Lokpal JDC - Minutes of Meeting 4

8/4/2019 Lokpal JDC - Minutes of Meeting 4

1/18

Minu.tesof the Fourth Meeting of the Joint Drafting Committee (JDC) fordraftrng the lokpal Bill held on 23.5.2011(Monday) at 11:00 hrs. in RoomNo.41,North Block.

The following were present:

(i ) Shri

Ministers

Pranab Mukherjee,

Representatives of Civil Society

(i) Shri Shanti Bhushan, SeniorAdvocate - Co-Chairpersoninister of Finance -

Chairperson

(ii) Shri P. Chidambaram, Minister (ii) Shri Anna Hazareof HomeAffairs

(iii) Dr. M. Veerappa Moily, Minister (iii) Shri Justice N. Santosh Hegdeof Law and Justice - Convener

(iv) Shri Kapil Sibal, Minister of (iv) Shri Prashant BhushanHuman Resource Developmentand Minister of Communicationand Information Technology.

(v) Shri Salman Khursheed, (v) Shri Arvind KejriwalMinister of Water Resourcesand Minister of MinorityAffairs.

2 The Chairman welcomed the Members and recalled the progress

made in the drafting exercise and the procedure adopted for finalizationof the draft Lokpal Bill. It was pointed out that so far up to clause 7 of

the basic principles, areas where there was convergence of views had

been identified, and areas which merited further discussions for

refinement had been placed in a square bracket.

2.2 Further, setting the agenda for the present meeting, the Chairman

desired to confirm Minutes of the preceding meeting at the first


2/18

instance, and suggested moving forward on discussion on the

remaining principles (clauses 8-40) suggested by the Civil Society.

2.3 The Chairman also referred to an email communication of

21/05/2011, a copy of which was endorsed to the Co-Chairman, Shri

Shanti Bhushan, received from the National Campaign for Peoples'

Right to Information (NCPRI) inter alia signed by Shri Nikhil Dey, which

was required to be responded to after seeking the views of the

Committee.

2.4 Addressing the issues raised by Shri Shanti Bhushan in his

communication which suggested an increased frequency of the

meetings of the Joint Drafting Committee, it was stated by the Chairman

that the Committee could meet on a weekly basis and the position may

be reviewed during the next meeting on 30-05-2011 when the periodicity

of the subsequent meetings can be decided on the basis of progress

made.

2.5 On the issue of involving the public at large, the Chairmansuggested that it would be appropriate that once the basic principles

were agreed upon, the exercise of inviting comments through wider

public consultations may be initiated.

2.6 At this point. the Members of the Civil Society - Shri Prashant

Bhushan and Shri Arvind Kejriwal, as also Shri Shanti Bhushan again

emphasized upon the need for videography of the deliberations, and

pointed out that the communication from NCPRI was also for seeking

information on the progress made within the Committee, and that even

the Minutes of the previous meetings should be made public, and

should be considered to be placed on the website.

2.7 The Chairman clarified that the main focus was to facilitate

smooth functioning of the Committee and that the Government was not

averse to sharing of information but that this should be done at an

2


3/18

appropriate point of time, after some progress had been made, as had

been agreed upon within the Committee. The Chairman also referred to

the deliberations of the Parliamentary Committees to point out that

diverging views may exist during discussions in the Committees, but

eventually a consensus is invariably reached. Keeping such conflicting

views outside the public glare creates an atmosphere more conducive

for convergence of views after due discussions. The Minister of Human

Resource Development also pointed out that the audio recordings sans

the visual impact were less amenable to possible misinterpretation by

the Media. The Chairman stressed that no option was being closed and

that after substantial progress the deliberations could be placed in the

public domain for inviting comments and suggestions.

