Lokpal Bill

As Complaints with Lokpal Drop Sharply, Campaign Urges it to ‘Perform or Quit’

From 1,427 in 2019 when it was formed, the complaints with the ombudsman have come down drastically to double digits.

New Delhi: While the office of the Lokpal has so far received fewer than 1,600 complaints, a sum of nearly Rs 60 crore has been spent on this office, which was constituted in 2019.

But what has been worrying transparency activists even more is that the number of complaints filed with it per year has declined sharply from 1,427 in 2019-2020, to 110 in 2020-2021 and then, to just 30 in the first six months of the current financial year.

A petition to “make the Lokpal effective or disband it” has been started by former Central Information Commissioner and transparency activist Shailesh Gandhi. It will be sent to the chairperson of the Lokpal.

The Lokpal was established under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, to inquire and investigate into allegations of corruption against public functionaries who fall within the scope and ambit of the Act.

The Lokpal has jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of corruption against anyone who is or has been prime minister, or a minister in the Union government, or a Member of Parliament, as well as officials of the Union government under Groups A, B, C and D.

It also covers chairpersons, members, officers and directors of any board, corporation, society, trust or autonomous body either established by an Act of Parliament.

Writing about the objective behind the move, Gandhi has in the petition raised the issue of the number of complaints being filed with the office dropping sharply with each passing year. “From data on your website it appears that the Lokpal had received only 1,427 complaints in the first year. The outcome must have been so ineffective that citizens filed only 110 complaints in the subsequent year and in the first six months of 2021-22 filed only 30 complaints,” he remarked in the petition.

Also read: By Enabling Information Blockade on Lokpal Appointment, CIC Has Violated the RTI Act

‘Over Rs 60 crore spent by Lokpal’

The former CIC, who had handled a record number of complaints and appeals during his term at the Central Information Commission, has in the petition questioned the manner in which the Lokpal was functioning.

“It appears the Lokpal has become a senior citizen’s club with no accountability. We are sure you recognise that the over 60 crores spent by the Lokpal has come from the pocket of the poorest man in the nation who may be starving,” he wrote, adding that “spending public money with no accountability is not acceptable.”

Recalling how “the Lokpal was set up with great hope and effort by a citizen’s movement,” Gandhi lamented that it has had “zero impact on the corruption in the country and does not seem to be aware of its pathetic performance.”

Gandhi also demanded some introspection from officials in the Lokpal and urged them to “perform or quit”. The Lokpal consists of a chairperson and eight members out of whom 50% are judicial members. One of the members, Justice Dilip B. Bhosale had resigned as a member in January 2020.

Gandhi urged those working in the ombudsman to “either find a way of discharging your duty or resign.” Referring to Justice Bhosale’s resignation, he said, he appears to have resigned listening to the voice of his conscience.

“Public servants in such high positions must at least display this level of honesty,” Gandhi insisted, adding that else, “citizens will lose all faith in such institutions set up to monitor the government if this charade of being an ombudsman continues.”

Modi government was slow in creating Lokpal

A look at the history of the creation of the office of Lokpal reveals that the journey has been anything but smooth.

In early 2008, activists from the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) had in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi pointed out that while the Lokpal law was passed by parliament in December 2013 and was notified in the gazette on January 1, 2014, his government had not appointed a single Lokpal.

The letter told Modi that the delay in implementation “has created a strong perception that that your government does not wish to put in place an effective anti-corruption institutional framework.”

The letter had also accused the Modi government of diluting the original law through an amendment Bill which was passed by Parliament. It said the amended law did away with the statutory provision to publicly disclose the assets and liabilities of spouses and dependent children of public servants.

Also read: Only Full Bench Can Hear Complaint Against Serving, Former PM: Lokpal Rules

SC had termed appointment process of Lokpal ‘wholly unsatisfactory’

Then in July 2018, the Supreme Court had acknowledged that the government’s stand on completing the appointment process for getting an ombudsman to protect the citizens from corruption was “wholly unsatisfactory.”

Later, the same year, it was revealed in RTI replies how Modi government had gone slow on Lokpal appointment. Replies to RTI applications filed by activist Anjali Bhardwaj had shown that in the first 45 months of Modi’s time in the government, he did not chair a single meeting of the Lokpal selection committee. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had further revealed that no meeting of the search committee was convened during that time either.

Selection Committee comprising majority of government representatives

Even when the Lokpal was finally appointed just ahead of the Lok Sabha elections in 2019, the process of selection was not transparent. Bhardwaj had charged that there had been “a complete erosion of public trust and confidence” in the institution of Lokpal due to the manner in which the appointments were made.

“The selection committee should not have had a majority of government representatives but finally it did. Would the Lokpal be able to take allegations of corruption against the BJP government which made the appointments?” she had asked.

Two years on, the decline in the number of complaints with the Lokpal probably answers the question.

By Enabling Information Blockade on Lokpal Appointment, CIC Has Violated the RTI Act

The department of personnel and training (DoPT), which has information on the selection of the Lokpal committee, has recently denied information on frivolous grounds to an RTI applicant. The CIC did not question, but upheld the move.

Upholding the denial of the minutes concerning the appointment of Lokpal under the Right to Information (RTI) Act recently, the Central Information Commission (CIC) has developed an unusual concept of lack of ‘authorship’ of minutes file. The question is: who is the author of the minutes regarding the selection process of the prime minister-led committee appointing the chairman and members of Lokpal?

During the early years of the 2010 decade, the civil society agitated for a high-level independent body that can even sanction the probe into the allegations of corruption against the judiciary and top political executives with necessary authority. The then opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was fighting against the Congress regime for an institution – Lokpal. Their agitation resulted in great success leading to the legislation for Lokpal in 2013. The Congress government sought applications for the Lokpal but could not complete the process as it lost power in elections in 2014.

The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government was somehow not willing to constitute the Lokpal for a long time necessitating a public interest litigation (PIL) battle. Though the Supreme Court directed the Centre to act soon, the process was not completed. Only when a contempt petition was pressed, the Selection Committee led by the Prime Minister met. The other members of this high power committee were speaker of the house of the people, the leader of opposition in the Lok Sabha, the chief justice of India (CJI), or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by CJI and an eminent jurist, as recommended by the chairperson and other members and appointed the chairman and members of Lokpal in 2019.

Also read: CIC Refuses to Disclose Lokpal Selection Committee Meeting Minutes Under RTI Act

Generally, any details of the process of selection to high public office should be known to the public. But the central public information officer (CPIO) of the department of personnel and training (DoPT) has denied the minutes of the selection process of Lokpal on the very funny ground that DoPT was not the ‘author’ of that file.

RTI activist Anjali Bharadwaj asked in November 2018 DoPT for the copy of records relating to the process of selection of the chairperson and members of the Lokpal.

