Enact India's undiluted anti-corruption law - the people's Jan Lokpal Bill

Created on: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 Last Update: Monday, April 10, 2011 @ 15:00 hrs IST
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/enact-anti-corruption-law-peoples-jan-lokpal-bill/
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/janlokpalbill/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indiaagainstcorruption
Gandhian brigade calls for corruption free India  Mizoram Express Nation Thursday, July 1, 2010
http://mizoramexpress.com/index.php/2010/07/gandhian-brigade-calls-for-corruption-free-india/
http://www.petitiononline.com/lokpalbl/
Petition photo link/url
http://www.newstrackindia.com/images/photo/12897corruption.jpg
www.dailyexcelsior.com/01mar19/national.htm Source URL/link
Defence bribery affair underscores need for appointing Lok Pal
The videotaped defence bribery affair has underscored a long-recognised need over which the authorities have vacillated while scandal after scandal has rocked the nation's/India's political life - appointing a Lok Pal, India's much-heralded national anti-corrupt ombudsman conceived 42 years ago but still nowhere in sight.

Members of Parliament must be placed under its purview to promote accountability and must not be excluded from its jurisdiction.

For decades, the authorities have let the grass grow under their feet while corruption has gone on unbridled - scam after scam bursting forth on the nation's political stage, eroding public values, chipping away at public morale and cynicising public mind.

The concept of Lok Pal - inspired by Sweden's ombudsman - grew out of an interim report on the problem of redressal of citizens grievances submitted in 1966 by the Administrative Reforms Commission  or ARC headed by Morarji Desai. The very thought of someone to whom an Indian citizen could turn with a complaint of corruption or administrative excesses against the mighty of the land was a whiff of fresh air.

Two years later in 1968, the Lok Pal and the Lokayuktas Bill, 1968 was introduced in the 4th Lok Sabha, when late Mrs Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister. It was considered by a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament and passed by the Lok Sabha in 1969. It was pending in the Rajya Sabha when the Lok Sabha was dissolved. The bill lapsed.

Over the years, with political and public life getting increasingly mired in scandalous goings-on and some Governments at the Centre or in states even losing office over issues involving integrity - Bofors, Hawala, Fodder, Urea, Telecom, to name just a few controversies - the need for Lok Pal and other reforms has got more and more acute.

But resistance to the bill appears manifest in the fact that even after being tabled six more times - in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996 and 1998, the last time by the then Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee - it has never again been put to vote.

The concern was echoed by the then Prime Minister Mr Vajpayee while opening a conference of Lokayuktas or India's state level anti-corruption ombudsmen some weeks ago (before March 19, 2001). As the then PM Mr Vajpayee put it, rampant corruption over the past few decades and the failure to catch and punish the corrupt has bred contempt for the law and led to widespread cynicism among the people, causing a decline in moral values in Indian society. Experience has shown that our efforts to strengthen probity in civil service and the polity cannot yield desired results without extending the norms of accountability to the judiciary. The inability of our judicial system to deliver speedy justice has itself become the source of much injustice. It has also eroded the credibility of our judiciary in the eyes of the public, Mr Vajpayee had told delegates.

Noting that corruption was detrimental to development, he had announced that a Group of Ministers was putting together a new draft of the Lok Pal Bill, which would be introduced in Parliament soon (in 2001).

On his part, Mr Vajpayee had volunteered to submit to its jurisdiction by vesting the Lok Pal "with adequate powers to deal with charges of corruption against anyone, including the Prime Minister."

Authorities acknowledge that even the implementation of Lokayuktas in states has not been satisfactory. Lokayuktas exist in barely 17-18 states and do not seem to have uniform jurisdiction over Chief Ministers or Members of State Legislatures. Nor is the system entirely effective.

For instance, between 1986 and 2000, the Karnataka Lokayuktas ordered investigation in 2,840 cases, of which 1,677 were charge-sheeted but only six percent cases ended in conviction. The bulk - 1,118 - were pending trial.

Originally, the Lok Pal Bill was to place under scrutiny the conduct of all public functionaries and political leaders, including the Prime Minister, the members of the cabinet, as well as all members of both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. It would have MPs and members of their immediate family declare personal assets each year they remain / remained in office.

