By Anirudh Prakash
In a shocking display of political brinkmanship, the government orchestrated suspension of voting on the historic Lokpal Bill in the Rajya Sabha on midnight Thursday (December 29). While the government said that 187 amendments to the Bill had created a “web of confusion”, Arun Jaitley charged that the entire debate was choreographed to stall the Bill’s passage. This was done to prevent the Opposition parties from joining hands with UPA ally Trinamool Congress (TMC) and its supporters, particularly the BSP and SP, to push amendments that the Congress did not want. The government tried its best to get the TMC, the BSP and SP to come around and not press for their amendments but failed.
The Bill is now as good as being in the cold storage because the government has given no time- frame for another discussion and voting on the amendments suggested by the Opposition. Both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha have been adjourned sine die and no special session can be convened to pass the Bill before February, the scheduled month for beginning of the budget session. The New Year in parliamentary parlance, as minister Pawan Bansal duly informed House, always starts with the President’s address and the Motion of Thanks. However, the real reason for the government allowing the Bill to be put to vote during the stipulated period, as explained by the leader of Opposition Arun Jaitley was that the Opposition is in majority in the Upper House. And the principal opposition party, the BJP, wanted amendments that the government may not be position to prevent from becoming part of proposed law. Moreover, the Trinamool Congress and its outside supporters SP, BSP and RJD, too were in favour at least one amendment proposed by the BJP namely deletion of Chapter III which simultaneously creates Lokayuktas in the states. These parties believe that this is interference in the states’ domain. Indeed, it was a sad day for democracy as MPs shouted and allegations flew thick and fast. Lalu Prasad’s RJD was the only party that tried to help the government by stalling proceedings.
RJD MP Rajneeti Prasad engaged in the disgraceful act of tearing the Lokpal Bill while the party supremo Lalu Yadav watched from the visitors’ gallery. This drama continued for a long time before the Chairman Hamid Ansari pronounced what could only be interpreted as his final ruling on the matter.
This is an unprecedented situation. There is a desire to out- shout each other. There is a total impasse. The House cannot be conducted in noise. It requires orderly proceedings. The chair has no option … Most reluctantly, I am afraid… You can shout and nobody is heard. What ruling can I give in this noise? I cannot do anything if this is the way the House is going to run, let us all go home. The House is adjourned sine die,” said the Chairman.
These arguments were put forward in the Chairman Hamid Ansari’s chambers when the House was adjourned for a short while during the debate. From the government’s side, ministers Kapil Sibal and Pawan Bansal contended that continuing the debate beyond 12 O’clock would illegal” as the President had given her assent only for three days and the deadline expired at midnight on December 29. Jaitley and the deputy leader S. S. Ahluwalia, on their part, said that the rules allowed that if a discussion is in continuation and the House is willing to let it continue, it can be done. The sense of the House, they said, was to continue the discussion.
When the House reconvened, Bansal asserted government will not deliberately pass a bill in haste when the Opposition has moved as many as 187 amendments. We have to consider each and every one of these amendments… Some are overlapping, at cross-purposes. To this, the Chairman’s response was: “There is a long way to go for 12 O’ clock (midnight).”
Leaving aside the political drama in the Upper House, there is no doubt that the UPA government got the Lokpal Bill passed in the Lok Sabha in an unusual hurry. The objective of the UPA should not have been to stem the tide of adverse public opinion rising against its government in the background of the agitation on the issue led by the Gandhian activist, Anna Hazare, but to present a bill that really took care of the fundamental public concerns on political corruption. The UPA leaders seem to be living in a fool’s paradise. How can the public opinion turn in their favour when the bill does not address one of the key issues of the autonomy of the CBI? The CBI has been at the mercy of the central government. It has been used by the government to blackmail parties and party leaders into supporting the ruling party at important junctures. It has been used to keep small parties within the ruling camp in order to keep the government from falling short of majority. One of the major reasons why the Rashtriya Janata Dal leader, Lalu Prasad has stayed with the UPA despite being denied ministerial berths is that it helps him get protection from the government in keeping the CBI that is prosecuting him in several cases under control. The Samajwadi Party leader, Mulayam Singh Yadav and the Bahujan Samaj Party leader and chief minister of UP, Ms. Mayawati have also been compelled to lend support to the UPA to buy slow-pedalling of prosecution by the CBI. We have also seen how the CBI has been misused by the Congress to retain majority in the Andhra Pradesh Assembly and thus power in the state. And when it comes to the UPA, the CBI has been most condescending. The most recent example of it was the clean chit given to the Union home minister, P. Chidambaram.
The bill passed by Lok Sabha leaves everything about control of CBI very vague, because the UPA government does not really want to grant autonomy to the country’s premier investigating agency. It has to remain under government control in many clever ways. The public demand was for the government to free CBI. But it has done exactly the opposite. The government controls almost every aspect of the Lokpal. A Lokpal under the proposed legislation can never be impartial. But the CBI autonomy is not the only issue. The bill is deficient in many respects and hence not going to be effective. It provides for in-camera hearing of prime minister in the event of a case filed against him. Now, there is every justification to keep the prime minister out in cases that might compromise vital information on nation’s security. But the prime minister’s involvement or complicity, that is omissions and commissions have to be brought to account by the Lokpal and when that happens only open hearing is going to satisfy the public. Because the people will always suspect that in-camera hearing has been manipulated. And in-camera hearing can be abused by the prime minister.
The opposition is justified in demanding that the bill be sent back to Parliamentary Standing Committee. Only detailed discussions on legal and administrative issues among lawmakers could help redress the several flaws and inconsistencies that exist in the bill. The UPA is doing neither itself nor the nation any good by claiming that it was a perfect bill because it is going to tackle corruption in an all-round way. The proposed legislation in its present form is not going to curb corruption.
The opposition to the bill on the ground that it goes against the principles of federal structure of the country needs to be looked at seriously. Why did the UPA include Lokayuktas with the Lokpal when it was told to bring up a bill on Lokpal? Was there any political strategy behind it? It looks like there was. The UPA is playing for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections and wanted to undermine the image of the NDA in general and the BJP in particular by including the Lokayuktas. The UPA strategy is to attack the NDA and BJP in the states where it is in power on the basis of the new proposed legislation, telling the public that the opposition is not interested in curbing corruption in the states where it has its government.
The UPA’s Lokpal bill is thus politically motivated. But it would be dangerous to allow the UPA to undermine the constitutionally guaranteed federal structure which gives the states the right to look after law and order and policing. It is because of the federal structure that the CBI has to take permission from a state before investigating a case in the territory of the state. It was pointless for the UPA to club Lokayuktas in states with Lokpal at the Centre. If a state is not appointing a Lokayukta or not providing it the support and cooperation it requires, the opposition in the state (whether UPA or NDA or any other alliance or party) must agitate over the issue. There are no two opinions about Lokayuktas being needed for every state. We have seen how the Lokayukta in UP has found at least six ministers guilty on the charges of corruption and recommended their removal from the ministry on the ground. But for the Lokayukta in Karnataka, the deep involvement of ministers in illegal mining would not have been exposed. And these Lokayuktas were established by respective states without any central diktat. INAV