The DoPT invented a new restriction beyond Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act saying that their department was not the author of the file, including the minutes of the high-level meeting led by the prime minister being sought, hence it could not be given.

Central Information Commission.

The DoPT claims that the authorship of such documents of three to five high-level dignitaries does not vest with it and that the same has been shared as a ‘secret document’.

This raises a fundamental question – who is the author of a file in public authority? Who should be considered the creator and writer of the file of a selection committee consisting of details of applicants, their verification, interviews if any, and details of the selection process?

No copyright is generated on such documents and files. It is neither poetry nor a story. Government posts are notified, applications are invited and submitted. Then selection committee conducts the process based on the norms. It is not possible for someone to be the author or owner of such a file. Any file is built on some application and ends with a decision. Everyone who adds a comment is a contributor. The authorship is irrelevant for RTI Act, and nowhere it is mentioned as a requirement to be examined by CPIO or any other authority.

Also read:The Right to Information Is Dead. Here Is its Obituary.

The preamble of the RTI Act says it is meant to provide for setting out the practical regime of Right to Information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities. Definition of ‘information’ under Section 2(f) refers to ‘holding’ and not owning the information:

“Information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.”

The definition of ‘Right to Information’ gives a total clarification, saying:

“Right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to….”

The RTI Act requires the public authority to share the file if it holds or controls such a file. It does not talk about ‘owning’ it.

The RTI Act has not given any power to examine the authorship of ‘file’ and deny it to applicants on that ground. Any RTI request cannot be rejected except according to provisions of Section 8 and 9. The CIC has agreed with this baseless and illegal conclusion of CPIO and refused to consider the illegality of this contention.

The CIC’s agreement with the baseless understanding of CPIO was a shock to RTI users as it laid down a new precedent of rejecting the appeal though no exception is attracted. The order of CIC has no legal value of precedence. But the CPIOs get emboldened to deny minutes of all appointments quoting this illegal conclusion of the CIC.

The prime minister’s office (PMO) and DoPT had dealt with the appointment process of Lokpal and thus they hold the files and materials about the selection. The files with details of the selection of Lokpal are not the property of selected Lokpal nor his office, nor the PMO own them. They either hold or control them. Hence, they have no reason to deny them to the applicant.

It is assumed that the people ‘own’ the entire information of governance activity which runs with tax-payers’ money. Being the sovereigns of the democratic republic, people have a right to know and public servants have a duty to report to these Sovereign rulers.

Sealed cover secrecy

Though PMO did not classify it as secrecy, the CPIO of DoPT says that “the confidentiality can be gauged by the fact that the averred minutes of the Selection Committee were received in a sealed cover by the DoPT and that it had been presented before the Supreme Court too in a sealed cover”.

The CIC has agreed with this argument and did not explain who and why the minutes were categorised as ‘secret’ and on what grounds, and under what legal authority? Is it ‘secret’ under Official Secrets Act?

One can understand a subordinate employee of high office refusing in such an irrational manner. The CIC should have rejected this contention. Can CIC accept this as a new concept that sealing the cover itself should be presumed as ‘secrecy’?

RTI Act. Illustration: The Wire/Public domain images

The Official Secrets Act has rhyme, reason, method, and procedure for classifying a document as secret. If this logic of the CPIO is accepted, then every postal card and courier which comes in sealed covers should never be opened!

If the CPIO – either because of lack of training or non-application of mind – thinks about the information it received only on one ground that it was given in a sealed cover, why should CIC assume that anything given in sealed cover is ‘top secret’. It is a clear misuse of Section 11 of the RTI Act, the third-party provision as ‘exception’ though there are several judicial pronouncements that information could be denied only under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act.

Also read: It’s Been 15 Years Since RTI Act Was Passed, But Is it Really Working?

This order also exposed the ill-perceived notions of CPIO of DoPT that consent of third party is needed. If the CPIO thinks that the minutes of Lokpal are third-party information of the PMO or Lokpal, he should have consulted them as per Section 11.

It is pathetic that CPIO and the first appellate authority of DoPT think that because the third party is a ‘higher level” committee, the information should be totally ‘secret’. The CIC should have bothered to ask CPIO why did he not pursue the process of consulting third party. It is a tragedy that transparency has taken a beating by all ranks of the authorities under the RTI Act. If CPIO is a subordinate officer in public authority, the CIC at least was expected to act as an independent authority.

When cabinet decisions are disclosable along with entire material after decision was taken, how can any other body be considered as ‘high level authority’? How the ‘level’ of authority prevents the ‘disclosability’? The CIC should have questioned the public authority on these aspects or should have formed a basis for directing the DoPT/PMO to release the minutes regarding the appointment of Lokpal.

Yet another wonderful idea of CPIO of DoPT floated was that minutes of a decision-making committee ‘is holding it is fiduciary in nature’ and hence should be denied. The CIC did not find it unreasonable and did not give any reason. Even the Collegium of Supreme Court is disclosing the information about recommendations and appointment of judges.

The CPIO of DOPT has breached its own two office memoranda. The nodal agency for implementation of RTI Act all over the nation, DoPT issued an Office Memorandum No, 1/34/2013/IR on June 29, 2015 mandating disclosure of information relating to recruitment, promotion and transfer should be brought into public domain promptly. But DoPT did not follow its own mandate by making a suo motu disclosure of details of recruitment of Lokpal, and its CPIO thinks the information about recruitment of Lokpal and others should not be disclosed even in response to an RTI application.

Guidelines on suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act issued under another Office Memorandum dated April 15, 2013 says:

“It is obligatory under Section 4(1)(b)(xiv) of the RTI Act for every Public Authority to proactively disclose ‘details in respect of the information, available to or held by it, reduced in an electronic form.”

Though the file of selection of Lokpal is held by it, the DoPT says it did not ‘author’ it and made it a reason for denial of the disclosure. The CIC allows the nodal agency to defy RTI Act, its own Office Memoranda and puts its seal of approval for secrecy of minutes of anti-corruption body without any application of law and mind.

The CIC should have issued should have initiated penalty proceedings against the CPIO of the DoPT, for breaching the RTI Act, their own Office Memoranda and the RTI jurisprudence.

M. Sridhar Acharyulu is a former central information commissioner and dean, School of Law, Bennett University.

‘Corruption-Free India’ Under BJP Government Is Just a Sham

Transparency International’s latest survey has revealed that India has the highest bribery rate in Asia.

India has the highest bribery rate in Asia according to the Global Corruption Barometer published by Transparency International. The report released on the eve of International Anti-Corruption Day, December 9, shows that nearly 50% of those who paid bribes in India were asked to, while 32% of those who used personal connections said they would not receive services like healthcare and education otherwise, without bribing. The findings are a scathing indictment of the anti-corruption claims of the ruling dispensation, which came to power on the plank of a ‘Bhrashtachar mukt Bharat’ (corruption-free India).

