few days from overload of cases," he said.

Demanding that the Central Vigilance Commission, CBI and departmental vigilance be brought under the administrative and supervisory jurisdiction of the Lokpal, Bhushan cited that the CVC received around 1,700 actionable complaints last year but it enquired just 11.

He said India has a "classic" anti-corruption system with "completely fractured mandate".

Arguing for including lower-level bureaucracy under the Lokpal, he posed, "Who will deal with lower-level corruption. Where should a common man go who has unearthed corruption in some government scheme through RTI?" He said only one set of investigations should be done by Lokpal.

"Post investigations, the prosecution wing of Lokpal will file a case in the court" rather than simultaneous CBI and departmental enquiry.

The senior lawyer said Lokayuktas in states should also be created along with Lokpal through the same law and cited the precedence of the Central Information Commission and State Information Commission being created through a single legislation.

"If we have a single act providing for both Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayukta for the states, it will provide uniformly good institutions throughout the country to tackle corruption at the central and at the state levels," he said.