The bill was scheduled to be introduced for the eighth time in November 2000, but the move appears/appeared to have been bogged down because of demands to leave MPs out of its sway.

An argument advanced for excluding MPs from its ambit is/was that Lok Pal should only mind the affairs of those wielding Government and ministerial office who take decisions affecting citizens and therefore have the potential to abuse it for personal gain.

But activists for MPs' inclusion rightly point out that legislators exercise enormous influence in shaping laws, policy and decisions which is fundamentally important and has potential for abuse.

MPs are also empowered to take decisions such as spending constituency development funds, the LSS-TII (Lok Sevak Sangh-Transparency International India) spokesman said. A few MPs have been known to accept bribes and misuse Government property and ever increasing facilities and perquisites for personal benefit.

A well known example is the acquittal of four Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) MPs who allegedly voted for the Narasimha Rao Government in return for monetary consideration. The magic words that got them off were written into Article 105 of the Indian Constitution: No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.

The episode has occasioned calls to change such provisions. Law Commission Chairman Justice B P Jeevan Reddy had sought (in 2001) to kick off a public debate by suggesting that bribe-taking legislators should be liable for prosecution. He had suggested including a new clause requiring that nothing... Should bar the prosecution of a Member of Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act etc, if they take money for voting in Parliament.

Appointing Lok Pal is one of seven measures the LSS has been stressing to further the cause of probity in public life. The others include enacting laws giving citizens access to information, plugging loopholes to discourage defections, requiring declaration of political parties' assets and accounts audit, debarring corrupt and criminal citizens from contesting elections, speedy trial of erring politicians and forfeiture of illegally acquired property, most of which have been under legislative consideration for years, even decades.

The MPs who had stepped forward cutting across the party lines to support the measures include the then leader of the opposition in Rajya Sabha, Dr Manmohan Singh (now/presently the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India), and the then leading attorney and Congress leader, Kapil Sibal (who's a cabinet minister now), as well as the then ruling Bharatiya Janata Party veterans such as B P Singhal, Kailash Joshi and Vijay Kumar Malhotra.

They also included Debabrata Biswas of All India Forward Bloc, Nagendranath Ojha of Communist Party of India, Sunil Khan and Subodh Roy of Communist Party of India (Marxist), Chandra Vijay Singh of Akhil Bharatiya Lok Tantrik Congress, Tarlochan Singh Tur of Shiromani Akali Dal, Ananda Mohan Biswas of Trinamool, Prof M Sankaralingam of Dravida Munnetra Kazhgaham, Peter Alphonse of Tamil Manila Congress, Ashok Mohol of National Congress Party, Arun Kumar and Mahendra Baitha of Janata Dal United, Prabhat Kumar Samantray Bharatuya Janata Dal, Prof A Lakshmisagar of Janata Dal, Dr S Venugopal Telugu Desam Party, Ram Prasad Singh of Rashtriya Janata Dal, Ravi Prakash Verma Samajwadi Janata Party and S D Shariq of National Conference.

Independent member S Roy Choudhary and nominated members writer K S Duggal, journalist Kuldip Nayar and jurist Fali S Nariman, all noted in their respective fields, had also voiced their support (in 2001).

One party from which no response had been received so far (as on March 2001) is/was Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM).

http://ifp.co.in/shownews.php?newsid=207 Source URL/link
Extract from Imphal Free Press dtd March 5, 2010
Ombudsman and its relevance to the constitutional set up in India by Dr. (Mrs) Priyadarshni M Gangte
The ARC initiative of Lokpal:
Convinced with the opinion that there was no effective mechanism to redress grievances of all kinds against the administrative evils, the Administrative Reforms Commission under the Chairmanship of Morarji Desai recommended to set up Lokpal similar to that of Ombudsman in India in its - Interim Report on the Problems of Redressal of Citizen's Grievances (1966) most probably as a result of eminent lawyers none other than M.C. Setalrod, L.M. Singhi etc in the early sixties.