It is a fact widely acknowledged that unlike many countries, where corruption is restricted to the highest echelons, in India the malaise goes down to the lowest level of administration. While big-ticket corruption grabs eyeballs, it is the everyday petty corruption that haunts the common person.

Decentralised corruption cannot be tackled through any centralised fix. What is needed is to empower ordinary people to expose and report corruption locally, and systems that act promptly on these complaints to hold corrupt officials accountable.

Whittling down of RTI

Perhaps the single most effective tool available to ordinary citizens for exposing corruption in the last 15 years has been the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The law has been used by over three crore people in the country, especially by the poorest and the most marginalised who have understood the tremendous potential of the law to empower them to access their basic rights and entitlements like rations, pensions and healthcare.

A 2011 study by Yale University in India showed that using the RTI Act is as effective as paying a bribe in ensuring service delivery! The law has also been put to effective use by public-spirited citizens to shine the light on corruption and abuse of power in the highest offices.

Instead of strengthening the RTI regime, the last six years have seen a systematic attack on people’s right to information. The worst blow has come in the form of a persistent and concerted undermining of the transparency watchdogs set up under the law.

A protest against proposed changes to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Credit: Facebook/ Somnath S.N.

A file image of a protest against the changes to the Right to Information (RTI) Act. Photo: Facebook/ Somnath S.N.

In 2019, despite stiff opposition within and outside parliament, the government pushed the RTI (Amendment) Act which compromised the autonomy of information commissions by allowing the Central government to determine the tenure and salaries of all information commissioners. The functioning of commissions has also been severely impeded by governments not appointing information commissioners in a timely manner.

The track record of the BJP-led government at the Centre has been particularly abysmal. Since May 2014, not a single commissioner of the central information commission (CIC) has been appointed without citizens having to approach courts.

The Global Corruption Barometer shows that 41% of people surveyed in India paid bribes to obtain official documents, like identity papers, and 42% paid bribes to the police. Tackling this kind of graft encountered by people in their everyday lives requires an effective timebound mechanism at the local level to deal with complaints arising out of corruption and wrongdoing.

Broken promises

The Grievance Redress Bill introduced in Parliament in 2011 created an architecture for receiving and dealing with complaints close to people’s place of residence down to the panchayat and municipal ward levels. It sought to make the supervisory structure accountable for resolving complaints in a stipulated timeframe, with penal consequences for failure to do so.

The Bill, however, lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha after the 2014 elections. Despite its poll promise to reintroduce the Bill in parliament if it came to power, the BJP has failed to do the needful. An effective grievance redress legislation would have helped significantly reduce arbitrariness and corruption captured in the Transparency International report and ensured better access to basic services and entitlements for people.

Giant cardboard cutouts of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and home minister Amit Shah in New Delhi. Photo: Reuters/Cathal McNaughton/File Photo.

In fact, even the Lokpal law meant to tackle corruption involving senior functionaries, which was passed after a long and arduous struggle in 2014, has been subverted. In 2016, key provisions regarding mandatory public disclosure of assets and liabilities of public servants were whittled down through amendments. For over five years after the law was passed, the chairperson and members of the Lokpal were not appointed.

Finally, the manner in which appointments were made, by a selection committee with a preponderance of the government and its representatives, raised serious doubts about the independence of the Lokpal even before it became operational. Subsequently, for nearly a year the govt did not make the requisite rules, prompting one of the Lokpal members to tender his resignation.

The anti-corruption ombudsman is clearly a non-starter, with a deafening silence from the institution on all recent allegations of big-ticket corruption like the Rafael defence deal and banking scams that have rocked the country.

Another significant finding of the Global Corruption Barometer is that while reporting corruption is critical to control its spread, as many as 63% of people surveyed were deeply concerned about retaliation. This concern is not misplaced. Brutal attacks on whistleblowers and RTI users in the country have highlighted the vulnerability of those who dare to show the truth to power.

In 2018 alone, 18 people were killed for blowing the whistle on corruption on the basis of information accessed under the RTI Act. Despite this, the government has failed to frame rules and operationalise the Whistle Blowers Protection law enacted in 2014 to provide a statutory framework for concealing the identity of whistleblowers and protecting them against victimisation. The law establishes a mechanism to receive and enquire into complaints against public servants relating to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

When the BJP came to power riding on the plank of fighting corruption and ensuring effective service delivery, it was expected that the government will immediately put in place a strong anti-corruption and grievance redress framework.

In the last six and a half years, however, critical anti-corruption legislations have languished and the government, despite widespread opposition, has pushed ill-conceived programmes like demonetisation and electoral bonds as the definitive solutions to the problem of corruption.

Limitations of relying on technical fixes like Adhaar-based biometric authentication in fighting corruption have been exposed through scams like the Jharkhand scholarship fraud. The Transparency International report should serve as a strong signal for the government to course correct, provided it has the political will.

Anjali Bhardwaj and Amrita Johri are social activists working on issues of transparency and accountability.

SC Asks Search Committee on Lokpal to Recommend Names by End of February

A bench headed by CJI Ranjan Gogoi directed the Centre to provide the search committee the requisite infrastructure and manpower to enable it to complete its work.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday fixed a February end deadline for the search committee on Lokpal to recommend the panel of names for appointment of the first anti-graft ombudsman of the country.

The search committee is headed by former apex court judge Justice (retd) Ranjana Prakash Desai. A bench headed by the Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi directed the Centre to provide the search committee the requisite infrastructure and manpower to enable it to complete its work.

Also Read: SC Demands Affidavit From Centre on Steps Taken to Form Lokpal Search Committee Since 2018

The bench, also comprising Justices L.N. Rao and S.K. Kaul, said it would hear the matter again on March 7. Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, told the bench there were certain problems like lack of infrastructure and manpower due to which the search committee was not able to hold deliberations on the issue.

Getting Rid of Section 377 is Only the Beginning

It is something of an achievement to receive justice in our country.

The Supreme Court is still in the process of deciding whether it wants to scrap Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It’s likely that the law will be read down, and it will no doubt be an historic moment for our country. However, it will only be a symbolic victory.

When India prohibited discrimination on the basis of caste a similar feeling of elation must have swept the country. Yet, it only takes a quick Google search to see that casteism still thrives in India. Consider this: according to a 2016 report by the National Crimes Record Bureau (NCRB), there were 207 incidences of caste-related violence in Bengaluru alone. And how can we forget what happened in Una on July 11, 2016.

Mistreatment despite the law – or even by state agencies – is nothing new in India. Nor is it limited to any specific minority group. And so, if or when the SC decides to strike down 377, India’s queer community will become yet another minority group that is protected under law – but only in name.

We can create as many laws as we want to guarantee people their rights, or protect them from harm. But laws are only useful if they’re upheld.

