Lokpal JDC - Minutes of Meeting 8

8/4/2019 Lokpal JDC - Minutes of Meeting 8

1/21

Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the Joint Drafting Committee (JOC) fordrafting the Lok Pal Bill held on 20.6.2011 (Monday~ at 11:00 hrs. in RoomNo.41, North Block.

The following were present:

Ministers Representatives of Civil Society

(i) Shri Pranab Mukherjee,Minister of Finance -Chairperson

(i) Shri Shanti Shushan, SeniorAdvocate - Co-Chairperson

(ii) Shri P. Chidambaram, (ii) Shri Anna HazaraMinister of Home Affairs

(iii) Dr. M. Veerappa Moily, (iii) Shri Prashant ShushanMinister of Law and Justice -Convener

(iv) Shri Kapil Sibal, Minister of (iv) Shri Arvlnd KejriwalHuman ResourceDevelopment and Minister ofCommunication andInformation Technology.

(v) Shri Salman Khursheed,Minister of Water Resourcesand Minister of MinorityAffairs.

2.1 The Chairman while welcoming tho members. referred to theprogress made by the Committee in the draWn~Jexercise. He stated thatthe set of 40 prlnctptes proposed by the Mc'mbers of the Civil Societyconstituted the basis of the discussions for tho proposed Lokpal Bill andthat agreement had since been reached on '! 1 such prlnclples. TheChairman suggested that there were 7 others "'hich were agreed to butrequired to be rephrased, 7 others were agr~ed to, but required furtherdiscussions; both these were placed in square brackets, 10 other

\


2/21

- 2 -

required further discussions and in respect of 6 there has been noconsensus. If agreed to the exercise may b(~proceeded with taking upareas placed under square brackets relating to 7+7 items followed bytaking up these items which had been kept aside for further discussions.

2.2 As regards the six contentious Issues, where disa.greemcntpersisted, he apprised that he had written to tht! Chief Ministers and thePolitical Parties who had since responded thereto. Four Political Parties,including the BJP, had desired a discussion after the drafting exercisehad been concluded and others had sugge~t~d consultation(s) prior tointroduction of the Bill in the Parliament. He further stated that during thefirst week of July, 2011, an all Party meeting was proposed to beconvened to formulate views on the said issues. He however, did not ruleout further discussions on the said issues '/YitfJin the Committee if timepermitted.

2.3 It was also informed that Shri Justice N. Santosh Hegde hadexcused himself for the Meetings on 20th and 21st June, 201'1 and that hisrequest had been placed on the website. Shri Prashant Bhushaninformed that Justice Hegde would be present for the ninth meeting to beheld on 21st June, 2011.

2.4 The minutes of the ih Meeting of the Joint Drafting Committee heldon 15th June, 2011 have been circulated. At the request of the Members itwas decided to take up their confirmation in the next meeting.

3. Shri Arvind KejriwaJ stated that apart from the 40 basic principlesinitially provided, the same were supplemented by 31 additional points inthe meeting of 23-05-2011 which were firmed up based on publicconsultations. The Chairman stated that it may be difficult to take upthese additional issues but sought confirmation as to whether there wereany substantial deviations. Shri Prashant Shushan confirmed that thesame only supplemented the original principles.

,'/f}). . .JV i


3/21

- 3 -

4.1 Shri Prashant Shushan stated that before the issues werediscussed it would be appropriate if the 7 basic differences in the visionwere revisited. He stated that the basic difference lay in the fact that theyviewed the Lokpal as a comprehensive Anti Corruption Machinery,independent of the Government across the board and that the entireexercise presently being undertaken by the Anti Corruption machinery,viz. the CBI/CVC/Police may be taken up by the Lokpal, while theGovernment's views of Lokpal were restricted to it being a limitedmachinery confined to few big cases of corruption.