First Indian Version of Ombudsman (1968) :
The first Indian version of Ombudsman Bill 1968 was presented by in the fourth Lok Sabha. Unfortunately, it got lapsed before its being approved by the Rajya Sabha to become law due to dissolution of the Lok Sabha. The Bill was known as "The Lokpal and Lokyuktas, 1968". It was modeled very closely on the draft Bill, proposed by the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in the Interim Report. It envisaged a Lokpal to monitor the actions of the Ministers and the Secretaries, and a Lokayukta to consider complaints against the actions of administrative cadres below the rank of Secretary.

The Second Lokpal Bill (1971) :
A Second Bill was introduced in 1971. It was also lapsed due to dissolution of the fifth Lok Sabha. The Lokpal and the Lokayuktas Bill 1971 did not make any substantial departure from the earlier Bill, 1968.

The highlight the main features, the Bill envisaged to focus on two kinds of activity - 'allegation' and 'grievances'. The term 'allegation' may be summed up as in relation to a public servant who is found to have -(a) abused his position to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue hardship to any other person or to cause undue hardship to any other person;
(b) biased by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives, etc, in the discharge of his official duty;
(c) guilty of corruption, lack of integrity or improper conduct in his capacity.
Likewise, while clause 2(d) of the Bill defined grievance as a claim by a person that he suffered injustice or undue hardship in consequence of 'maladministration' as action taken or purported to have taken in exercise of the administrative function wherein such action or administrative procedure or practice governing such action was alleged or found to have been unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory, negligent, unduly delayed, etc.

Secondly, clause 9(1)(a) and (b) further explained that while 'grievance' can be brought by a person who was actually aggrieved, 'allegation' can be brought by any person other than a public servant.

Thirdly, except the Prime Minister, complaint could be lodged against all shades of public servants. The Lokpal, on his part, is obliged to lay his investigations to the Prime Minister in case of Cabinet Minister and in other cases before the Officer or Minister who is superior to the public servant involved.

The Lokpal proposed by the 1971 Bill could have yielded enormous powers and could have investigated various kinds of cases including maladministration and allegations of corruption of any sort. The institution was not a parliamentary creation, could receive complaints directly and also monitor the action taken by the authority concerned in pursuance of the report of Lokpal. In case the Lokpal was not satisfied, he might seek the help of the President and through him of Parliament.

The Lokpal Bill, 1971 would also have been a very effective instrument of change for improvement and in the nature of administration, but for its being lapsed before it became a law.

Growth of Lokpal in States :
Despite the fact that the Lokpal Bill could not be created as a national institution, interest generated in the concept of Ombudsman throughout the country made its manifestation felt in the enactment of various State Legislations. Orissa was the first State that enacted a legislation in 1970 on the institution, Lokpal.

This was soon followed by Maharashtra in 1971, Rajasthan and Bihar in 1973, Madhya Pradesh in 1974 and Uttar Pradesh in 1975; Kerala adopted a policy to institute a Commissioner to expose corruption in 1976, the Jammu and Kashmir as Prevention of Corruption Statute in 1975, Tamil Nadu as Administrative Criminal Misconduct in 1974, Karnataka in 1973, and so on.

Two kinds of Lokpal :
The above-mentioned State Legislations may be categorized into two. The first category consists of statutes which are modeled on the Lokpal Bill 1972, with modifications to accommodate indigenous elements. The second category is of the kind that was enacted in Rajasthan and Gujarat which were primarily concerned with examining and looking into "allegation" aspect only.

Distorted Lokpal at National Level (1977) :
Some state institutions of Lokpal had shown remarkable success in dealing with "grievance" cases along with "allegation". Despite this, the Janata Government at the centre preferred the Rajasthan and Gujarat models and decided that the Ombudsman shall investigate into "allegation" only. Thus, the 1977 Bill is not concerned with the administration at all. It only concerns with the "corruption" of any member of the Council of Ministers for the Union including the Prime Minister, the Chief Ministers, and members of Parliament and of Legislative Assemblies, leaving the Administrative cadres completely excluded.

The fact that the 1977 Bill had laid emphasis on "corruption" made the Lokpal a complete departure from the Ombudsman model as was originally understood.