2.8 The Chairman then read out the communication received from the

NCPRIto highlight the main points. The said communication stated that

there was no clarity of the process being adopted by the Committee and

that comments and clarifications were expected on the following:

)r - Terms of Reference;).;-The process to be adopted for public consultation (being spelled

out by indicating venue and schedules of such interactions);

r Whether the website had been opened and if not, why?:

, The process to be adopted for receipt of feed back from the

public; and

> Public dissemination of information;

2.9 The Chairman then placed before the Committee the proposed

reply to the said request of the NCPRIstating that deliberations of each

of the meetings had been recorded and such records are proposed to be

made public on periodic basis, once the general principles are decided

upon; that it is not proposed to make day to day proceedings and

deliberations public; that a dedicated website had since been opened

and the background and other material are being hosted on to the said

website, and that any feedback could be addressed to the Chairman of

3


4/18

the Joint Drafting Committee or to the Secretariat of the Committee i.e.

the Departmentof Personnel and Training, being specifically addressed

to the Under Secretary,AVO. IV, or through email at suggestions-Iokpal

@nic.in. Finally it was proposed to assure the NCPRI that effective

public consultations would take place after the general principles were

finalized. The Chairman sought the approval of the Committee to the

proposed reply to NCPRIon the above lines, on behalf of the Committee.

The proposed reply was unanimously agreedto.

2.10 The Chairman then suggested proceeding with discussions on

clauses 8 to 40 of the draft general principles submitted by the Civil

Society Members to identify the areas of convergence, and also areas

which would be placed in square brackets for further discussions. He

also mentioned that the additional papers submitted by the Civil Society

Members during this meeting may be discussed in the next meeting.

The Chairman also sought the confirmation of the Committee on the

Minutes of the Third Meeting (held on 07/05/2011) of the Joint Drafting

Committee.

3. Shri Arvind Kejriwal referred to the contents of para 4 of the

minutes of the Third Meeting of the Joint Drafting Committee and

suggested deletion of the sentence referring to "withholding of

information from the public...". The Minister of Home Affairs and the

Minister of Human Resource Development pointed out that this had

been agreed to by the Committee to the extent that deliberations of the

meetings may not be made public till substantial progress could be

made, that public knowledge about deliberations could not be

symmetric across all layers of the society, and that it would not be

practicable to keepall informed of all the deliberations of the Committee.

At the same time it was agreed that the said facts as reflected in the

Minutes, which had been agreed upon within the Committee could be

rephrased in a positive manner, particularly by substituting the word

"withholding". Accordingly it was agreed that para 4, line 5, may be

readas under:-

4
mailto:@nic.in.


5/18

"The Chairman clarified that since an agreement had been

reached on releasing the need of the deliberations to the public,

after substantial progress was made, it was suggested by the

Chairman to restrict the contents of para 10.1of the Minutes of the

2nd Meeting (held on 02/05/2011) to the 'confidentiality aspects of

the deliberations'. Subject to this, the Minutes of the 2nd Meeting

were confirmed and accepted."

4.1 The Minister of HomeAffairs initiated the discussions on clauses

8 to 40 of the general principles of the draft Lokpal Bill. The clause 8

speaks of Lokpal having the powers of search and seizure. The Minister

of Home Affairs stated that such power being incidental to the already

flagged issue relating to powers and jurisdiction of the Lokpal could

await decision on substantive powers, and based on such decision, this

aspect could be finalized.

4.2 An agreement of the Government side was expressed on clause 9

relating to powers of civil court being vested in the Lokpal for issuanceof summons and production of documents. Similar views were

expressed in respect of clause 10 relating to powers of contempt except

for square bracketing the provision relating to "imposition of financial

penalty". Shri Shanti Bhushan stressed upon the need of such

provision to ensure enforceability of the directions of the Lokpal. In that

respect the principle was accepted subject to appropriate rephrasing to

convey the intent of enforceability of directions of the Lokpal.

4.3 The Minister of HomeAffairs stated that the clause 11 relating to

tapping of telephones was a subject matter of a larger issue of which the

Government was already seized of, and that the decision on the said

aspect was to be subjected to outcome of decision of the Government.

This issue may be discussed later on.

5


6/18

4.4 The Minister of Home Affairs referring to clause 12 sought

clarification on the concept of "deemed police officer" as envisaged by

the said clause of the draft proposal. Justice N. Santosh Hegde

clarifying the intent of such provision indicated that for Karnataka

Lokayukta a separate police force has been placed at its disposal, and

that such principle is in consonance with the provisions of section 17 of

the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to ensure that the investigation is

carried out by a police officer not below the rank of the Deputy

Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank. He also

referred to the provision of the section 36 of the Criminal Procedure

Code, 1973 which speaks of powers of superior Police Officers, and that

in the instant case, the Lokpal could be deemed to be a superior

authority by virtue of its jurisdiction over corruption related matters.