4.2 The Chairman clarified that there was no divergence but the visioncontained ingredients and visions could not be abstracts. He stated thatthe 40 principles plus 31 supplements submitted by the members of theCivil Society represented the said vision and 11 had already been agreedto with further seven having been agreed to in principle and 7 otherprinciples also agreed to only required appropriate legal clothing in theform of language. Then there were 10 others which had still to bediscussed and in six areas there were serious differences. He furtherstated that the Government agreed with the vision of Lokpal beingindependent from the paint of view of financial resources, havingindependent Investigation and Prosecution Wings and having autonomyin its functioning and manpower. The six areas of disagreement had beencirculated for comments and hosted on the website and some politicalparties have already asked for discussion. The Political Parties had to betaken on board to have the Bill passed in the Parliament. The Chairmansuggested that the JDC may now move forward on the drafting exercise.

4.3 Shri Arvind Kejriwal painted out that it could be appreciated thatthe issues relating to the Prime Minister and the Members of Parliamentwere political issues but the aspects of corruption from top to bottomcould be considered and there nobody may disagree. He suggested foradoption of flexibility on such issues.

/-~)~,.\'i/'-)~


4/21

- 4 -

4.4 The Chairman explained that the views of the Civil Societysuggested that Government will be divested of the entire Anti CorruptionMachinery which will be placed at the disposal of the LokpaJ. This wouldleave the Government devoid of any powers to check corruption, andtherefore, not acceptable. It would also mean a parallel set up. It neededto be appreciated that the Constitution had placed a responsibility on theGovernment to discharge its responsibility in such areas. Addressingand tackling Corruption was part of governance.

4.5 Shri Shanti Shushan, Co-Chairman stated that the Governmentcould take a decision through legislation that a particular function of theGovernment be exercised through an independent agency as has beenthe case for the Central Vigilance Commission. A Ministry will beidentified for responding to questions relating to its functioning. Hestressed that it would be open for the Parliament to decide by approvinga legislation that a part of the function of the Government would beexercised through a specific machinery.

4.6 The Chairman confirmed that the Government side had not agreedthereto and larger consultation was required as regards the powers of theLokpal by involving other actors in the Parliament. Shri Shanti Shushanstated that after discussions with the Political Parties, if someconvergence is reached, the Government may incorporate the same inthe draft proposed to be introduced in the Parliament.

4.7 The Minister of Water Resources pointed out that the Governmentenvisioned Lokpal as an important quasi judicial body. It may be difficultto comprehend that such a body could handle complaints against theentire range of public servants and hence the Civil Society's proposalsuggested for delegation of quasi-judicial powers. Shri Shanti Shushanclarified their position to state that it would be supervision and notdelegation. Shri Arvind Kejriwal stated that there had been an error in

/ / C ) 1 ) . - ," ~l


5/21

- 5 -

understanding the position of the Civil Society. The Minister of WaterResources stated that the said views were based on the Press Reportsthat the Government intended to choke the 11 member Lokpal with all theissues. He stated that this was one dimension and the second was thatthe CBI handled a gamut of cases which ranged beyond corruptionmatters viz. the Satyam issue and then there were corruption issueswhich were handled by the State. Shri Shanti Shushan stated that onlysuch part of the machinery which dealt with the Anti Corruption - andspecifically the Prevention of Corruption Act was proposed for suchtransfer under the control of the Lokpal.

4.8 Shri Arvind Kejriwal sought permission of the Chair for providingclarification about the vision of the Lokpal Bill stating that it wasenvisioned that it would cover corruption aspects from top to bottom andthat there were three critical drawbacks in the existing system under theGovernment which were proposed to be taken care of in the Lokpal. Thefirst issue was lack of independence and it related to seeking ofpermission for investigation/prosecution. The second related to financialautonomy and third was internal accountability. He stated that theGovernment intended to retain the existing system perhaps on account ofvested interests.

4.9 As a solution to the aforesaid three critical areas he stated that thetransfer of Anti Corruption Wing of the CSI and empowering Lokpal toinitiate prosecution would address the issue of independence. Theprovision for charged expenditure would address the resource/financerelated issues which had more or less been agreed upon. As regards thethird aspect he stated that it is not the number of people but the systemto be put in place that would address to the internal accountabilityaspect.