The Lokpal Bill, 1985 :
The Rajiv Gandhi Government re-introduced the Bill in 1985 in the Lok Sabha on the 26th August, 1985. It was referred to a joint committee of each Houses of Parliament. In the Committee several members criticized the Bill to the effect that the scope of the same was too restrictive. Thus, the joint committee report on the Bill said,
"It did not provide for the redressal of grievances of citizens but only provided for a pre-trial inquiry into the cases of corruption."

Under the situation the Government deemed it proper to re-examine the whole issue of establishment of a Lokpal, his powers, functions, jurisdiction etc, and, therefore, withdrew the Bill so as to introduce a more comprehensive legislation on the subject despite strong protest to do so from the opposition heavy-weight leaders, such as, L.K. Advani, P. Upendra, V. Arunachalam, K.P. Unnikrishnan, S. Jaipal Reddy, etc. on the ground that the Bill could be adopted with suitable modification without being withdrawn.

The Lokpal Bill, 1989 :
Two years later, the National Front Government introduced the Bill in 1989. The Bill brought in the Prime Minister within the purview of the Lokpal. In fact, the Bill was almost a reproduction of 1985 Bill with minor modifications. The change worthy of mention that had been brought about is in respect of provision for a troika consisting of a Chairman and two members.

Observations with Comments :
As per the 1989 Bill, the Lokpal is merely to conduct pre-trial enquiry against persons holding ministerial posts who are alleged to be guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Sathe (1991) contended that this would place the Lokpal in embarrassing situation. The Government may put up cases before a competent court of Law against the evidence or finding of the Lokpal and may even get the person held to be prima facie culpable by the Lokpal acquitted by the trial Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act and questioned as to the worthwhile purpose of such an expensive institution of Lokpal, %u201CIf it is merely to hold pre-trial enquiries".

Sathe further commented that "We do not know how far the Lokpal will be able to unearth cases of corruption by ministers. This is going to be a very top heavy machinery for that purpose. But certainty the present Lokpal Bill totally buries the concept of Ombudsman which the Administrative Reforms Commission has spelt out in its reports. The Lokpal will not be of any use to the common man whose main grievances is against maladministration, red tape, callousness and negligence. We feel that it might turn out to be another cosmetic office to induct a sense of complacency. What we need is a system which will provide quick relief to people against administrative action as well as administrative inaction. Going to the Court is too expensive and many a time one cannot Marshall Evidence enough to obtain favourable judicial response. So far as corruption is concerned, the prevention of Corruption Act shall be suitably strengthened and even a special tribunal or court with appeal only to the Supreme Court on questions of law could be provided for dealing with those cases. Ombudsman is not the remedy for that purpose.

Lokpal the Indian version of anti-corrupt Ombudsman has to take final shape to become a Law in the Country so as to raise the standard of administration to lessen if not do away with, the grievances of citizens.

Losing Against Corruption Times of India Edit / Editorial
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Home/Opinion/Edit-Page/Losing-Against-Corruption/articleshow/6087597.cms 
It's not an easy job to bring the conduct of our legislators under the scanner. That was demonstrated once again when N Santosh Hegde, Karnataka's popular lokayukta (or ombudsman), resigned from the post on Wednesday citing the state government's "non-cooperation" and indifference to the institution created to curb corruption in public office. Hegde attributed his decision to quit to a series of controversial decisions of the B S Yeddyurappa government. These include non-appointment of Upalokayukta (or super-ombudsman) with real powers of containing corruption, reinstatement of corrupt officials and harassment of honest officers. As he took on corrupt officers, conducted raids, booked even a ruling party BJP MLA for taking bribes and also took on the powerful Bellary mining lobby, his office was referred to as a rare success story in the country.

Hegde's quitting after blaming the government brings the spotlight back on the efficacy of the institution of the lokayukta and lok pal. In India, there are as many as 17 states with the institution of lokayukta. But their power, function and jurisdiction are not uniform across the country. Often, legislators are deliberately kept out of the purview of lokayuktas, which is against the basic premise of having such an institution. The dependence of lokayuktas on other government agencies for investigation cripples and delays their functioning. The reluctance of our parliamentarians has never allowed the creation of the office of lok pal at the Centre. The Lok Pal Bill has failed as many as eight times in the Lok Sabha.

