Addressing corruption in the indiAn pArliAment: the lokpAl And lokAyuktA Act, 2013

OverviewAt the end of last year, the Indian Parliament passed a law to create an Anti-Corruption Ombudsman for the country. This law empowers the office of ombudsman to investigate complaints of corruption against the Prime Minister, Ministers, current and former Members of Parliament (MP) and Members of State Legislative Assemblies and government employees. The law does not cover any allegation of corruption against an MP in respect of anything said or a vote given in Parliament. The law also specifies that any inquiry against the Prime Minister has to be

held in-camera and approved by two thirds of the members of the Anti-Corruption Ombudsman.

The law specifies a timeframe for completion of investigation of corruption cases. It also gives the office of the ombudsman the power to refer corruption cases to a central investigation agency and have superintendence over it with respect to those cases. The law provides an imprisonment of up to seven years for public servants who are convicted on grounds of corruption. Criminal misconduct and habitually abetting corruption has a higher penalty and would result in imprisonment up to ten years. Making false and frivolous complaints to the office of the Anti-Corruption Ombudsman would result in a fine and imprisonment of up to one year. In addition, a person who is convicted for having made a false complaint shall be liable to compensate the public servant against whom the false complaint was made. However, complaints made in good faith would be excluded from penalty.

The law also gives the different States in India the flexibility to enact

anti-corruption ombudsman laws depending upon their needs and requirements. This flexibility comes with the mandate that the States would have to enact their legislation with one year of the enactment of the central legislation.

A long time comingThe idea of creating an Anti-Corruption Ombudsman in India was first conceptualized nearly 45 years ago. However repeated attempts to pass such legislation in Parliament remained unsuccessful. In 2011, citizens and civil society groups took to the streets in different parts of the country. They were protesting against systemic corruption in the functioning of different arms of the government. Their argument was strengthened by corruption scandals involving government functionaries coming to light in a short span of time. Citizen groups felt that laws of the country were inadequate in tackling corruption. They demanded the enactment of a legislation which would create a strong Anti-Corruption Ombudsman. The leader of the anti-corruption movement, Anna Hazare,

mr chakshu roy mr roy is the is head of outreach at prs legislative research (prs). As part of its work prs provides non partisan research to indian members of parliament on a range of legislative and policy issues. prs also makes information on the working of indian parliament, participation of members of parliament in the proceedings of parliament and legislation pending in parliament available to citizens.

it is anticipated that the passing of an anti-corruption Bill and the establishment of an Anti-corruption ombudsman will result in more transparency and openness between the indian government and its citizens. in enacting the Bill, the lengthy anti-corruption movement also conveyed the influence of the citizen movement in helping to shape the government and parliamentary behaviour in a positive way, writes the head of an indian-based research institute.

100 | The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue Two

TACKLING CORRUPTION IN THE INDIAN PARLIAMENT

Mr Chakshu Roy

Roy.indd 100 13/06/2014 11:16:53

The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue Two | 101

India Gate in New Delhi

TACKLING CORRUPTION IN THE

INDIAN PARLIAMENT

Roy.indd 101 13/06/2014 11:17:06

went on an indefinite fast to press for the immediate enactment of the legislation by the Indian Parliament.

The civic movement in India is one example of the rise of citizen-led movements across the world. Dissatisfaction of citizens on account of governance failures by the Executive has been a recurring theme across these movements. In parliamentary democracies, the institution of Parliament is entrusted

with the responsibility of enacting legislation, keeping a check on the functioning of the government and representing the hopes and aspirations of the citizens of the country. These movements have raised questions about the role and effectiveness of Parliament and whether it is responsive to the needs of the people.