4.10 The Minister of Home Affairs clarified that on the three issuesraised, the Government side had agreed on two issues and on the third

' / J ( J " . ~ _ } ' / - r '..... _? q


6/21

- 6-

there was just an apparent difference of opinion. It had been confirmedand agreed upon that the Lokpal could have as large an investigationwing, as required, under its independent control. The expenses had beenagreed upon to be charged. However, as regards the internal systems ofchecks the same could only evolve over a period of time with help ofHuman Resource experts and for the present only the first chapter couldbe written through a regulation which would subsequently evolve basedon experience at later.stages. Thus there was no difference of opinion onany of these issues.

4.11 Shri Arvind Kejriwal pointed out that about 15,000 persons wouldbe required as per their estimation. This is based on internationalstandard of having 1 Anti Corruption personnel for every 200 employees,which works out to around 20,000 for 4 million employees and expresseda view that as per his own calculation requirements of manpower may bearound 15,000. Shri Kejriwal informed that their stand as regardsdepartmental action had been reviewed and now the merger of evc wasnot being insisted upon in the revised draft.

4.12 The Minister of Home Affairs pointed out that the present capacityof the eBI for handling cases ranged around 2000 cases per annum ofwhich PC Act cases total about a thousand. Thus the workforce requiredfor the investigating wing of the Lokpal to handle 10,000 cases would bemuch higher.

4.13 He also stated that "crime" was part of the concurrent list of theConstitution and such cases were also handled by the local Police as wellas the anti corruption machinery of the State Government. Shri ShantiBhushan stated that such component of State Machinery would also haveto be transferred to the control of the Lok Ayukta. The Minister for HomeAffairs stated even if that be so the capacity of the Lokpal may not beadequate and it would be appropriate to leave certain aspects to behandled by other agencies of the Government.


7/21

- 7 -

4.14 Shri Prashant Shushan stated that with the existence of a parallelmachinery within the Government, the issue would be that if thecomplaint came to the Government, it will preclude the Lokpal frominvestigation. The Home Minister clarified that in case the Lokpalintended to investigate a matter it would have the priority, and that even ifit would have jurisdiction over all its focus should still be to addresscorruption at higher places. This, he stated, had already been agreedupon and the discussion had been halted at the stage to which level thejurisdiction should extend and specially whether a Class IV employee wasalso intended to be covered. The Government was agreeable to extendjurisdiction powers up to all Group 'A' level employees, which wasendorsed by the Chairman, Home Minister also put to rest theapprehensions of the Co-Chairman about jurisdiction over AssistantEngineers of CPWD who were confirmed to be Group 'A' appointees. TheMinister of Human Resource Development stated that for the present acut off level may be decided and later, based on experience andperformance, the same could be extended.

4.15 The Minister for Human Resource Development stated that thoughit had already been agreed to in principle that Lokpal will haveindependent Investigation and Prosecution wings, he had anapprehension about an agency outside the Government with workforce ofaround 15000 people who would have absolute and excessive powers.And if he were to go by his experience of Investigating Agencies, theprocess of internal accountability was not workable.

4.16 Shri Anna Hazare stated that the LokpaJ should not be perceived tobe outside the Government but would be an institution like the ElectionCommission of India or the Central Information Commission. He delvedupon the reason to cover the entire gamut of administrative set upindicating that right from the Tehsildar level to the level of theCommissionerate, the administrate authorities had powers to impose


8/21

- 8 -

fines and impose penalties, which was not being done with the commonman being made to run from pillar to post and eventually being directedtowards the judiciary where the grievance redressal takes ages. ShriArvind Kejriwalsupplemented the said statement and inquired as to howsuch corruption at cutting edge level wil l be addressed. The Minister forHuman Resource Development indicated that the Citizen's Charter whichhad been agreed upon as a dynamic and evolving document and LokAyuktas would address such areas, including the corruption at thePanchayat level.

4.17 The CoChairman also raised the issue of bribing by the CorporateHouses on a regular basis to inspectors and the same was responded toby stating that there is also a likelihood of a Lokpal functionary being puton the payroll for any illegal activity. The Chairman stated that assumingthat the Lokpal would provide a remedy for all wrongs is far fetched andaddressing corruption issues at village level for more than 6 lakh villagesmay not be possible for any single agency.