Panel finds discrepancy in functioning of Lokayuktas Deccan Herald June 30, 2010
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/78312/panel-finds-discrepancy-functioning-lokayuktas.html
Only 17 of 35 states and UTs have established the institution
Even as a mere 17 out of 35 states and Union territories have established Lokayukta institutions, there has been a noticeable lack of uniformity in its functioning and implementation, a report has found.

The second Administrative Reforms Commission, in its report on Ethics in Governance, says while Lokayukta institutions deal with corruption in all the states, they also take up other grievances in some of them.

Though a few states have brought functionaries like chief ministers, vice-chancellors and office-bearers of co-operatives under the purview of the institution, others have restricted its reach to a handful of functionaries.

Aided by the probe machinery, Lokayuktas are able to conduct independent investigations in some of the states with its officials having powers to punish for contempt.

However, the institution has been left dependent on government agencies to carry out investigations in some states.

'Active institution'
The Lokayukta was set up after the recommendation made by the first ARC and Maharashtra was the first to establish it in 1972. However Lokayuktas in Maharashtra and Orissa assume the role of grievance redressal organisation, rather than functioning as investigator of corruption cases.

The ARC report, brought out in January 2007, describes the Karnataka Lokayukta as "a very active institution" which has jurisdiction over all public servants, including the chief minister, and ministers.

"With the Anti-Corruption Bureau forming part of the institution, it has unfettered power to inquire or investigate into cases of misconduct and deals both with allegations and grievances.

"However, though the Karnataka Act provides for the submission of property returns to the Lokayukta by the chief minister, ministers and all legislators, few have submitted these returns so far and no action has been taken against those who have not done so", the commission added.

The gaps
There has been a noticeable lack of uniformity in the functioning and implementation of Lokayuktas. A few states have brought functionaries like chief ministers, vice-chancellors and office-bearers of co-operatives under the purview of the institution. In Maharashtra and Orissa Lokayuktas assume the role of grievance redressal, rather than being an investigator of corruption cases. The institution has been left dependent on government agencies to carry out investigations in some states.

Lokayukta may get constitutional status Deccan Herald, June 30, 2010
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/78301/lokayukta-may-get-constitutional-status.html
The unsavoury episode surrounding Justice Santosh Hegde's resignation as Karnataka Lokayukta may hasten Central legislation which will make sweeping changes in the ambit and functions of the ombudsman's office, besides vesting it with constitutional status and making it a multi-member body with more powers.

Disclosing this to Deccan Herald on Tuesday, Union Law Minister M Veerappa Moily said a group of ministers has studied the proposed changes which will soon be placed before the Cabinet. Once passed by Parliament, the draft legislation will be sent to the states as constitutional changes require approval of the legislatures.

According to the proposed comprehensive changes, the institution of Lokayukta will be uniform across the country and made a three-member body. Across all states, the Lokayukta's office will be headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or high court chief justice and comprise the state vigilance commissioner and a jurist or an eminent administrator as other members.

A collegium consisting of the respective chief ministers, leaders of the Opposition and chief justices of the high courts will appoint all the three members. The proposed legislation will make it mandatory for states to establish the institution of Lokayukta.

As for wider powers for the institution, the GoM, headed by Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee, has taken cue from a conference of lokayuktas held some time ago and the report of the second Administrative Reforms Commission, headed by Moily. The GoM proposal is that the proceedings before the Lokayukta should be treated as judicial proceedings investing it with the jurisdiction, power and authority to punish for contempt of itself as in a high court.

Lokayukta's ambit should cover public grievances: Hegde The Hindu, Thu, July 01, 2010
http://www.hindu.com/2010/07/01/stories/2010070154660500.htm
The institution of the Lokayukta should not be confined to cases of corruption but extend to addressing grievances and acting against maladministration, said Lokayutka N. Santosh Hegde.

Mr. Hegde was reacting to changes proposed by the Group of Ministers (GoM) in the ambit and functioning of Lokayukta. Among the changes proposed includes restricting the Lokayukta to cases of corruption and barring it from probing public grievances.

"I fully agree with most of the proposals made by the GoM. But Lokayukta should be allowed to look into grievance redressal and also take action on maladministration. Corruption is only one part of maladministration," Mr. Hegde said on Wednesday.

