FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (pdf)
(Hindi
translation pdf)
Q. What is the National Campaign for Peoples’
Right to Information (NCPRI)?
The NCPRI was formed in 1996, essentially to fight
for greater transparency in governance by getting
state and national RTI laws enacted. It was involved
in the drafting and passing of various state RTI laws
and in the national RTI Act. Its founding members
included Aruna Roy, Prabhash Joshi, Ajit Bhattacharjea,
Prashant Bhushan, S.R. Sankaran, Prakash Kardaley,
Shekhar Singh, K. G. Kannabiran, Bharat Dogra. For
more details see www.righttoninformation.info .
Q. What is the NCPRI’s approach to
fighting corruption?
The NCPRI feels that every public servant including
the Prime Minister, all ministers, elected representatives,
judges etc. should be covered by strong anti-corruption
laws. In order to ensure that no one institution is
overwhelmed by numbers, becomes unmanageably large,
and uncomfortably powerful, the NCPRI believes that
there should be 3 different institutions at the central
level and corresponding appropriate institutions at
the state level.
a. A Rashtriya Bhrashtachar Nivaran Lokpal (National
Anti-corruption Commission), to tackle corruption
of all elected representatives- Prime Minister (with
some safeguards), Ministers and Members of Parliament,
and senior bureaucrats (Group ‘A’ officers),
and all other co-accused. Please see note no. 1 for
detailed suggestions made by NCPRI to strengthen the
Lokpal bill that is currently before the Parliament.
b. The strengthening of the Kendriya Satarkta
Lokpal (Central Vigilance Commission), to be
an investigative, prosecution and appellate authority
for the remaining categories of civil servants. Please
see note no. 2 for detailed suggestions made by NCPRI
to appropriately amend the Central Vigilance Act.
c. The setting up of a NyayapalikaLokpal (Judicial
Accountability Commission) by strengthening the
Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill that is
currently before the Parliament, to investigate charges
of corruption and misconduct against sitting judges.
Please see note no. 3 for detailed suggestions made
by NCPRI to strengthen the Judicial Accountability
and Standards Bill.
In addition, the NCPRI also believes that there should
be a strong Whistleblower’s Protection bill
applicable to these and all other institutions. Please
see note no. 5 for detailed suggestions made by NCPRI
to strengthen the Whistleblower’s Protection
bill that is currently before the Parliament.
For more details, read about the Public
Consultations held earlier.
Q. Why should the anti-corruption Lokpal
not be involved in grievance redress?
The NCPRI feels this is undesirable and impractical,
especially given the numbers that would be involved
and the need to tackle grievances in a decentralised
manner. It, therefore, suggests the setting up of
an independent, specialised and professional Shikayat
Nivaran Lokpal (Grievance Redress Commission) to effectively
redress grievances in a decentralized and time-bound
manner. This commission would have representatives
at the rural block and urban ward level and could
also become a single-window gateway for grievance
redress for various central and centrally sponsored
schemes like the MGNREGS, NRHM, RTE, etc. Please see
note no. 4 for details of the grievance redress mechanism
being suggested by NCPRI.
Q. Why is the Judiciary not included in
your anti-corruption Lokpal?
The NCPRI is of the view that the judiciary should
be made accountable through an institution set up
under the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill.
This bill is already pending in Parliament but needs
to be improved and strengthened. The Judiciary should
be accountable to an independent institution as:
1. There is a widespread view among many experts that
the inclusion of the higher judiciary within the purview
of the anti-corruption Lokpal would require a Constitutional
amendment, as it goes against the basic tenets of
the independence of judiciary enshrined in the Indian
Constitution. There is a further view that even if
it was decided that it is worth amending the Constitution,
that might be easier said than done. It has been argued
that such an amendment would amount to changing the
basic structure of the Constitution, and the Supreme
Court has held that the legislature does not have
the power to do so (KesavanandaBharati v. State of
Kerala, AIR 1973 SC 1461).
2. There is also the problem that as the Supreme Court
is the authority to hear complaints against the members
of the Lokpals, it would be undesirable to have the
Lokpals hear complaints against Supreme Court judges.
3. Also, it is likely that if the higher judiciary
was included, the bill might itself be challenged
in a high court or in the Supreme Court and might
get stuck for a long period of time.
Q. Is the NCPRI opposed to the Lokpal bill
as introduced in LokSabha?
Yes. The NCPRI feels that the government Lokpalbill,
as introduced in the Parliament is grossly inadequate
in many ways and also draconian in some. Specifically:
1. The draft bill only covers the central government
and not the state governments .
2. The draft bill does not indicate how members of
the higher judiciary and civil servants other than
group A would be dealt with in matters of corruption.
3. It also does not cover the issue of grievance redress.
4. It leaves out the PM who the NCPRI believes should
be included, though perhaps with a few safeguards.
5. It has a selection process for the Lokpal which
is dominated by the government and does not have a
mandatory search committee, which the NCPRI thinks
is essential.