4.18 Shri Prashant Shushan stated that the main reason for corruptionlay in the fact that action was not being taken against the corrupt andwhich was due to conflict of interest and the administrative superiorbeing in the same chain hesitating from taking required action. He alsostated that there had been a large number of cases of such protectionbeing afforded by the superior supervising authority. Referring to theUNCAC, he stated that in view of this factor, the Anti CorruptionMachinery is envisaged to be independent and thus free from conflict ofinterest. An independent Lokpal would address this issue.

4.19 The Minister of Law and Justice agreed that it was ideal andappropriate but the world practices presented a different picture and theproblem lay in concentration of powers in a single body. He furtherstated that this was the reason for the Supreme Court also beingoverburdened. He advised that lessons may be learnt from history and

/ < : V , ~ ! > .......J


9/21

-9-

wisdom lay in creation of a powerful body with a defined focus onimportant areas. There could be no preclusion of the Lokpal giving itsadvice on systemic failures rather than handling the entire issues right tothe lowest levels. The idea, he stated was not to render the institutiondysfunctional and that is the reason for creation of Ombudsmen at thelower levels and existence of checks and balances at such levels. ShriShant; Shushan cited the example of Hong Kong but it was admitted thata parallel with Hong Kong which was far smaller in dimension being onlya City State, may not be relevant.

4.20 Shrl Anna Hazare stated that the Parliamentary form extended tothe grass root levels of the Gram Sabhawhich had life long members andthis level was responsible for ultimate representation of the people in theLegislative Assemblies and the Parliament but the Government had notgiven a thought to strengthening the said system. He clarified that thisobservation was not specific to Lokpal Bill but meant to point out that theinstitutions at lower levels - at village levels were not duly empoweredand even for land acquisition the Parliament decided and legislatedwhereas the concerned Gram Sabha of the village was not consulted oreven informed.

5.1 The Chairman proposed that the Committee may proceed towardsdiscussing the seven points on agenda which were agreed to, butrequired further discussion. He stated that as regards resources for theLokpal, the expenditure had been agreed to be "charged" with thedetermination of the budgetary provisions following the parallel of theSupreme Court of India. The formulation as proposed by the Civil Societysuggested for consultation with the Prime Minister which standsmodified. 8hri Arvind Kejriwal agreed with the proposition and then wenton to suggest that the 11 member Board of the Lokpal may collectivelydecide and that such a decision may not be subjected to any scrutiny bythe Ministry of Finance. The Chairman clarified that in case of Supreme


10/21

- 10 -Court also there are no discussions with the Secretary (Expenditure) butconstraints of funds available were required to be kept in view.

5.2 Shri Prashant Bhushan stated that this aspect needed to beconsidered as it affects the functioning of the Lokpal. If the SupremeCourt could not get judges, it would not compromise its independencebut would certainly compromise its effectiveness. The Minister of HomeAffairs tried to put such apprehensions to rest by indicating that in thepast 60 years, the Supreme Court had not faced any such constraint offunds that would impair its efficiency and the Chief Justice(s) at no pointhad any reason to complain on this ground. The Chairman added that thefundamental principle was that the Lok Sabha had the sole responsibilityto accord permission to withdraw from the Consolidated Fund of India.He further stated that the Finance Minister would also have to look at themacro picture for finalizing the budget keeping in view that India was adeveloping economy and desirability and availability factors were to bekept in view by striking a balance. The prevalent practice, with respect toSupreme Court was that whatever provision was suggested was generallyagreed to.

5.3 Shri Shanti Bhushan sought to suggest that a provision be made tothe effect that such provision would not exceed a quarter of the totalbudgetary provisions. The Minister for Human Resource Developmentand the Minister of Law and Justice stated that inclusion of such aspecific provision for expenditure qua an organization would be chargedmay not be constitutionally possible. The Minister of Water Resourcesstressed that there could not be anything stronger than the SupremeCourt. Shri Arvind Kejriwal stated that the present informal consultationas was adopted for the Supreme Court was proposed to be formalizedthrough the proposed legislation of Lokpal.