4.5 The Minister of Home Affairs on this issue stated that the police

officer investigating any complaint, would be a part of the organization,

being on deputation, and thus the issue of dual roles/functions may not

arise. Further that the question of superior authority would also arise if

the Members of the Lokpal were to be allowed such powers. TheChairman also supported the said argument. The Minister of Human

Resource Development referred to the provisions of the Customs and

Act and the Excise Act where the concept of deemed police officer was

in existence as the Customs/Excise officers were not part of the Police

Organization. The Minister of Home Affairs cited the example of the

National Human Rights Commission which had a supervisory role over

investigations and suggested that the same could be allowed for the

Lokpal. It was thus agreed that the provision may be reformulated to

reflect the intent of overall supervision of the investigation by the Lokpal

and the rank of the investigating officer being defined.

4.6 The Minister of Home Affairs expressed agreement with clause 13

relating to recommendations by the Lokpal for setting up of Special

Courts. However a reservation was expressed on such recommendation

being "binding" on the Government. In this regard, it was stated that

6


7/18

providing of infrastructure towards setting up such courts fell in domain

of the State, and the supplementing of manpower of judicial officers was

in the domain of the judiciary, as appointments for such Special Courts

were to be made by respective High Courts and that these aspects

neededto be taken into consideration. TheLawMinister also referred to

the recent initiative of setting up of 71 Special Courts at the instance of

the Hon'ble Prime Minister to reduce pendency of corruption cases of

the CSI in the States, for which the States had been requested to

provide facilities and appoint Judicial officers.

4.7 The budgeting for such infrastructure and for meeting recurring

costs would also have to be a factor for consideration while setting up

the courts. The Minister of Home Affairs indicated that such funds

would flow from the voted expenditure relating to such Courts. The

Minister of Human Resource Development indicated that the overall

authority of the Parliament had to be recognized for approving the

budgetary provisions for undertaking such activity.

4.8 Shri Arvind KejriwaJexpressed his apprehensions in this regardand stated that without the 'binding' clause, intent of delivering justice

in a time frame of one year would be diluted and thus it would be

necessary that the statute should include such provision so as to bind

the legislature for providing requisite funds. Shri Shanti Shushan and

Shri Arvind Kejriwal were of the view that exceptions could be spelled

out in the statute to address such areas. They however, felt that if any

window was allowed, then such could be exploited, and thus, the statute

should ensure plugging of such loopholes.

4.9 The Minister of HomeAffairs suggested a formulation on the lines

that Government shall make every endeavour to honour the

recommendations of the Lokpal and only in exceptional circumstances

the recommendations need not be considered. It was thus suggested

that the clause could be considered to be rephrased to indicate that

7


8/18

such recommendations would "ordinarily be accepted by the

Government".

4.10 It was decided to flag this issue for further discussions

particularly in view of the fact that views of the State Governments

would also be sought for the proposed legislation.

4.11 The Minister of HomeAffairs referring to clause 14 relating to the

powers of issuance of Letters Rogatory (LR)stated that such action was

within the domain of the courts. Shri Shanti Bhushan clarified that the

intent was to allow Lokpal to directly approach the court of competent

jurisdiction for LRs and not to route such requests through the

Government. The same was accepted and it was proposed that the

relevant provision may be appropriately rephrased.

4.12 (a) With regard to clause 15 relating to notification of moveable

and immoveable assets of the accused, the Minister of Home Affairs

sought to know as to at what stage such action was envisaged to be

taken. In this regard, there was divergence of views amongst themembers of the Civil Society with Shri Arvind Kejriwal suggesting

modeling of the provision on the lines of Bihar Special Courts Act based

on which the Apex court had recently upheld confiscation of properties

of accused. Justice N. Santosh Hegdesuggested that such notification

should be made at the stage of initiation of investigation. Shri Shanti

Bhushan, after discussions indicated that this could be at a stage during

the investigation when it is reasonably established that such properties

are proceeds of crime. He stated that this would prevent

diversionllaundering of such properties through sales etc. and would act

as a caution for buyers against risk of forfeiture. The Minister of Home

Affairs stated that the timing of the notification was required to be

defined in the Act with precision; there was agreement on the provision

that no transfer of such assets would be permissible after issuance of

such notification.