The GoM want the institution of Lokayukta uniform across the country. It wants the Lokayukta to be a three-member body that comprises a former Supreme Court or a High Court Chief Justice, the State Vigilance Commissioner and a jurist or an eminent administrator. The GoM has proposed scrapping of the post of Upalokayukta. The proceedings before the Lokayukta should be treated as judicial proceedings and it should be vested with powers of initiating contempt proceedings. Mr. Hegde said the Centre should consider constituting Lokpal. "Corruption and maladministration is not only restricted to the States alone," he said. "At present, the Lokayukta institution is a statutory authority; the Governments can remove it anytime."

Dilly-dallying over Lok Pal  Business Daily Friday, Jan 25, 2008

Corruption will be out one day, however much one may try to conceal it; and the public can, as its right and duty, in every case of justifiable suspicion, call its servants to strict account, dismiss them, sue them in a law court or appoint an arbitrator or inspector to scrutinise their conduct, as it likes. %u2013 Mahatma Gandhi in Young India (1928)

Today politics has become corrupt. Anybody who goes into politics gets contaminated. The greater the inner purity, the greater shall be our hold on the people, without any effort on our part. %u2013 Mahatma Gandhi, prayer meeting, January 1948

The conduct of people's representatives must be brought under the scanner and should make them conform to stringent norms of probity and rectitude.

For more than four decades, India%u2019s parliamentarians have been dragging their feet over the implementation of the recommendation of the Santhanam Committee for Prevention of Corruption for establishing the institution of Lok Pal at the Centre to take action against corrupt practices by Ministers, including the Prime Minister, and MPs. The Lok Pal Bill, meant to give effect to this recommendation, had been introduced eight times in as many Lok Sabhas but put to an unnatural death with the end of the term of the House.

The Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, himself admitted, while addressing the Conference of Lokayuktas in September 2004, soon after the UPA Government came into power that "the need for Lok Pal is much more urgent at present than ever before" and promised to take effective action in this regard "without any further loss of time." In fact, the quotations from Mahatma Gandhi are from his speech. There are no signs of the Lok Pal Bill becoming law this time also. How long do the Government and our parliamentarians think they can take people for a ride?

http://www.indiatogether.org/2005/jan/law-lokpal.htm#continue
Examples from various countries suggest that the institution of ombudsman has very successfully fought against corruption and unscrupulous administrative decisions by public servants, and acted as a real guardian of democracy and civil rights.

The Lokpal

In early 1960s, mounting corruption in public administration set the winds blowing in favour of an Ombudsman in India too. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) set up in 1966 recommended the constitution of a two-tier machinery - of a Lokpal at the Centre, and Lokayukt(a)s in the states. The ARC while recommending the constitution of Lokpal was convinced that such an institution was justified not only for removing the sense of injustice from the minds of adversely affected citizens but also necessary to instill public confidence in the efficiency of administrative machinery. Following this, the Lokpal Bill was for the first time presented during the fourth Lok Sabha in 1968, and was passed there in 1969.

However, while it was pending in the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha was dissolved, resulting the first death of the bill. The bill was revived in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and most recently in 2001. Each time, after the bill was introduced to the house, it was referred to some committee for improvements - a joint committee of parliament, or a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry - and before the government could take a final stand on the issue the house was dissolved.

The Lokpal was visualized as the watchdog institution on ministerial probity. Broadly the provisions of different bills empowered the Lokpal to investigate corruption cases against political persons at the Central level. Some important features of the Lokpal Bill have varied over the years; in its most recent avatar, the bill contains the following.

Objective is to provide speedy, cheaper from of justice to people.
Members: Lokpal is to be a three member body with a chairperson who is or has been a chief justice or judge of the Supreme Court; and its two other members who are or have been judges or chief justices of high courts around the country.

Appointment: The chairperson and members shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal on the recommendation of a committee consisting of the following persons. It's not clear whether the committee has to make a unanimous decision or a majority decision will do. (a) The Vice-President (Chairman) (b) The PM (c) The Speaker of LS (d) Home Minister (e) Leader of the House, other than the house in which PM is a member. (f) Leaders of Opposition of both the houses.

