purview of the Lokpal with two exceptions – the national security and public order. Instead of bringing the Judiciary under the Lokpal, she suggested for setting up a national judicial commission with power to formulate the modalities of appointment and retirement of judges. The anti corruption wing of the Central
INDIA Smt. Sushma Swaraj, MP
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) should be brought under the Lokpal. Smt. Swaraj said that the selection body for appointment of Lokpal should not be dominated by the government and proposed to include more members from outside.
She believed both the Lokpal and Lokayukta could be constituted through a single act. Smt. Swaraj registered the consent of her party on all the three points raised by the Leader of the House. Shri Sandeep Dikshit (INC) said the opinion of the House, constitutional experts and public at large should also be taken into account in order to constitute a strong Lokpal. Shri Dara Singh Chauhan (BSP) said whatever form the Lokpal Bill might take, it would not be able to deliver justice unless it took care of the poor, dalits, backward and the minorities. Participating in the debate, Shri Elangovan supported the demand for including the Prime
Minister within the purview of the Lokpal. On the issue of Lokayukta, he urged the House not to do anything that would militate against the autonomy of the states. Shri Basudeb Acharia (CPI-M) believed the agitation for a strong Lokpal was a reflection of the anger of the people against corruption. He said the policies formulated and pursued by successive governments and the lack of an institutional mechanism to investigate and prosecute were responsible for the alarming rise in corruption. Shri Acharia wanted a provision in the Lokpal Bill for taking action against companies and business houses that indulged in corrupt practices in their dealings with public servants. Shri Jose K. Mani (KC-M) believed that inclusion of the Prime Minister in the ambit of Lokpal Bill could lead to constitutional crises. Regarding Lokayukta, the centre should only draft a model legislation which could then be enacted and implemented by each state. For effective and transparent governance, it was necessary to include the lower level employees under the Bill, he asserted.
Sk. Saidul Haque(CPI-M) asked the government to withdraw the Lokpal Bill and introduce a new bill
others. He said the Prime Minister must be included in its ambit with adequate safeguards. While Dr Kirit Premjibhai Solanki (BJP) asked for enacting a strong and effective Lokpal Bill based on Hazare’s Jan Lokpal Bill, Shri S.S. Ramasubbu(INC) was against bringing the Prime Minister under the purview of Lokpal. Dr K.L. Meena
(Independent) while supporting the demand for an effective Lokpal, suggested for giving due consideration to the accountability aspect and its compatibility with the federal character of the Indian polity. Shri Anto Antony (INC) was concerned that the Jan Lokpal Bill might create a body which was not responsible to anyone in this country. He said democracy should not be sacrificed in the pretext of eliminating corruption. Shri Hansraj G. Ahir (BJP) urged the House to pass a unanimous resolution for creating an independent and strong mechanism to eliminate corruption.
Shri Anand Sharma, MP
incorporating the suggestions from the Jan Lokpal Bill and
344 | The Parliamentarian | 2011: Issue Four
Shri Dasgupta said Parliament should send a message that it was not oblivious of its responsibilities and the enactment of the Lokpal was the beginning and not the last step in fighting corruption. He promoted respecting rights of the states in the Indian federal structure. Shri Lalu Prasad (RJD) said all the members of Parliament were united against corruption and they would do everything to protect the supremacy of Parliament as well as Constitution of India. Shri H.D. Devegowda (JD-S) said after the economic reforms of 1991 corruption had increased simultaneously with the GDP growth. The corporate houses were one of the breeding centers for corruption. The Minister of Commerce
and Industry and the Minister of Textiles, Shri Anand Sharma and Shri Maheshwar Hazari (JD-U) said the functions and activities of judiciary, the executive, any organization in the country, NGOs, large corporate houses, media and all professions bodies should be strictly monitored. Smt. Seema Upadhyay (BSP) wanted proper representation for the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes and minority communities in the composition of the Lokpal. Dr Mirza Mehboob Beg (J&K NC) said nothing should be done to diminish the existing vibrant parliamentary system while putting in place an effective legislation to fight corruption.
Replying to the debate, Shri Mukherjee said the Bill would be subjected to the scrutiny of the Standing Committee and the House.
If the House would decide to include the Prime Minister or delete any provision or bring an amendment to strengthen it, it was free to do so. As the Monsoon Session was starting from 1 August, it was difficult for the government to have the Lokpal Bill passed by 15 August as demanded by Hazare’s team, said the Minister.
The Leader of the House requested the Speaker to transmit the proceedings to the Departmentally Related Standing Committee for its perusal while formulating its recommendations for a Lokpal Bill. In the absence of any rules with regard to sending the proceedings of a sitting of the House to a Departmentally Related Standing Committee, this was the first such instance wherein the proceedings were sent to a Committee for its consideration. Following this, Shri Hazare ended his fast on 28 August 2011.