What will happen when a gay man wants to lodge a complaint against his employer for discriminatory behaviour? On the slim chance that such a case reaches the courts, the complainant will have to suffer lengthy delays, and the costs that come with it.

Simply put, it is something of an achievement to receive justice in our country.

Most cases don’t even reach the courts. They will either not be reported (for fear of retribution or ostracisation) or not recorded. A public survey of Delhi and Mumbai by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative in 2015 shows that less than half of the crimes reported actually led to FIRs.

A nationwide study conducted by TISS on the ‘Non registration of crimes’ produced similarly disconcerting results. The report also shines the spotlight on the role of caste and creed in the reporting (and not) of crimes. According to the report, the police are more likely to record FIRs if the complainant belongs to the general category. No action was taken or known to have been taken in 32% of the cases where the complainants were Muslim. Justice is selective in our country.

It’s not that we are unaware of the existence of these issues. Every year we raise a hue and cry about reservations in Delhi University, but then pretend to not notice caste in other spheres of life. We’re bound by comfortable apathy. It will take some truly inhuman atrocity to move us into acting against injustice.

The problem is that our usual response of public outcry and protest doesn’t seem to yield the desired results. Protests at best can help bring about legislation and speed up court proceedings. Yet, what is the use of tabling a bill when we know that it will either not pass at all or be diluted to death and be reduced to a token gesture? Look at what happened to the 2013 Lokpal Bill.

Striking down Section 377 will not nurture tolerance if our public institutions continue to embolden hate mongers and fail to support victims of discrimination. Strange that we need to appeal to something as cold as the state to earn the right to love. And yet, it is necessary.

So we should take this historic moment to access what we need to do in the future. As citizens, members and allies, our role cannot be limited to protest and outcry.

Sureet Singh is a 21-year-old economics student from NMIMS, Mumbai. Find him on Twitter @_kenoshakid

Featured image credit: Dmitri Popov/Unsplash

Boycotting Lokpal Meet, Mallikarjun Kharge Once Again Calls Out Modi on Lack of Intent

“It is very disappointing that my earlier letters not only went unacknowledged, but the serious concerns that were raised therein remain unaddressed,” Kharge wrote to Modi.

New Delhi: Congress Lok Sabha leader Mallikarjun Kharge has once again written a protest letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to say that despite two similar letters sent earlier, he is still being invited to the Selection Committee meeting for the appointment of a Lokpal as a “special invitee” instead of a “member”.

Kharge reminded Modi that the Selection Committee had “approved the amendment to the Lokpal Act to include the Leader of the Single Largest Opposition Party as a member of the Selection Committee”.

Rights activists have also, for a while now, been accusing the Modi government of not being interested in appointing a Lokpal and of using the “ploy” of there not being a Leader of the Opposition to stall the process. Kharge’s letter also avers to the repeated attempts to delay the matter.

Kharge invited as ‘special invitee’ despite there being no provision for this post

Kharge noted that the invitation extended him for the meeting called for July 19 had been sent to him on July 6 by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) despite his earlier letters sent on February 28 and April 10 this year in which he had objected to his being invited as a “special invitee” for the meetings that were convened on March 1 and April 10 respectively.

“It is very disappointing that my earlier letters not only went unacknowledged, but the serious concerns that were raised therein remain addressed,” Kharge wrote to Modi.

Referring to the obdurate stance of the Centre in the matter, Kharge further stated that “the government insists on continuing to invite me as a special invitee to the Selection Committee meeting despite being aware of the fact that there is no such provision under section 4 of the Lokpal Act.”

‘No voice for the opposition’

He also charged that the Modi government has been deliberately not allowing the opposition to have a say in the appointment of a Lokpal. “It has been four years since your government came to power and the government was indeed sincere about including the voice of the opposition in the process, it could have brought in the necessary amendments to ensure the same,” he wrote.

On why he should have been invited as a member, Kharge explained that “the Select Committee has approved the amendment to the Lokpal Act to include the Leader of the single largest Opposition party as a member of the Selection Committee”. He added to good measure that “the fact that this amendment has never been brought before the House by the government clearly indicates that the government is keen to keep the opposition outside the process of appointment the Lokpal”.

‘Appointment of Lokpal never a priority for this government’

The Congress leader also charged that “the submissions made by the Supreme Court and its actions indicate that the appointment of the Lokpal has never been accorded due importance or priority by your government. In fact, the recent actions of the government, including the dilution of the Right of Information Act and the Whistleblower’s Protection Act shows that instead of strengthening laws to fight corruption and empowering the common man, betrays the intentions of this government.”

‘Special invitee has no rights of participation, recording of opinion, voting’

The senior Congress leader cautioned against the making of a Lokpal without the presence of an opposition leader in the committee. “Any eminent person who would be chosen for appointment as Lokpal would not accept this appointment made by a Selection Committee that did not consider the views of the opposition,” he said.

Also, Kharge reminded Modi that “since no amendments in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 have been carried out, an invitation as a “special invitee” without rights of participation, recording of opinion and voting in the procedure, is only to mislead the nation and the people, rather than sincerely seeking the participation and opinion of the opposition”.

Stating that the process of appointing the Lokpal has been “vitiated”, Kharge declined the invite to participate in the Selection Committee meeting. “I would not be able to attend the meeting of the Selection committee until the Leader of single largest Opposition party is conferred the status of a full-fledged member as envisioned in the Lokpal Act, 2013,” he made it known to Modi.

‘A procedure reduced to a political pretence’

It would also be pertinent to recall that while objecting to a similar invitation for the March 1 meeting, Kharge had charged that by inviting him as a “special invitee”, the Centre had reduced the proceedings of appointing the Lokpal from a “a sacred procedure to a political pretence”.

He had also stated that the entire opposition was of the view that the “special invitee invitation” was a “concerted effort to exclude the independent voice of the opposition altogether from the selection process of the most important anti-corruption watchdog” and that the move negated the “letter and spirit” of the Lokpal Act, 2013. He had then demanded “a more apt and statesman-like conduct is expected from the prime minister of the country”.

Anti-corruption activists had seen through the game earlier

Even before Kharge had made his opposition known, many anti-corruption activists had declared that the invitation to him was only an “eyewash” as the government wanted to pull wool over the apex court’s eyes which has been monitoring the developments.

Incidentally, the March 1 meeting was planned close on the heels of a Supreme Court hearing of a PIL in which the apex court had asked the secretary of the DoPT to file an affidavit about the “steps taken and proposed” by the Centre to appoint the Lokpal.

PIL had raised issued of delay in appointment

Hearing a PIL filed in 2014 by NGO Common Cause, led by senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, the court had in March 2018 taken into account the submission of attorney general K.K. Venugopal that a meeting between Modi, Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, Lok Sabha speaker Sumitra Mahajan and leader of the largest party in opposition Mallikarjun Kharge had been convened on March 1 to discuss the appointment of a Lokpal.