Independence of the Office: In order to ensure the independence of functioning of the august office, the following provisions have been incorporated.
Appointment is to be made on the recommendation of a committee.
The Lokpal is ineligible to hold any office of profit under Government of India or of any state, or similar such posts after retirement.
Fixed tenure of three years and can be removed only on the ground of proven misbehaviour or incapacity after an inquiry made by CJI and two senior most judges of SC.
Lokpal will have its own administrative machinery for conducting investigations.
Salary of Lokpal is to be charged on the Consolidated Fund of India.

Jurisdiction of Lokpal:
The central level political functionaries like the Council of Ministers including the Prime Minister, the Members of Parliament etc.
He can not inquire into any allegation against the PM in relation to latter's functions of national security and public order.

Complaints of offence committed within 10 years from the date of complaint can be taken up for investigation, not beyond this period.

Any person other than a public servant can make a complaint. The Lokpal is supposed to complete the inquiry within a period of six months. The Lokpal has the power of a civil court to summon any person or authority.
He can order search and seizure operations.
He shall present annually to the President the reports of investigation and the latter with the action take report has to put it before the both houses of parliament.

The current situation
The misdeeds committed during the Emergency remind us of the necessity of including the PM within the purview of the Lokpal.

There's prevalence of corruption in the subordinate courts and even in High Courts. So the Judiciary should be brought within the purview of Lokpal. The political fraternity is understandably opposed to a Lokpal, since the purported target of the Lokpal is mainly the politicians themselves.

The publicly stated reason for the current delay is that some important issues are as yet unresolved. Primarily, these are:
Whether the office of the Prime Minister be brought under the purview of Lokpal
"Be you ever so high, the law is higher than you". According to this maxim of the supremacy of the law, there is no reason why the PM should be given special treatment over other functionaries. The misdeeds committed during the Emergency remind us of the necessity of including the PM within the purview of the Lokpal. The Prime Minister is the example-setter for political life; the inclusion of his office strengthens the cause of probity in public life, whereas his exclusion would create suspicion in the public's mind about the honesty and integrity of the highest political executive of the country.
The bill should include the Prime Minister within the Lokpal's purview.

Whether the Lokpal should have its own investigation machinery, or if it should depend on the existing ones.
The principal reason for growing corruption in public life, despite the existence of stringent laws, is the inability, as well as the lack of commitment and impartiality, of the investigating agencies. The agencies have not shown the desired degree of honesty, and instead been pliant to their political masters. Making the Lokpal solely dependent on the existing investigating bodies would amount to empowering the office of Lokpal in theory, but making it pointless in practice. There is also the question of costs incurred, should a separate investigative machinery for the Lokpal be established. But this is simply a distraction. Not only would the costs be miniscule in comparison to many other initiatives, but they would likely be compensated by reduced corruption in administrative and legislative matters that impart a huge cost when unchecked.

Lokayuktas in the states
There are as many as 17 states where the institution of Lokayukta has been constituted, beginning with Orissa in 1971. However the power, function and jurisdiction of Lokayuktas are not uniform in the country. In some states it has been applicable to all the elected representatives including the CM. In some other states legislators have been deliberately kept out of his purview. Often, lacunae have been left in legislation creating the office, apparently to keep the elected representatives outside meaningful jurisdiction of the Lokayukta, even when the laws appear to include them. Lokayuktas have not been provided with their independent investigative machinery making them dependent on the government agencies, which leaves enough scope for the politicians and the bureaucrats to tinker with the processes of investigation.

Despite provisions that have rendered the Lokayuktas toothless, competent office-holders have tried to use the office for the public good. In Karnataka, especially, the Lokayukta, despite small budgets and limited authority, has emerged as a figure of some respect, visiting government offices regularly and proactively exmaining corrupt practices. Here too, however, MLAs remain beyond his jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
Lok Pal Bill must place under scrutiny the conduct of all public functionaries and political leaders, including the Prime Minister (PM), the members of the cabinet, as well as all members of both Rajya Sabha / Upper House and Lok Sabha / Lower House. The Lok Pal must be vested "with adequate powers to deal with charges of corruption against anyone, including the Prime Minister (PM)."