6. The Chairman suggested that the Committee should move forwardand take up various items (out of the basic principles suggested by the

/""~").. i "? _,?. -- V

_-"" " ' " '


11/21

- 11 -

Civil Society representatives) which were put under square brackets, oneby one.

Clause 1 (a):

6.1 The Chairman took up clause 1(a) relating to financialIndependence of Lokpal and indicated that this clause had been agreed.However, the mode of determining the quantum of annual budgetaryallocations was decided to be discussed further. Shri Arvind Kejriwalstated that they had discussed this issue amongst themselves andsuggested that the 11 members of the Lokpal should arrive at thebudgetary figure which should be treated as charged expenditure to theConsolidated Fund of India. Minister of Home Affairs said that he was ofthe view that to maintain the financial independence of the Lokpal thepractice followed by the Supreme Court should be followed in the case ofLokpal. Shri Shanti Shushan stated that their formulation envisages thatthe Parliament will provide in the Act itself that the Lokpal will frame itsown budget but it will not exceed quarter percent of the budget of theGovernment. The Chairman asked whether the Parliament has suchpowers? Minister of Law & Justice informed the Committee that theConstitution does not provide any such provision. Shri Arvind Kejriwalstated that they will formulate their version on it and circulate to theCommittee.

Clause 2:

6.2 The formulation to clause 2 was taken up with regard to theproposal of Civil Society to the aspect of ineligibility of the Chairpersonand members of Lokpal not eligible to contest elections. The Chairmanwanted to know from the representatives of the Civil Society as to underwhich law a person can be made ineligible to contest an election. ShriShanti Bhushan stated that the Constitution provides that by an Act ofParliament a person can be disqualified from contesting elections.


12/21

- 12 -

Thereupon Minister of Human Resource Development stated that holdingthe office of Chairperson or Member of Lokpal is not a disqualification.Minister of Home Affairs stated that there is distinction betweenineligibility and disqualification. Shri Shanti Shushan stated that Article102 (1)(e) provides that a person shall be disqualified if he is sodisqualified and the disqualification means to make a person ineligible. Itwas decided that this needs to be examined whether it is constitutionallypossible to make a person ineligible to contest an election.

Clause 3:

6.3 The Committee took up the formulations proposed for selection ofmembers and Chairperson of Lokpal. The representatives of the CivilSociety were of the view that the Selection Committee has to mandatorilyset up a Search Committee. First five members of the Search Committeeshall be chosen by the Selection Committee from amongst retired ChiefJustices, retired Chief Election Commissioners and retired CAGs. Thefive members so selected will then select five members from the CivilSociety thereby making a total of 10 members in the Search Committee.The Search Committee will shortlist names. Minister of Home Affairsstated that the Selection Committee may constitute a Search Committeeand it may have its own procedure. Shri Shanti Shushan reiterated theirpoint that there shall be a Search Committee. He further stated that thereason to have such a committee is that the Selection Committee is abody of high level ex-officio persons and they may not have enough timeto go into the details. However, Minister of Home Affairs was of the viewthat it should be left to the Selection Committee to constitute a SearchCommittee as per its requirement. Shri Shanti Bhushan indicated thatprescribing a Search Committee was also necessary so as not to allowtoo much of leeway to the Selection Committee. Minister of Home Affairssuggested that JOC was to first take up the constitution of SelectionCommittee.