/~) fr(~a. 8


9/18

(b) Further under the same clause, the term "loss to the

exchequer" was also raised by the Minister of HomeAffairs, for further

clarifications. Shri Shanti Bhushan stated that such loss will be

assessed by the Court of Law at the time of conviction for

apportionment amongst the convicts. Members of the Civil Society,

namely Shri Arvind Kejriwal and Shri PrashantBhushan were of the view

that such loss and its apportionment could be decided by the Courts,

The Minister of Human ResourceDevelopment expressed agreement to

confiscation of assets acquired through corrupt means but pointed out

that "loss to the exchequer" was a subjective issue, and the aspect

neededto be looked at and discussed. Shri Kejriwal was of the view that

the determining factor in such cases would be 'malafides',

(c) The Minister of Home Affairs stated that the principle of

making good the loss to the exchequer was acceptable, and that

proceeds of the bribe or deficit due to undervaluation could be

recoveredfrom the public servant and private persons involved and that

such property could be confiscated. He, however, pointed out that the

issue was "what could be termed as a loss?" and to what extent theculpability and responsibility would devolve upon the accused jointly

and severally, the proposed provision should address such aspects with

clarity. An issue was also raised as to how the quantum of bribe would

be determined and as to how such assessment be considered for

liquidating the loss to the exchequer, This aspect was square bracketed

for further discussions along with the issue relating to the timing of the

notification of assets as indicated in this clause on which the members

of the Civil Society were to revert back and the Government side was to

consider the provisions of the Bihar Special Courts Act.

4.13 (a) The Minister of Home Affairs referring to clause 16 conveyed

the concern of the Government side to the use of the term "activity",

The said clause empowers the Lokpal to recommendstay of any activity

connected with the corruption angle. He stated that stay of a decision

could be fine but the term "activity" carried a wider import. Justice N.

9


10/18

Santosh Hegde also expressed his agreement that there is a likelihood

of such term being misread. Shri Arvind Kejriwal pointed out that such

provision was advisory in nature and the Government mayor may not

accept. Further, in agreement with the views of the Minister of Water

Resources, he stated that the clause could be restricted to continuing

offences. Shri Shanti Bhushan appreciating the acumen of the

draftsmen in the Legislative Department and the drafting mechanism,

stated that an appropriate formulation could be worked out. Shri

Kejriwal however stressed on the advisory nature of the provision to

further indicate that Lokpal also had an option to move the court in the

event of its recommendations not being accepted. TheMinister of Home

Affairs stated that intent of the legislation was not to place the

Government and the Lokpal constantly as litigants in a court of law, and

thus it was all the more necessary that there is clarity and precision in

the statute. Further, there should be an assumption that both the

Lokpal and the Government would be acting responsibly to avoid such

confrontations.

(b) With regard to the recommendation for transfer of any officialin terms of clause 16, the Minister of HomeAffairs stated that transfers,

suspension, promotion etc were within the administrative domain. Shri

Arvind Kejriwal pointed out that this was a recommendatory power. Shri

Shanti Bhushan stated that any 'misconduct' relating to the Prevention

of Corruption Act would fall in the domain of the Lokpal, and the Lokpal

should have all the powers to take all consequential action, be it

prosecution or disciplinary action involving transfer, suspension and

culminating to removal of the officer in such cases. Illustrating the role

and functions of the UPSC,it was pointed out by the Minister of Home

Affairs that the Government invariably was in agreement with the

recommendations of the Commission and in rare cases of disagreement,

the proposals were considered independently by the Department of

Personnel and Training for decision of the Prime Minister and that all

disagreementswere reported to the Parliament.

IO


11/18

(c) Shri Arvind Kejriwal and Shri Shanti Shushan pointed out that

recommendations of the Lokayuktas in the States and the CVC were

generally not being accepted by the Government, and thus the need for

vesting of such powers with the Lokpal. The Minister of Human

Resource Development emphasized the role of the appointing authority

and stated that the proposed provision would involve shifting of power

from the Government to the Lokpal, and such shift in basic principles

would imply overriding of the Government by the Lokpal. The issue was

however placed in a square bracket in so far as the issue of

consideration of recommendations of the Lokpal by the Government

was concerned indicating that such issues could not be set out 'a priori'.

4.14 As regards clause 18, the Minister of Home Affairs conveyed the

agreement of the Government side for powers of the Lokpal to issue

appropriate directions to prevent destruction of records, except for the

middle phrase referring to "acts of misconduct". This term was

identified for further discussions to spell out the misconduct which

would warrant exercise of such powers.