However, following this hearing, Bhushan had tweeted that the Centre had acted only after the threat of contempt of court was staring it in the face.

Earlier, in January this year, the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information had written a detailed letter to Modi, stating that the delay in the appointment of Lokpal ‘has created a strong perception that that your government does not wish to put in place an effective anti-corruption institutional framework’.

For want of a Leader of Opposition, not a single Lokpal appointed

The NCPRI had noted with concern that while the Lokpal law was passed by parliament in December 2013 and was notified in the gazette on January 1, 2014, not a single Lokpal has been appointed till date. “The Lokpal law was demanded by the people of the country as there was a need for an independent and empowered body to look into cases of corruption of public servants,” it had added.

The anti-corruption group had pointed out that the Act provides for a “selection committee comprising the prime minister, speaker of the house of the people, leader of opposition in the house of the people, the CJI or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by the CJI, and an eminent jurist, as recommended by the chairperson and members (Section 4(1) of the Act).”

But it noted that “despite the fact that there appears to be no legal barrier to prevent the recognition of a Leader of Opposition (LoP), in the 16th Lok Sabha no LoP has been recognised. As a result the selection committee under the LL Act has not be constituted and therefore no appointments have been made to the Lokpal”.

A simple amendment

The letter had also pointed out that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Bill, 2016, introduced by the current government in parliament in July, 2016, for immediate passage, had not included any provision to alter the composition of the selection committee (to provide that in the absence of a recognised leader of opposition, the leader of the single largest party/group in opposition in the Lok Sabha will be included in the selection panel).

“In the absence of a recognised LoP, to operationalise the LL Act, a simple amendment was required to the law to provide that in the absence of a recognised leader of opposition, the leader of the single largest party/group in opposition in the Lok Sabha will be included in the selection panel for appointing the Lokpal. However, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Bill, 2016 introduced by your government in parliament in July 2016 for immediate passage did not include this provision to alter the composition of the selection committee,” the letter had further suggested.

Tracing AAP’s Successes and Failures, Five Years Since Its Launch

After launching with a lot of promise in 2012 and tasting electoral success in the years soon after, AAP’s political fortunes have since slipped. A look at what went wrong and why.

AAP supporters. Credit: Reuters

New Delhi: Five years ago, on November 26, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) was born as the “party with a difference”. With brooms in their hands and white caps bearing the words “we want self-rule” on their heads, AAP supporters set out to cleanse national politics. The campaign soon grew in strength and caught the fancy of people across the nation. Born out of the anti-corruption citizens’ movement, AAP even drew in youth and talented people from across the globe, many of whom gave up cushy jobs to plunge into politics.

The party had a meteoric rise, first managing to form a government in Delhi and then going on to a decent debut in the Lok Sabha polls. But soon internal strife gripped the party. Charges of nepotism and lack of internal democracy surfaced, and several senior leaders either left the party or were expelled. Despite its initial promise, AAP’s electoral fortunes have not improved.

What went wrong and why? The Wire spoke to AAP spokesperson Dilip Pandey, who left a job as an IT expert in Hong Kong to join the party; AAP founder member Yogendra Yadav, who was removed by the party in 2015 and has since launched his own, Swaraj India; Shazia Ilmi, who was a member of AAP’s first national executive and has since joined the BJP; and senior Congress leader and Delhi unit chief Ajay Maken to understand AAP’s rise and its dwindling fortunes.

To bring about change

Pandey recalled how the idea to form AAP took root when the UPA government reneged on the promise to legislate the Lokpal Bill. “An opinion poll was conducted and over 7-8 lakh people said we should form a political organisation. That is how a social revolution got converted into a political organisation with the hope that we would fight our own election, win it and make the law in the Delhi assembly.”

The idea of bringing in swaraj (self-rule), enacting the Jan Lokpal Bill and eliminating corruption led to the formation of AAP. The party first fought the Delhi assembly election in 2013. “When we bagged 28 seats and then formed a minority government, then people developed a belief in us and later in 2015, we got a historical mandate in Delhi when we won 67 of the 70 assembly seats,” Pandey said.

Soon after these assembly elections, founding members Yadav and Prashant Bhushan were expelled by AAP. But Pandey, who has seen a gradual rise within the party, does not want to make much of the episode. “They left us, they had initially stated that they would launch a social movement but ultimately they too ended up forming a political party and contesting elections. This is a democracy and everyone is free and welcome to exercise their democratic right.”

‘A lot of selfish people left the party’

But what he is truly glad about is that “along the way a lot of selfish people also left” the party. As a result, he said, “our organisation has expanded manifold and become very powerful.” In Delhi alone, Pandey said, the party now has about 1 lakh activists and over 18,000 office bearers.

After contesting the polls in Goa and Punjab, where it emerged as the second largest party, AAP is now expanding its base in other poll-bound states such as Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. “We realised we had spread our resources thin in the 2014 Lok Sabha polls and are now contesting in only those states or constituencies where we have a significant presence. Also we do not want to disturb the existing anti-right mandate in Gujarat,” Pandey said to explain why the party is contesting only a few seats in the state.

AAP is a “success”

He insists that AAP has achieved much in its short journey. “We are the world’s most disruptive and the most successful political organisation. As a five year old party, we are probably the first in the world to have formed a government in one state (Delhi), be the main opposition party in another (Punjab) and be the main opposition party in all three units of Delhi’s municipal corporation. So this is a success story.”

Pandey in unwilling to buy the argument that AAP is slipping in people’s minds and that is why it lost Punjab and Goa polls. As for Punjab, where he claims at least 25 of the 30 opinion polls last year had shown it winning the state, Pandey said: “Two things happened: the BJP and Akalis transferred their vote to the Congress and there was large-scale rigging of the EVMs and we have demonstrated that such rigging was possible.” In Goa, though, he said the result was along expected lines.

But AAP also lost in the Delhi municipal elections. Pandey insists that municipal polls are not a fair indicator of the state government’s performance since they are fought on a different scale and different issues. “The best way to evaluate our political popularity today would be to look at the Bawana assembly by-election which we won by nearly 53,000 votes. That shows that our governance is approved by the people.”

Also read: ‘Aam Aadmi’ to Delhi CM: Heady Early Days of Arvind Kejriwal and AAP

Is Lokpal forgotten and buried?

Maken, however, differs on this count. “AAP government in Delhi is all about false claims, twisting of facts and nothing about ground reality. Be it education, health, power, water, Lokpal or internal democracy, they have failed on all these fronts,” he said.