13/21

- 13-

6.4 Shri Prashant Bhushan took up the composition of SelectionCommittee and indicated that they had suggested the Prime Minister,Leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, CAG, CEC, two youngest judges ofSupreme Court, two youngest Chief Justice of High Courts and allprevious Chairmen of Lokpal. Minister of Law & Justice observed that theGovernment side is thinking that the PM, Leader of the other House,Speaker,Leaderof th e Oppositionin the both the Houses;Minister In-charge ofHome Affairs, one sitting judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated byCJI, one sitting Chief Justice of a High Court to be nominated by the CJIand with Cabinet Secretary as Member Secretary. Shri Shanti Bhushanreacted by saying that there is need to have a broad based SelectionCommittee and the Civil Society is of the view that too many people frompolitical parties should not be there because of conflict of interest. To thisMinister of Home Affairs observed that conflict of interest may also bethere in the case of judiciary and constitutional functionaries and thereshould not be a bias against political class. Minister of Law & Justiceasked the representatives of Civil Society to suggest their formulation inthis regard. Shri Prashant Bhushan stated that the PM, Leader ofOpposition, CAG, CEC and four judges should form the SelectionCommittee. This was followed by a discussion to include academiciansholding high position i.e. Vice Chancellors, senior national professors,Noble laureates of Indian origin, Chairman of National Academy ofScience, etc. in place of C&AG, CEC. Shri Kejriwal suggested that theywould respond on inclusion of people from academics the next day.

Clause 26:6.5 Clause 26 which deals with quantum of punishment was taken upfor discussion. The Co-chairman suggested that the maximumpunishment should be life imprisonment. Minister of Home Affairsobserved that if the minimum punishment of one year is provided, it maylead to a situation where a person guilty of petty corruption charges willbe awarded minimum imprisonment of one year which may not be/ j~'/.


14/21

- 14 -

desirable. Therefore, the minimum punishment may be retained at sixmonths and the maximum could be raised to 10 years. Shri ShantiBhushan observed that if life imprisonment is permitted, it may creategreater terror in the hearts of those who indulge in corruption. ThereuponMinister of Home Affairs observed that there would be three punishmentsfor corruption; one is imprisonment, second is recovery of loss and thirdis forfeiture of property. Shri Anna Hazare was of the view that theCommittee should recommend life imprisonment and leave the matter forthe Parliament to be decided. After discussion it was decided thatviewpoints of both sides should be reflected in the draft.

Clause 7:6.6 In respect of Clause 7 which relates to the Lokpal not requiringpermission from any other agency for initiating investigation, inquiry orprosecution, it had been earlier decided that a proviso may have to bebuilt into this provision to cater to exception where constitutional orstatutory immunity is provided. Shri Arvind Kejriwal stated that the CivilSociety had agreed for constitutional immunity and not statutoryimmunity. After discussions it was agreed that a proviso may be added inrespect of constitutional immunity.

Clause 18:6.7 Clause 18which is regarding powers of Lokpal to issue appropriatedirections to prevent destruction of records during investigations, etc.,was agreed to with the condition that provision regarding acts ofmisconduct may be dropped.

Clause 31:6.8 The formulation on Citizen's Charter and public grievances wasagreed to. It was also decided that the formulation in this regard will bedrafted and circulated to Members.


15/21

- 15-

Clause 39:6.9 The formulation on transparency was also agreed to in respect ofcases which have been decided.

Clause 9:6.10 Clause 9 regarding powers of a Civil Court to be given to Lokpalwas discussed and agreed to.

Clause 10:6.11 Clause 10 relating to powers of contempt and imposition offinancial penalties was agreed to.

Clause 12:6.12 Clause 12 which is regarding deemed police officer. the Chairmansuggested that such powers may be limited to officer of the level of Dy.SPand above.

Clause 13:6.13 This clause relates to powers of Lokpal to recommend setting up ofspecial courts and the proposed formulation was agreed to.

Clause 26 :

6.14 Minimum punishment of 6 months and maximum punishment ofupto 10 years was agreed to.

Clause 29:6.15 Clause 29 which deals with deemed involvement of the beneficiarywas taken up for discussions. The Committee noted that it may not be/ _ 1 ~ /


16/21

- 16 -necessary that the beneficiary is involved in corruption, therefore, thereis a need to reformulate this clause.

Clause 38:6.16 It was agreed that Rules may be framed by the Government andRegulations by the Lokpal.