The Indian Parliament responded to the civic movement by extensively

debating the issue of corruption. In the lower house (Lok Sabha), the debate lasted for more than eight hours and 126 Members of Parliament participated in the debate. This was even before the Bill to create the Anti-Corruption Ombudsman was introduced in Parliament. MPs cutting across party lines recognized the role of civic movements in drawing the attention of Parliament towards gaps in legislation and

policy. They were also in agreement that there should be an increased participation of Civil Society in the legislative process. However, MPs were unanimous in their view that as the highest law making body in the country, Parliament’s power to enact legislation was sacrosanct and legislative processes should not be compromised on account of populist movements.

Active civic engagement around

102 | The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue Two

TACKLING CORRUPTION IN THE INDIAN PARLIAMENT

A protest in support of the Lokpal Bill in Mysore State, India

Roy.indd 102 13/06/2014 11:17:32

the issue of the Anti-Corruption Ombudsman, forced the Executive to hold pre-legislative consultations before introducing the Bill in Parliament. A joint committee made up of government and Civil Society representatives made an attempt to draft the Bill. While this effort remained inconclusive, it set the precedent that the government was open to the idea of involving civil society organizations in the legislative

process. After the government’s version of the Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha, the Bill was scrutinized by the parliamentary Standing Committee on Law and Justice. The committee examined 140 witnesses and deliberated for approximately 40 hours before submitting its report to the lower house. Usual practice in India dictates that parliamentary committee reports are finalized on the basis of consensus. However on this

occasion some MPs of the committee provided opposition notes which were appended to the report.

The Bill was passed by the lower house in 2011 and was then referred to the Upper House (Rajya Sabha) for its approval. In the Indian parliamentary system, once a Bill has been examined by a Parliamentary committee, it is not referred to another parliamentary committee for scrutiny. However in this case, the Rajya Sabha decided to refer the Bill to a select committee made up of its MPs.

This committee invited public feedback on the Bill, in response to which it received approximately 128 submissions from organizations and individuals. The select committee finalized its report over the course of 18 sittings and tabled its report in 2012. The Bill was finally passed by Parliament in 2013, making the Anti-Corruption Ombudsman Bill one of the most scrutinized and debated Bills in the Indian Parliament in the last decade.

Related BillsWhile the Anti-Corruption Ombudsman Bill has been enacted, a number of other supporting bills which addressed issues related to tackling corruption lapsed with the dissolution of the Parliament in May 2014.

These Bills were related to the citizen charter and electronic public service delivery, transparency and accountability in public procurement, judicial accountability etc.

The legislative process for these legislative proposals would have to begin again in the newly constituted Lok Sabha. These legislative proposals, if passed, would ensure that the institution of Anti-Corruption Ombudsman does not get flooded by day to day complaints of administrative inefficiency and corruption. And while enacting a law is the first step towards curbing corruption, the effectiveness of the law would depend on how well it is implemented on the ground.

Citizen engagement with the Bill resulted in a number of positive outcomes for the legislative process in India. As mentioned earlier, the

government opened the Bill to pre-legislative consultations. MPs took more interest in their role as legislators, participating in large numbers when the Bill was being debated in the house, and their involvement in the committee process also became more intensive.

The Bill was passed by recorded voting in the Lok Sabha, which was a departure from the normal convention wherein most Bills are passed by voice vote. Parliament also used this opportunity to act as a bridge between the citizens and the government. The government in turn, accepted a number of the parliamentary committee’s recommendations even though it was not bound to accept any of them.

The anti-corruption movement in India is an example of how citizen

movements have the ability to shape government and parliamentary behaviour in a positive way. This movement highlighted two issues which are relevant both in the Indian and the international context. The first relates to the efficacy of existing feedback mechanisms between citizens, government and elected representatives.

The second relates to institutionalising of best practises that are adopted by Parliament and the Executive while responding to citizen movements. Both these issues stem from a simple question which is, ‘do citizens have to take to the streets to galvanize their elected representatives into action?’

The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue Two | 103

TACKLING CORRUPTION IN THE

INDIAN PARLIAMENT

“The anti-corruption movement in India is an example of how citizen movements have the ability to shape government and parliamentary behaviour in a positive way.”

Roy.indd 103 13/06/2014 11:17:46