Arvind Kejriwal and others at the launch of the Aam Aadmi Party in 2012. Credit: Reuters

“When it comes to internal democracy, people are leaving the party because their voice is being throttled. As for Lokpal, it is nowhere in the picture or on the agenda of AAP. They passed a Bill, but it was a toothless Bill, which even placed the appointment of Lokpal, the appointment of the investigating office and the impeachment of the Lokpal in the hands of the government. So this provided for the weakest form of Lokpal. Then how could this have been an independent Lokpal?”

As for the Bawana by-poll result being a vindication of the AAP’s performance, Maken said the party’s vote share fell from 1.09 lakh in 2015 to about 53,000 votes. “Their votes have halved. So they are losing their support base. People are also expressing their displeasure against AAP through the votes,” he claimed, adding that in the Rajouri Garden assembly by-election the party had come third.

Elsewhere in the country too, Maken said, AAP has failed to have any impact because people from Delhi go to other parts and spread the message about the party’s shortcomings. “Even when it comes to education, where they claim a lot of success, they have been falsely claiming various data through advertisements,” he charged.

AAP had risen on a corruption-free model

On the issue of corruption, Maken said, “four of the AAP ministers have been caught red-handed on corruption charges. They had been removed from the posts, but still they enjoy being a part of the party.”

On allegations of corruption surfacing in AAP, Pandey said, “We have never said that our selection process would rule out everything. We have said that character, criminality and corruption will the parameters on which our candidates are assessed before they are given tickets. In the assembly elections, we had replaced our Rajouri Garden candidate just two days before the polls because he had not disclosed to us a case. We promise that the process would be clean.”

As four of party ministers have been ousted for moral turpitude, he said: “Our minister Asim Ahmad Khan wasn’t caught through a media sting operation. We had sniffed out a dead rat in our house and thrown him out. So it is our integrity and strength that we have the capacity to expose our own.”

On the other hand, Pandey accused the BJP and the Congress of lacking such guts. “How is it that be it Mukul Roy, Sukhram or Narayan Rane who BJP accused of corruption when they were in the Congress, were taken by the party into its fold as if the charges did not apply to them. The list of such names does not end there, you have more like Hemanta Biswa Sarma in Assam and Vitthal Radadia in Gujarat,” Pandey said.

Is there nepotism in AAP?

“When a campaign takes place, there are faces. So Anna Hazare was the face of Jan Lokpal campaign and Arvind Kejriwal became the face when political campaign began. So he was the natural leader born out of a social revolution.” He said there was a difference between AAP and the BJP and Congress culture. “In AAP you cannot point out a similar instance where two people from the same family have been given some position.”

However, Ilmi, who had been associated with AAP since its inception and was also a member of the Anna Hazare movement, differs. Still very emotionally involved with the idea of AAP, which she describes as a “life changing experience”, Ilmi said within the party she had “fallen from the highs of absolute idealism, hope and the idea of transformation to the lowest nadir of despair, being exposed to what intellectual corruption can be like and how it can be camouflaged.”

“That is what the whole idea of AAP is, it was just a way to get power for Arvind Kejriwal. All of us were pawns in the process, including the people and Anna Hazare. I helped with the media, Lokpal consultation and getting the bureaucrats and different kinds of organisations on the table; Prashant Bhushan with the legal side and Yogendra Yadav with the drafting of various documents. So we all helped in different ways. All of us were used. The idea now is for Arvind and his coterie to remain in power. But earlier the idea was to have transformation of power as we see it.”

‘Earlier AAP spoke about being different, now it speaks about being similar’

As spokesperson for AAP, she said, “we always used to speak about how different we were from everyone else. But you see the debates over the past year now and every spokesperson of AAP is just talking about how it was doing just what the BJP and Congress had been doing. Earlier they cited the best ethical practices, now they cite the worst ethical practices.”

Recalling her differences with the AAP leadership on various issues, including the party’s support of Somnath Bharti following his tiff with African nationals in the capital and her being sidelined within the party ranks as fellow journalist Ashutosh was given greater importance, Ilmi said while the party casts aspersions on those who leave it, people have left because they “feel used, abandoned, hurt, cheated and betrayed.”

Now a BJP spokesperson, Ilmi insists that the AAP government has not been able to deliver. “You might say we are sore losers, but they haven’t been able to govern because they don’t know how to government. Agitation cannot go on at a constant level for ever. After a point of time, there has to be delivery. But without delivery, it is an unsustainable model. So where are the promised wi-fi, marshals, CCTV cameras, extra hospital beds? When you cross-check their claims with the authorities on any subject, you get a very different picture.”

Yogendra Yadav, Arvind Kejriwal, Prashant Bhushan in happier times. Credit: Reuters

The real idea behind AAP

“The idea of Aam Aadmi Party contributed enormously to Indian democracy and continues to do so although the party that calls itself AAP is no longer the legitimate heir to that idea. That idea was that the rotten political establishment could be challenged by ordinary people. It was also an idea that every political party could conduct itself in a transparent way,” Yadav said.

The idea, he said, had triggered excitement and hope and brought lots of people into the public life for the first time. “Lots of idealist youth took to politics. That to me is a very big contribution to democracy even if many of them have got disillusioned today.” However, many who got disillusioned and left the party continue to contribute significantly to social life in India.

On what disillusioned its supporters, Yadav said, it was “the party leadership’s idea that no matter what you say in public, after that you can do what you like”. This is precisely what the Congress and the BJP do and exactly what the Congress did in Gujarat (by announcing reservation for the Patidars) by making a promise which they know is a false promise, he said.

Honesty was AAP’s only trump card

But in doing so, Yadav said, AAP forgot that “a Lalu Prasad Yadav voter does not expect him to be squeaky clean and he would still stick to him, and so was the case with Jayalalithaa’s voter, but honesty was the only calling card of this party.”

“So they first lost the ideas and then the viability which resulted in electoral losses. I do not judge parties by electoral losses but in case of AAP their first promise was of clean politics, that was done in by the leadership; the second was of good governance, but there again people in Delhi dished out just the official propaganda which was not backed by evidence.”

He said AAP also failed to govern. “They did not understand the elementary grammar of good governance. You do not govern by shouting at your cabinet secretary, you do not hold a press conference against your health secretary, you do not write a letter to Metro saying `I order you to change the fares’ when there are no rules which give you the power to do so.”

Stating that in the end it was “a party which is no different from any other political party”, he said, the only grudge he holds against Kejriwal due to the manner in which the AAP model allegedly failed was that “he killed hope, the hope of so many people who came in for the first time. And many of them went back, very sad, very cynical. For that AAP leadership should take responsibility.”

By bringing the spotlight on itself, Yadav said AAP has also given other parties a long rope. “If today Congress can get up and talk about honesty, nothing can make you laugh more than that. For that AAP leadership is responsible because they have lowered the standards so much that anyone can talk about these things.”