Clause 5:6.17 Clause 5 deals with removal of Chairman and Members of Lokpal.The formulation suggested by the Civil Society members was discussed.The Co-Chairman stated that they are providing that a citizen may file acomplaint with the Supreme Court against any Member of Lokpal orChairperson, and the Supreme Court shall institute a time bound inquiry.A Member or Chairperson of Lokpal may be removed on the basis of suchinquiry. For frivolous complaints the complainant shall be punished withfine and imprisonment. Minister of Law & Justice stated that there is needto properly safeguard the integrity of the institution of Lokpal. Minister ofHome Affairs was of the view that if anybody can make a complaintagainst a Member or Chairperson of the Lokpal, then nobody may like tobecome Lokpal. He further stated that there is distinction between acomplaint under cr.Pc and Petition against Lokpal in the Supreme Court.Under the Cr.PC, FIR is filed, case diary is opened, final report is preparedand sent to a magistrate, charges are framed, as such, the frivolouscomplaints are filtered out. However, if a complaint is allowed withoutscreening, the Supreme Court will be put under burden. After discussionit was decided that a provision similar to that for UPSC Chairman andMembers may be provided.

Clause 6(a):6.18 This clause deals with jurisdiction of Lokpal. The Government sidewas of the view that this clause may be kept aside.


17/21

- 17 -

Clause 6(b):6.19 The formulation to clause 6 (b) regarding receiving complaints ofmisconduct against bureaucrats and recommending appropriatepenalties under conduct rules has since been withdrawn by the CivilSociety.

Clause 6(c):6.20 This clause deals with complaints against a Member of Parliamentfor conduct inside Parliament. It was noted that this was a major issue asit involves privileges under Article 105(2). After discussions, ShriPrashant Shushan suggested that they will give their own formulationsand the Government side may give their own formulation.

Clause 8:6.21 Forr_nulation to the clause 8 regarding powers to search andseizures. was agreed to.

Clause 11:6.22 This clause deals with proposed powers to tap telephones. Ministerof Home Affairs stated that for powers to tap telephones a new protocolhas been worked out and there will be a Central Monitoring System toregulate powers to tap telephones. Shri Prashant Bhushan stated that theinvestigating agency will have powers to tap telephones after takingapproval. However, their proposal is that instead of approval from HomeMinistry the investigating agency will take approval from Lokpal. Ministerof HRD informed that powers to give permission for tapping oftelephones vests with Ministry of Home Affairs and one has to takepermission from that Ministry for tapping of telephones. To this ShriPrashant Bhushan disagreed that Lokpal should have powers for tappingof telephones for the cases being investigated by them. No unanimousview emerged.


18/21

- 18 -

Clause 15:

6.23 This clause relating to notification of movable and immovableassets of accused was agreed to in principle.

Clause 16:6.24 The formulation to this clause which is regarding recommendingstay of activity where the Lokpal is satisfied was discussed. ShriPrashant Bhushan stated that if the Government does not accept therecommendations it must give reasons so that the Lokpal may go to theCourt. Minister of Home Affairs stated that the decision can be stayed butthe activity cannot be stayed as it may have far reaching consequences.

Clause 17:6.25 Regarding transfer of officials, the official side stated thatordinarily the recommendations would be accepted but in exceptionalcases where recommendations are not accepted, reasons will be given.

Clause 19:6.26 This clause deals with recommendations for removal of anyMinister (barring Prime Minister). The Members of the Civil Societyinformed that they have withdrawn this suggestion.

Clause 20:

6.27 The formulation to this clause is regarding power to delegate. Theview of the Government side was that the administrative and financialpowers can be delegated but quasi judicial powers cannot be delegated.Thereupon Shri Arvind Kejriwal stated that they would like to see theformulation of Government side.


19/21

- 19 -Clause 25:

6.28 This clause provides that at the time of conviction, the court shallmake an assessment of the loss caused by the accused which shall berecovered from the accused. Minister of Human Resource Developmentstated that formulation for this clause has been drafted and it will becirculated to Members of Civil Society.

Clause 28:6.29 This is regarding recovery of loss from business beneficiarieswhich was not agreed to by the Government side. Shri Prashant Shushanstated that they would like to see the formulation of Government side inthis regard.

