Legislation gives CM, HC chief justice, Leader of Opp. power to appoint anti-graft body
The key provisions of the Delhi Janlokpal Bill, 2015, tabled by the AAP government in the Assembly on Monday, are a total deviation from not only its own 2014’s proposed ombudsman draft but also from the one being brought in by the Centre as well.
While the Central bill ma-kes it clear that the selection committee for the purposes of selection of the chairperson and members of the Lokpal should first constitute a search commi-ttee of at least seven eminent persons of standing and having special knowledge and expertise in matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance and finance, the Kejriwal government’s proposed legislation has vested the powers of appointment of the anti-corruption body with the Delhi high court chief justice, the chief minister, the Leader of the Opposition and Assembly Speaker.
The proposed Janlokpal Bill of 2014 had also made it clear that the seven-member selection panel should have only two political members — the CM and the Leader of the Opposition. The other members of the selection panel in the proposed bill were two judges of the Delhi high court, one person amongst previous chairpersons of Janlokpal, two members amongst retired judges of the Supreme Court or high court, retired Chiefs of Army, Navy and Air Force and retired secretaries/ principal secretaries, vice-chancellors, members of the UPSC, or CEC, CIC or CAG. The 2014 bill said that the selection committee shall select out of a short list prepared by the search committee. It said that the search committee shall consist of five members, who shall be persons of eminence and impeccable integrity, to be nominated by the selection committee.
On the removal of the chairperson or any other member of the Janlokpal, the Central bill said that the Lokpal shall not inquire into any complaint made against the chairperson or any of its members. But it has specified that the chairperson or any member shall be removed from his office by order of the President on grounds of misbehaviour after the Supreme Court, on a reference being made to it by the President on a petition signed by at least 100 MPs has, on an inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf, reported that the chairperson or such member, as the case may be removed on such ground.
Even the 2014 bill said th-at the chairperson or any other member shall be re-moved by the President, af-ter the high court, on conducting an inquiry, makes a recommendation of remo-val on any of the grounds including that he has been guilty of misbehaviour or misconduct, or any act of corruption under the act. It said that the high court may also direct the suspension of such chairman or member during the pendency of the proceedings. But the Kejriwal government’s bill states that the chairperson or any member shall be removed by the order of the L-G after an address by the state Ass-embly which is supported by a two-third majority.
On the jurisdiction issue, the Central bill has clearly defined that the Prime Minister and his ministers and Group A, B, C and D officers of the Union government will fall under its ambit. But the Kejriwal government’s bill has taken a confrontionist path with the Centre by extending its jurisdiction to investigate the corruption cases not only of the state administration but also of the Union government. The AAP government’s bill has, however, not specified whether the Janlokpal can proceed against the CM and his Cabinet colleagues.
For investigation purposes, the AAP government’s bill has said that it can get officers from different bodies to look into the corruption related cases, but oth-er bills had proposed setting up of separate probe and prosecution wings.