The metaphor that comes closest to this situation is that of the Ram Rahim drama. “You look at it from the outside, you listen to swamiji’s discourses, you get inside the gufa (cave) and you come out puking. The misfortune of Prashant and me was that we got entry inside the gufa and once we got to know what was happening, we had just two options: one to come out smiling and say everything was lovely or to say to everyone around that there was something terrible happening, something that stinks and which needed to change. And this is what we did,” Yadav said.

Pandey disagrees. “We are fairly democratic. People only say there is no democracy in AAP upon leaving it. But we fight, argue and grow within the party. There is a lot of scope of improvement within us and internal democracy within AAP is much more than in other parties.”

‘Jan Ki Baat’: Jan Lokpal Bill and Mental Healthcare Bill, Episode 25

In the twenty-fifth episode of Jan Ki Baat, Vinod Dua talks about the Modi government’s reluctance to implement the Lokpal Bill and the Mental Health Care Bill.

Modi Government ‘Shielding the Corrupt,’ Say Activists, Civil Rights Groups

Prakash Karat, Prashant Bhushan, Yogendra Yadav, Dangwimsai Pul and activists from the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information held a public rally to protest against the Centre’s systematic weakening of anti-corruption efforts.

Prakash Karat, Prashant Bhushan, Yogendra Yadav, Dangwimsai Pul and activists from the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information held a public rally to protest against the Centre’s systematic weakening of anti-corruption efforts.

Social activists, politicians and activists of various people's movements and trade unions came together at the "Bhrashtachaar se Azaadi" rally at Jantar Mantar on Thursday. Credit: Gaurav Bhatnagar

Social activists, politicians and activists of various people’s movements and trade unions came together at the ‘Bhrashtachaar se Azaad’ rally at Jantar Mantar on Thursday. Credit: Gaurav Bhatnagar

New Delhi: A group of civil rights organisations and members of various people’s movements held a rally, ‘Bhrashtachar Se Azaadi’ (freedom from corruption), in New Delhi on Thursday (March 9). The rally, which started at Mandi House and culminated with a public meeting at Jantar Mantar, was held to protest the Centre’s systematic weakening of institutional anti-corruption and transparency mechanisms, as well as the government’s efforts to seemingly provide protection and immunity to wrongdoers.

Several opposition leaders addressed the rally, including Prakash Karat from the CPI(M), Swaraj Abhiyan’s Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav, and Dangwimsai Pul, the wife of former Arunachal Pradesh chief minister Kalikho Pul. They were joined by Aruna Roy and Anjali Bhardwaj, social activists from the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information (NCPRI).

‘Nexus between politics and corrupt has grown stronger’

Karat launched a scathing attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government for allegedly shielding the corrupt. He said that the “nexus between the political system and black money network has only grown stronger in the last three years” and accused the BJP government of promoting the spread of the black economy.

Karat also questioned the Modi government’s intention of fighting graft saying the Lokpal Act, which was passed by parliament three years ago, remains unimplemented. To top this, he said, attempts are being made through amendments to weaken the Lokpal. He also said that demonetisation had not really put an end to black money, with the instances of cash being seized during the assembly elections as testimony. Karat called upon people to stand up against such acts and join the fight against corruption.

Bhushan, who has raised many corruption-related issues in the courts through public interest litigations, accused the Centre of trying to weaken the anti-corruption institutions and said that its decision to buy Rafale jets from France was corrupt.

Bhushan said while the Modi government had come to power on the anti-corruption plank, the fight against black economy has vanished along the way. “Now, from Lokpal to CBI and CVC [Central Vigilance Commission], attempts are being made to destroy these anti-graft institutions so that no probe can be done against the accused, including a few big corporates,” he said, while mentioning how the Sahara-Birla papers provided enough evidence for a proper investigation to be ordered into the “alleged payoff cases connected with the two corporate houses”. The Supreme Court had earlier rejected a probe by a Special Investigation Team into allegations of corruption against Modi on the basis of these documents, saying that they had no value as legal evidence.

‘Probe Sahara-Birla papers, allegations therein’

Raising the issue of the Sahara-Birla diaries, the civil rights groups’ members noted that “the Sahara-Birla papers show that Prime Minister Modi was the largest recipient of black/bribe money (Rs 25 crores from Birla and Rs 40 crores from Sahara, as per the records presented to the Supreme Court). While the Supreme Court suppressed this case of investigation into these diaries, there looms an ominous connection now between the Sahara Birla diaries and the Pul diary, both of which need a credible independent investigation”.

Bhushan said the rally marked a new turning point as the anti-corruption movement was being launched all over again.

‘Kejriwal used Anna movement for personal gains’

Bhushan also attacked Delhi chief minister Arvind Kejriwal for using the anti-graft movement launched by Anna Hazare for his own gains. While the Anna movement started to demand a Lokpal from the Centre, Bhushan accused the AAP government in Delhi of also not following through on the promises made back then. He dismissed the Lokpal passed by the Kejriwal government as a “jokepal” and demanded that a strong ombudsman be installed to bolster the fight against corruption.

Call to probe allegations made by Pul

Bhushan also demanded that the Lokpal be appointed at the earliest and the Whistleblower Act be implemented forthwith. He also sought an independent probe into Kalikho’s suicide and the issues raised by him in his suicide note.

Kalikho’s wife Dangwimsai sought the constitution of a separate SIT to probe his suicide case and the allegations made in his long suicide note. Kalikho accused some judges, politicians, bureaucrats and others of corruption. “I am here to demand justice for my dead husband. He had left behind a suicide note in which he exposed corruption. I want the government to investigate the matter and bring the culprits to justice,” said Dangwimsai.

Conspiracy to silence whistleblowers

Meanwhile, Roy charged that there was a conspiracy to silence and suppress whistleblowers and anti-corruption activists.

The Right to Information Act, she said, brings all the departments run by public funds and political parties under its purview. Calling for greater accountability of public institutions and political parties, she said the Central Information Commission had issued an order stating that all the six national parties should come under the RTI Act and submit detailed accounts of their finances. But since that has not happened, she demanded that all of them be brought under the purview of the Act.

Bhardwaj also noted that Modi had repeatedly stated “I will not eat (be corrupt) and not let anyone eat (be corrupt). But Modi himself has weakened the existing anti-corruption laws. The Lokpal Act was enacted on January 1, 2014 but it has not been implemented yet and a Lokpal has not been appointed. If a government will not implement anti-corruption laws then how will it fight graft,” she asked.

She also spoke about the Whistle Blower’s Protection Act not being operationalised. Stating that a whistleblower was recently attacked in Hyderabad and similarly several of them have been killed for trying to blow the lid off the Vyapam recruitment scam in Madhya Pradesh, she demanded its immediate implementation.

“The Modi government is trying to weaken the law in parliament. It is saying that if some government official would complain against corruption, they would be liable for 14 years of imprisonment under the new proposal. We demand that the amendment bill be rescinded and the original Act be implemented,” she added.