6. It undermines the independence of the Lokpal by
giving the power to initiate an enquiry against the
Chairman or member of the Lokpal to the government.
7. It selectively covers all peoples movements and
NGOs, declaring their office bearers as public servants,
something that the NCPRI thinks is uncalled for.
8. It has draconian penalty provisions against those
who might make false, vexatious or frivolous complaints,
threatening them with imprisonment and thereby discouraging
complainants.
9. It conveniently leaves out the corporate sector
from its purview even though they are perhaps the
most imp factors in promoting large scale corruption.
Q. NCPRI approach requires so many new laws.
Even getting one law is so difficult.
It might seem as if the NCPRI proposal is to set up
five new bodies, or have five new laws. In fact, three
of the laws are already Bills in parliament- Lokpal
bill, Judicial Accountability and Standards bills
and Whistleblower protection bill. The fourth, is
the Central Vigilance Commission, which is an existing
independent body and the Act would require to be amended.
The Grievance Redress Act is the only new law that
will be required. This also relies on rationalising
the grievance redress mechanisms in various schemes
by strengthening it and building a common grievance
redress architecture at the sub district level, with
grievance redress authorities that can hear appeals,
dispose off matters within a fixed time frame , compensate,
and penalise at the District and State/Central level.
So, the NCPRI approach required strengthening existing
bills which have already been introduced in Parliament,
strengthening an existing institution and bringing
in one new legislation.
Q. Are you engaging with the government?
The NCPRI had written to the chairperson of the Joint
Drafting Committee requesting for an opportunity to
present their views before the committee. Though the
chairperson responded assuring that such an opportunity
would be provided it seems that the committee was
wound up before this could be done. Subsequently,
the NCPRI sent its views to various government ministers
and have also had meeting with some of them. The NCPRI
will send its recommendation to the Standing Committee,
and request a hearing with the Standing Committee.
Q. How will you ensure accountability of
all the proposed institutions?
Each of the proposed institutions will have in-built
accountability measures. For example, complaints against
members of the anti-corruption Lokpal would lie with
the Chief Justice of India, as would complaints against
members of the proposed grievance redress commission.
In addition, each of the proposed institutions would
function transparently and be concurrently accountable
to the people.
Q. You are proposing multiple institutes,
how will a person decide where to file a complaint?
Ordinarily, where a complainant is making an accusation
against a specific public servant, the complaint will
lie with the appropriate body. For example, if it
is against a group A officer, elected representative
or Minister, it would be with the Lokpal at the Centre
or Lokayukt in the state. Complaints against other
officials would lie with theCentral Vigilance Commission
and against the higher judiciary with the National
Judicial Commission.
Where the complaint is not sure of the identity or
the rank of the accused official, the law will provide
(similarly to the RTI Act), for the transfer of the
complaint by the institute which has received it to
the appropriate institution, once that is clear.
Q. If your institutions are segmented, wont
people get excluded?
The National Anti-Corruption Commission bill (RashtriyaBhrashtacharNivaranLokpal)
proposed by the NCPRI provides for simultaneous coverage
of all co-accused, even if by themselves they would
not have been covered by the institution. So, for
instance in a land deal where a member of the cabinet
might be involved along with people down the line,
right till the patwari at the village level, all the
lower functionaries would also be investigated by
the National Lokpal as co-accused.
Q. Where would CBI and similar investigative
agencies come under the purview in the proposed model?
The NCPRI proposes that each of the anti-corruption
institutions have the authority and staff to investigate
and prosecute complaints. Consequently, they would
be expected to set up their investigative wings where
personnel could be drawn from the CBI and other existing
investigative agencies.
As the CBI has functions other than investigation
of corruption cases, for these other functions, it
would remain under the government.
Q. How will speed and correctness of investigation
and justice be ensured?
Each of the proposed institution lays down mandatory
timeframes for enquiry, investigation and trial. It
is also proposed that a protocol laying down the elements
of good and timely investigation be codified and its
violation be considered an offence.
Q. How would the composition of these bodies
look like and how would members be selected?
The NCPRI envisages these bodies to have a diversity
of expertise including former judges and eminent persons
from different walks of life. The identification and
selection of members of these bodies would be done
by committees which comprise a multiplicity of interests,
each balancing the other, in order to achieve objectivity.
Therefore, typically there would be representatives
of the government, the opposition party, the judiciary,
and from among eminent people from various fields.
Q. Why is the NCPRI proposal such a complex
articulation?
It is true that the formulation- or suggested "collective
and concurrent anti-corruption and grievance redress
measures" of the NCPRI is more complex than a
single institution like the Jan Lokpal that covers
all corruption, maladministration, and misgovernance.
However, corruption and the arbitrary use of power
itself is complex, and misgovernance and grievance
redress even more so.
Q. Don’t you think by presenting a
different view point from IAC, you are weakening civil
society?
