‘No harm in elevating the status (of the Lokpal) to a Constitutional body’

Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi talks to Open on how the Lokpal Bill will serve as an important bulwark against corruption

Q After the anti-corruption agitation and ‘sense of Parliament’, all eyes are on you. It must be a challenge, isn’t it?

A It is certainly a privilege to be the chairman of such a distinguished committee, now tasked with a very important role. I look upon it both as a challenge and an opportunity—a real possibility—to do what elected representatives of the country think is good for the country. Obviously, without being presumptuous, I presuppose constructive cooperation from many diverse sections of society, which includes—of course, apart from MPs [Members of Parliament]—NGOs, government bodies and large and diverse slices of civil society. Standing Committees are considered mini-parliaments. There is an interesting quote, without showing disrespect to anybody, which suggests that Parliament in the House is Parliament on exhibition, and Parliament as a committee is Parliament at work. The reason is not far to seek. The same issue that leads to acrimony… and aggressive give-and-take, leads to the same persons—or many of the same persons—rising above their political differences and coming to unanimous reports or near-unanimous reports in most cases. I think the crucial reason for that is the confidentiality of the proceedings. Therefore, I have always been very dismissive when ill-informed elements suggest that there is a lack of transparency and that the committee hearings and proceedings should be held under the glare of media lights.

Q You’d said your committee will try to submit its Lokpal Bill report as early as possible. When do you expect it to be ready?

A It’s not fair for me to speculate [on] deadlines, as many people have repeatedly suggested, for the simple reason that I do not want to bind the committee and my colleagues. Secondly, it is a very large subject, requiring very close scrutiny. So it should take time. If we do a very perfunctory job, you all will be very critical, saying that you have not put in enough time. Having said that, from day one, I have given the example that all standing committees get an initial reference [period] of three months and invariably… seek two-three extensions, which may be nine months to one year. If this committee has suggested that we will strain ourselves [to our] utmost trying to do a good job in the shortest possible time… hopefully—and I use the term ‘hopefully’ very categorically—you can see that it’s a fast-track situation.

Q To what extent does the ‘sense of the House’ bind the committee?

A The sense of the House, obviously, is not an Act of Parliament; it is obviously not a binding resolution in the sense of having said that ‘It’s resolved so and so’, and it is obviously a non-voting declaration. So what it is not [is any of] these three things. However, it is by far the most important input that a standing committee can get—for the simple reason that it is Parliament itself that has spoken to us. Secondly, the resolution on its own deliberately does not seek to bind the Standing Committee, for the simple reason that Parliament is itself interested in seeing that the Committee applies its mind to issues of constitutional validity, executability and feasibility. If it was simply a question of ‘Do this’ or ‘Do that’, then you would not need this multi-level consultation process. The Parliament expects, and not only Parliament, the whole nation expects that the Standing Committee will look into the constitutionality [of the Lokpal] very carefully. Then, there are also implementability and feasibility issues. Suppose, for example, for good reasons, the Standing Committee is of the view that issue A or issue B is not implementable at all in a particular form, or if it finds that it is implementable but in a different form, then surely Parliament is not instructing us that ‘You should not look at it…’ If you look at it in a nit-picking manner, it will be a problem.

Q After a meeting with his team, Anna Hazare declared an intention to go back to Jantar Mantar if the Lokpal is delayed…

A I don’t agree with that. I am not here to comment on anything that Team Anna or its members do in a meeting. All I can share with you are the very important experiences of the Committee. Team Anna was called and met us for more than an hour within a day of the reference of this bill to us… They made a presentation for almost two hours. They were supposed to [appear] for only one hour. Each one of them spoke. All that I can say is we had a very constructive and dignified exchange. There was no problem at all on any side. We also parted ways by saying that we will again seek inputs from them. Secondly, I can tell you that as far as the question of a deadline is concerned, some time ago after the agitation was called off… Mr Prashant Bhushan and Mr Arvind Kejriwal met me, which I put on record. We discussed [the issue] in a very positive atmosphere. They understood that there can’t be an exact time limit… So I think there has been no problem in proceeding in a very positive manner.

Q Rahul Gandhi spoke of the need for a constitutional body to deal with corruption.

A I think [Rahul Gandhi’s suggestion] is valuable in direction, and [also a] somewhat misunderstood one. Shri Rahul Gandhi was talking of the possibility of exploring whether constitutional status can be given [to the Lokpal]. Now, constitutional status does not mean that the Lokpal should not be done in case there is no consensus on the constitutional amendment bill. He does not mean that. But suppose, and I cannot say by way of pre-judgment, the Standing Committee and Parliament find consensus that, yes, we should elevate the status [of the Lokpal] to a constitutional body, then what is the problem in giving it a higher status? There are some very effective bodies under the Constitution, like the Election Commission, Central Administrative and State Administrative Tribunals, and CAG. Any of these models can be considered for adaptation, but these are matters for the Committee and then Parliament to consider. So, why should it be laughed at or ignored or treated flippantly? I think it is an extremely novel, innovative suggestion, taking the story forward. And, certainly, we will look at [the suggestion] carefully.

Q The Standing Committee has submitted reports on the Whistleblower and Judicial Accountability bills. Are these three bills sufficient to check corruption?

A People are only talking about the Lokpal, but they forget that less than one-and-a-half months ago, the Standing Committee delivered a report on the Whistleblower [Bill]. Thereafter, there have been many changes. Then, we delivered a report on the Judicial Accountability [Bill]. And now, we are tasked with this [Lokpal Bill]. The interesting point is that, in a sense, all three contribute immensely to the anti-corruption menu-card. The Whistleblower Bill is subject-neutral. It cuts across sectors in the sense that it is not related to the Judiciary or Executive, or women or men or children. Judicial Accountability is virtually like a judicial Lokpal… Obviously, bills or acts do not solve all problems, but legislation is an important part of reform. Anti-corruption measures have to include several other things, but these three bills are an extremely important bulwark against corruption. They put [in place] deterrents, coercive measures, policing, [modes of] investigation. We should certainly think that we have found a significant way forward. Once the Lokpal comes in, then see the working of these together, and then we can make systemic changes. Everything can’t come in one go.

Q Your father, the late LM Singhvi, was the first to use the word ‘Lokpal ’.

A It is a remarkable coincidence, defying the laws of probability. Almost 50 years ago, a young 31-year-old independent member of Parliament makes a visit to Sweden and is struck by the ombudsman concept… So when he—my father—came back to the Lok Sabha, he started speaking about an ombudsman in virtually every intervention from 1962 to 1967. On one occasion, Pandit Nehru quizzically [asked], “Dr Singhvi, to which zoo does this animal belong?” You must indigenise it. And then he coined these two words: Lokpal and Lokayukta. And 50 years later… I am tasked as chairperson of the Committee to look into this.

About The Author

Dhirendra K Jha