Clause 32:6.30 This clause relates to merger of CSI, eve and DepartmentVigilance with Lokpal. The merger of CVC and Departmental Vigilancewith Lokpal was agreed to be dropped as the Lokpal would have its owninvestigation wing.

Clause 33:6.31 This clause relates to requirement of bureaucrats, politicians andjudges to submit statement of movable and immovable assets on annualbasis. This was agreed to. However, Shri Arvind Kejriwal stated that theGovernment side has proposed that the format is to be prepared by therespective authority but they are of the view that the format should bemade by the Lokpal. Minister of Home Affairs stated that differentauthorities have prescribed different formats for their employees. Hefurther stated that the Lokpal may recommend a model format which maybe adopted by other authorities. Shri Arvind Kejriwal was of the view thatif there is a uniform format it will help in dealing with DA cases. To thisMinister of Home Affairs stated that the Lokpal could finalize a format andpursuade other authorities to adopt it.' / / ' t ' : .!' .../;.i_ ,


20/21

- 20-

6.32 Shri Shanti Bhushan took up the issue of statement of assetswherein it is subsequently found that a particular property has not beendisclosed by public servant that property can be confiscated by Lokpal.Minister of Home Affairs stated that for non-disctosure of a particularproperty the public servant will have to give reasons. Minister of WaterResources stated that if the property in question is not acquired throughcorrupt practices then it cannot be confiscated. Shri Prashant Bhushantstated that if a person is required by law to disclose and he does notdisclose it, it becomes an offence and in such a case the Lokpal canconfiscate the same. Minister of Home Affairs stated it will only be arebuttable presumption and that if non-dlsclosed property is not acquiredthrough corrupt means, it cannot be confiscated, however, non-disclosure may invite for punishment under relevant rules.

Clause 36:6.33 This clause relates to verification of assets by Lokpal declared bycandidates. Shri Arvind Kejriwal stated that Lokpal will investigate assetsof only successful candidates. This was agreed to.

Clause 27:6.34 This formulation of Civil Society provides for punishment to behigher if the status or rank of accused is higher. This was not agreed to.

Clause 30:6.35 This clause relates to protection to whistleblowers. It was informedthat the Bill on protection to Whistleblowers is under consideration andthe Civil Society may give their views on the Bill. ...../ + 1.ttl, . \ 1 - . I


21/21

- 21 -

Clause 37:6.36 This clause provides that CAG shall forward such cases to Lokpalwhere it feels that an offences under P.C. Act ismade out and such casesshall be investigated by Lokpal. The Civil Society members informed thatthey are no longer pressing for this provision.7. Summing up the discussions the Chairman stated that on a largenumber of areas there is agreement. However, there are certain areaswhere there is divergence of views between the Government side and therepresentatives of Civil Society. The Chairman suggested that theGovernment side will give its formulation and the Civil Society may givetheir formulation tomorrow i.e. on 21st June, 2011 and thereafter it willhave to be fine-tuned. Wherever there is convergence of views we haveto put it in legal language. Where there is disagreement, views of CivilSociety will be put in a different font to distinguish it from the views ofGovernment side. Shri Arvind Kejriwal stated that if the Government draftis ready it may be given to them so that they can finalize their draft.Minister of Home Affairs stated that it has been agreed that where there isdisagreement, both the versions will be put in the draft. The Chairmanstated that the Government may have to consult leaders of politicalparties and Chief Ministers and these consultation will take place in thefirst week of July, after that the report of the Drafting Committee will besent to the Ministry concerned and they will take follow up action. ShriArvind Kejriwal asked whether representatives of Civil SOCiety can beinvited to all party meet for making a presentation. The Chairmaninformed that the meeting will be convened by the Government and hehas no say in the matter.8. It was decided that next meeting will be held on 21st June, 2011 at4:30 pm.

9 . The meeting ended with a vote of thanks by the Chairman.- . b ~

Lokpal JDC - Minutes of Meeting 8

Documents

Transcript of Lokpal JDC - Minutes of Meeting 8