The problem of corruption is too important to be left
to just one group in civil society. Besides, diversity
and plurality of viewpoints, are healthy process of
discussion and consultation, and are a pre-condition
to an effective set of anti-corruption measures. If
it wasn’t for the unwillingness of the IAC to
continue the dialogue with the NCPRI and other civil
society groups, it is quite possible that a consensus
could have developed after extensive discussions among
most, if not all of civil society.
Q. Why is the NCPRI not working with ‘Team
Anna’/ India Against Corruption (IAC)?
The NCPRI had organised various meetings in the last
few months to discuss anti-corruption and grievance
redress measures, including the proposed Lokpal bill
and various members of IAC attended these meetings.
This dialogue continued till such point that IAC took
a public stand that their version of the Jan Lokpalk
bill was final and warranted no change. Statements
were made that anybody that disagreed with their bill
was either corrupt or supported the corrupt. In the
light of this, it was no longer possible to constructively
and meaningfully work or interact with IAC. However,
more recently, members of the IAC, some of whom are
also members of the NCPRI, have again started discussing
the different approaches to addressing corruption
and grievances.
Q. Why are you stratifying institutions
to look at different levels of corruption? Is this
done in any existing institution?
Currently there are nearly 42 lakh people under regular
employment of the Central Government. It would be
physically and logistically impossible for one organization
like the National Anti-Corruption Commission (RashtriyaBhrashtacharNivaranLokpal)
to deal with complaints regarding all these employees.
It would also seem to be a misuse of the unique ability
and strengths of the Lokpal to divert them to thousands
of complaints of routine and petty corruption. Therefore,
clearly there is a need to limit the scope of the
Lokpal, otherwise it would soon degenerate either
into an organization with backlogs running into millions
(like our court system), or become so large and unwieldy
that not only would it become impossible to effectively
manage and ensure its integrity (like the Income Tax
Department), but it would also consume huge public
resources without being cost effective.
The main reasons why the National Anti-Corruption
Commission (RashtriyaBhrashtacharNivaranLokpal) is
being focused on just the political leadership and
group A officers (and all co-accused) are:
a) They are the ones who have, in the current dispensation,
the least amount of checks and balances.
b) Often the scams that they are involved with are
very complex and need great effort and ability to
unravel, and enormous resources to follow through
(like the recent 2G, Karnataka/Andhra Pradesh mining,
and the CWG scams, just to name a few). These sorts
of abilities and resources would be available with
the Lokpal Commission, and it would be a pity, and
also not cost effective, to waste them on cases which
could easily be investigated by other existing institutions.
c) These are also the category of people who have
vast influence and money power, and an institution
with the stature and independence of the proposed
Lokpal Commission is essential to neutralize this
influence and power and to ensure that a proper investigation
is conducted.
d) Invariably, scams involving senior politicians,
ministers and senior civil servants involve huge amounts
of public resources and the enormous cost involved
in maintaining the Lokpal and its complement of officers
can be best justified if they concentrate on these
large scams, whose prevention and detection would
lead to the saving or recovery of large amounts of
public resources that could be given back to the general
public, to whom they rightfully belong.
e) Considering the PM, Ministers and senior civil
servants are individually supervisory authorities,
and the MPs collectively so, as the corrupt are exposed
and weeded out the overall tone of governance is bound
to improve, making it more difficult and risky for
the subordinate officers to continue to be corrupt.
A positive message will also go out that even the
most powerful are not beyond the reach of the law.
It would also go a long way in removing the widespread
cynicism that prevails today about how only the small
fry get caught while the big fish always escape!
f) Undoubtedly, the ideal situation would have been
if corruption at all levels could be given the type
of attention that the Lokpal promises to give corruption
in high places. However, given the size of the problem,
that does not seem to be possible at this stage. Any
effort to significantly increase the scope of the
Lokpal will invariably result in it becoming as ineffective
and overburdened as most of our other anti-corruption
institutions. Perhaps the correct way is to start
small and then to expand in phases, as the capacity
of the Lokpal Commission develops, it gains experience,
and it succeeds in controlling corruption at high
places.
In India atleast 9 State Lokayuktas (out of 12 looked
at) have stratified systems, wherein junior public
servants are looked at by Up-lokayuktas and senior
public servants are investigated by the Lokayuktas.
Q. Where can I send my comments/suggestions
on the NCPRI's proposal?
Please send all feedback and comments to [email protected].
Q. Can I see the NCPRI draft?
The NCPRI has suggested detailed amendments to the
current Lokpal bill (as introduced in Lok Sabha).
These can be seen at www.righttoinformation.info
Q. Is this not the government's version since
it is associated with the NAC, a government body?
There are 28 members in the NCPRI working
committee of which only two (Aruna Roy and Harsh Mander)
are members of the NAC. The NCPRI is an independent,
autonomous network of transparency and accountability
advocates. The NCPRI’s involvement with the
legislative process to deal with corruption and arbitrary
use of power began with the demand for an RTI law
in 1996.
Some members of NCPRI also happen to be members of
the NAC.
The NCPRI is not in any manner affiliated to or supported
by the NAC.
top