MPs/legislators exercise enormous influence in shaping laws, policy and decisions which is fundamentally important and has potential for abuse. MPs are also empowered to take decisions such as spending constituency development funds. A few MPs have been known to accept bribes and misuse Government property and ever increasing facilities and perquisites for personal benefit.

Members of Parliament (both the Upper House / Rajya Sabha and Lower House / Lok Sabha) must be placed under its purview to promote accountability and must not be excluded from its jurisdiction. MPs and members of their immediate family must declare personal assets each year they remain in office.

Bribe-taking legislators should be liable for prosecution. Nothing should bar the prosecution of a Member of Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act etc, if they take money for voting in Parliament.

Lokayuktas must exist in each and every Indian state and Union Territory and must have an uniform power, function and jurisdiction over Chief Ministers (CMs) and Members of State Legislatures / Councils (MLAs/MLCs) across the country.

In case of Lokayuktas MLAs / MLCs and members of their immediate family must declare personal assets each year they remain in office. Often, legislators are deliberately kept out of the purview of lokayuktas, which is against the basic premise of having such an institution.

The institutions of Lok Pal and Lok Ayuktas shouldn't be dependent on central and state government agencies to carry out investigations.

Proceedings before the Lok Pals and Lokayuktas should be treated as judicial proceedings investing it with the jurisdiction, power and authority to punish for contempt of itself.

The jurisdiction of the Lok Pal and Lokayukta ombudsmen should extend to cases of corruption involving ministers, legislators and secretaries and it should also probe general public grievances.

Administrative cadres shouldn't be excluded from the purview of Lok Pals and Lokayuktas. The post of Upa Lokayuktas in states shouldn't be scrapped.

Lokayuktas should be given the power to suspend and revoke suspension of corrupt officials. Section 36 of CrPC should be amended to confer police power on the Lokayuktas. Lokayuktas should be given suo motu powers (powers to investigate on their own without waiting for someone to file a complaint) to investigate officials as well as politicians.

Corruption accentuates poverty, aggravates economic disparity, thwarts development, undermines democracy and, what is worse, destroys the moral fibre of the Nation. Of the various forms of corruption rampant in our country, we regard the political corruption, particularly of some of the Ministers, MPs and MLAs as a greater betrayal of the Nation. No surprise that India has been branded by reliable International and Indian institutions as one of the 20 most corrupt countries of the world. The Supreme Court in its various judgements has termed our country's corruption as 'plague',  'cancer' and 'aids'.

How will our Rulers control the rampant corruption at lower levels, unless they, without a single exception, are above board and set an example of absolute integrity, transparency and accountability.

Requests:
We the petition signers request the Central Government, Prime Minister and Parliament to enact fool-proof legislations to give effect to our following three demands or remedial measures:-

(I) (a) Enactment of a high calibre 3-member effective Lok Pal (or Rashtriya Lok Ayukta) to adjudicate speedily the bonafide and serious complaints made on affidavits against MPs and Union Ministers. These complaints may relate to abuse of authority for personal or party gains, corruption, bribery, misuse of Government privileges and facilities and misuse of MPLAD and MLALAD schemes and disproportionate assets, false declarations of assets, false declarations re: election expenses, incurred generally far in excess of the legal ceilings.

(b) The UPA and Congress Party, the NDA and Bhartiya Janata Party and the CPI (Marxist) had promised in their manifestos re: enactment of Lok Pal legislation but alas there is no Lok Pal. The Union Government and Parliament have deliberately avoided to name the Competent Authority, without whose sanction no prosecution can be launched against MPs and Union Ministers under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus there is no forum left for speedy disposal of bonafide complaints against MPs and Union Ministers.

(II) Disqualification of candidates for election to Parliament and State Legislatures against whom criminal cases involving moral turpitude filed six months before the election may be going on (as recommended by the two former Chief Election Commissioners Shri T.S. Krishnamurthy and Shri B.B.Tandon), unless there is a stay or order in restraint by the High Court concerned.

(III) Forfeiture of illegally acquired property of public servants and functionaries, as recommended by the Law Commission of India under the Chairmanship of Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, as far back as February 1999.