Reintroduction of grievance redressal Bill sought

The people’s groups also demanded that the central government reintroduce the grievance redressal Bill, which had the support of all parties, including the BJP, but lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha in 2014. Stating that the Bill has not been brought to parliament, they said “by proposing a scheme instead of enacting a law to provide an effective mechanism for grievance redress to citizens, the government has completely diluted this important initiative.”

The groups stated that there continued to be a lack of transparency and accountability in political funding despite the orders issued by the Central Information Commission – political parties are not providing details of their funding under the RTI Act. “In fact,” as Bhardwaj pointed out, “the recent changes introduced to political financing could make it even more opaque as they continue to allow for anonymous cash donations up to Rs. 2,000 and also provide for large anonymous donations through the introduction of electoral bonds.”

There’s no Need to Bring NGOs Under the Ambit of the Lokpal Bill

There are already so many laws that apply to NGOs and are barely used effectively; where is the need for one more?

Photo credit: Latika Roy foundation

I have never been a ‘public servant’ before. I’ve always thought of myself as a development worker. Or maybe a CEO, since the organization I helped found and now run employs 120 people and provides services to over 300 children every day. Sometimes I claim to be an organizer, since I work to create better health care and education systems for those children – all of whom have disabilities. But never, it must be said, a public servant.

The Lokpal Bill would like to change that.

Now, in addition to dealing with the long hours, low pay and people’s vague distrust anyone working in an NGO invites, I’ve got a new title — public servant — and a whole new list of responsibilities.

The Lokpal Bill, in a move to curb corruption among people like me, would require – if it continues in its present form – that by July 31st this year, the Board and the senior staff of any NGO receiving more than one crore rupees from the government or more than 10 lakh rupees from foreign sources be considered public servants. Like IAS officers and elected officials, we will now have to declare all our assets (property, moveable assets like jewellery, electronics, cars, paintings and investments like insurance policies, mutual funds, stocks and bonds) and those of our spouses and dependent children.

Anu Aga, Rajya Sabha member, philanthropist and an active member of several boards, spoke out in Parliament on Thursday against this aspect of the bill. Warning that many good NGOs have already lost eminent board members who object to the loss of privacy disclosure of assets would entail, she asked that the deadline at least be extended to give the government more time to study the issue. If the government agrees – it looks like it may — this would be the fourth time the date has been changed.

Let me just say: I am all for transparency. I believe whole-heartedly in the Sunshine Policy which says if you don’t have anything to hide, you don’t have anything to worry about. And I don’t. You are welcome to come into my house and tally up the amount I spend on my severely disabled daughter’s care (over half my salary, if you really want to know). You are free to come and ride around in my 1999 Santro and see for yourself what a great car it is. You may, if it pleases you, go through my jewellery box in which the only thing of any worth at all is a single gold chain, the third my mother-in-law has given me because I am careless with such items and the other two have disappeared. Yet, why do I feel a bit humiliated by this proposed provision?

Let me also say that I have no illusions about NGOs. I don’t think they are all pure and blameless or that the government has no right to review our work or examine our accounts. Of course it does. We are public servants in the sense that we work for the common good and we are dependent upon the public for support. It is the government’s job to see that the public is not defrauded or harmed in any way by our activities.

That’s why it has established institutions like the Rehabilitation Council of India to regulate and monitor services given to persons with disabilities, for exampe (every field has its own such body). Great idea. People claiming to be professionals should be subject to vetting by a competent authority; organisations claiming to offer training should have to adhere to standardised norms. But just try submitting a proposal to RCI to get a course approved. Or calling to check on its status. Or emailing for information. Or even, finally, in despair, going all the way to Delhi to meet someone face-to-face. Applications for certification languish for months and years. Training courses are established without permission and no one ever comes to inspect. Quacks set up shop – openly and on public roads – and bilk the unsuspecting of their hard-earned money and no one even raises a query, let alone stop them.

The Government of India also has multiple laws (all in place long before Lokpal was written) to monitor the financial dealings of NGOs. The Foreign Currency Regulation Act, just for starters. FCRA rules are stringent and supposedly watertight. NGOs must establish separate bank accounts, which are only for foreign funds. No mixing of Indian currency and foreign money is allowed. We submit audited accounts for all contributions, however small and inventories of all equipment purchased with public funds. Detailed financial statements are required for any government grant and audits can be held without notice as a way of keeping us on our toes. Our bank accounts are strictly regulated and cash payments over a certain amount are against the law.

But who’s counting? In my experience, the reports we submit – always on time, always in both soft and hard copies – are routinely ignored, misfiled and mislaid. We receive multiple requests for duplicate copies of reports we have already submitted. The bureaucrats in charge seem to have no real interest in what we are doing unless some senior officer asks a question they can’t answer. Then the demands for extra copies flood in. They want fresh reports, written explanations and duplicate receipts. We’ve even been asked for copies of the MOUs we’ve signed with the government. And whatever they ask for, they always need Right Now.

My point, therefore, is that there is no need for this bill. Adequate systems and resources for monitoring and vetting us are already in place. They are simply not used. The Lokpal Bill will add yet another layer of complexity to our reporting requirements with no real hope of being any more effective than any of the other systems in place. Indeed, although the reporting deadline is less than two weeks away, there is still no office set up to receive all the statements which will presumably pour in, nor any plan in place as to how they will be made use of.

In my opinion, this section of the Lokpal Bill was created to harass NGOs doing good work which happens to be unpopular or inconvenient for the government – for whatever reason. It is not actually meant to root out the frauds or those who are misusing public money because the systems which exist for that purpose are not being utilized. Those of us who are honest, committed and genuine will comply with Lokpal requirements. Those who are hiding assets or laundering funds will continue to do so and yet another government office will be created where papers pile up endlessly and needlessly.

In the simplest PR terms, this aspect of the Lokpal Bill is a bad move strategically. Meant to make the Government appear vigilant and zero-tolerance where corruption is concerned, it actually makes it look silly and hypocritical. The phrase “Put your own house in order” comes to mind.

To truly rid India of the corruption, which we all agree is rife requires diligence, oversight and integrity. If one or all of those are missing, the best option is to point the finger at someone else. There is simply no getting away from the fact that NGOs are doing the work the government refuses or is incompetent to do. The bad eggs – and of course in a corrupt system there are plenty – could be shut down in a heartbeat if anyone chose to put their minds to it, using existing laws.

I have devoted the past twenty-two years to creating a better world for children with disabilities. Others have given twice that length of time to saving the environment, making the judicial system accountable, rescuing children from traffickers and securing the rights of women, gays and transgenders. If we are all now to be defined as ‘public servants’ with our private lives available to anyone who cares to access a website, can we at least get a pension?

Jo Chopra works with the Latika Roy foundation, Dehradun