4.15 The Minister of Home Affairs discussing the provisions of clause

19 referring to powers of recommending removal of the Minister, invited

attention to the Constitutional provisions of article 75, and that the said

aspect was seriously debatable. He proposed that the same may be put

in a square bracket for further discussions. It was suggested that Lokpal

could submit a report to the Prime Minister on merits and the decision of

continuance of a Minister may be taken by the Prime Minister keeping in

view that the Government is answerable in the Parliament. It was stated

that Constitutional prerogatives should not be diluted. Justice N.

Santosh Hegde stated that in spite of facts being known there are

instances where action of removal of a Minister is not taken. The

Minister of Water Resources pointed out that there may be a case of

non-criminal misconduct such as nepotism, etc., and in such event, the

Lokpal making recommendations for removal of the Minister may be a

case of extremes, and this should be left to the political judgement. It

11


12/18

was clarified that there would be no bar on the Lokpal in pursuing with

the prosecution if the culpability of the Minister is prima facie

established during the investigation.

4.16 (a) Regarding the clause 20 relating to delegation of powers by the

Lokpal, the Minister of Home Affairs sought clarification as to whom

such powers were proposed to bedelegated. Heclarified that there was

no issue of delegation of administrative powers or for assigning judicial

functions to smaller benches,but the delegation of quasi judicial powers

to subordinate officers needed to be discussed. Shri Arvind Kejriwal

stated that as per the definition, the Lokpal was not restricted to the

eleven members to which the Minister of Home Affairs clarified that

Registrar of the Supreme Court was not the Supreme Court in so far as

the judicial functions were concerned. Shri Shanti Bhushan spelling out

the ideals which were to be the basis for the Lokpal and referring to the

United Nations Convention Against Corruption stressed that Lokpal was

envisaged as an independent body and thus had to evolve mechanism

for discharge of its functions of quasi judicial nature also viz.

Departmental action. Shri Arvind Kejriwal supplemented the view byciting the example of Income Tax Department where the statute

empowered officers to discharge judicial functions and drawing a

parallel, the Vigilance Officer of the Lokpal could be identified as an

appropriate authority on whom such delegated powers could devolve

upon or appropriate authorities could be created within the Lokpal set

up. He pointed out that this was required as the Government had not

been taking action on the recommendations of existing bodies like the

Central Vigilance Commission particularly with respect to the parallel

action of disciplinary proceedings. He stressed that Lokpal was

envisioned as a comprehensive set up for all corruption related issues.

(b) The Minister of Home Affairs conveyed the discomfort on the

issue of the Lokpal taking over the powers of disciplinary authority and

that it would involve amendment of the constitutional provisions of

article 311 and creation of a parallel machinery. He also suggested that

the Lokpal should focus on issues of corruption in high places and not

12


13/18

burden itself with peripherals and misconduct of lower functionaries.

The Chairmanalso endorsed the views stating that for criminality aspect

due process could be followed by the Lokpal with final decision being

taken by the appropriate court of law. For departmental action, the

recommendation could be made by the Lokpal to the Government. The

Minister of Human Resource Development suggested enunciating a

principle to address the definition of misconduct and the extent of

delegations permissible in such cases.

(c) Referring to the observations and concerns of the Membersof

the Civil Society that Lokpal as a body with advisory role would not be

distinct from the existing CVC,the Chairman assured that there was no

intent to replicate the evc. Specifically with respect to clause 20, he

mentioned that the question involved related to "delegation of powers"

and there were issues of authority and jurisdiction which had been put

under a square bracket for discussions for convergence of views, and

thus this aspect may also be listed as an issue requiring further

discussions.

4.17 The Minister of Home Affairs conveyed the agreement of the

Government side to the provisions of clauses 21-24subject to a rider in

respect of the provision under clause 24 relating to summary dismissal

of an official of the Lokpal, wherein it was suggested that the principle

was agreed, but the normal procedure for such action culminating into

dismissal may be followed.

4.18 With regard to clause 25, the Chairmanstated that the same being

correlated to clause 15 insofar as the definition of "loss" was

concerned, may bediscussed for further clarity.

4.19 The discussion on the clause 26, reflected a general consensus

that the minimum punishment should be one year rigorous

imprisonment. However, as regards maximum punishment, Shri Shanti

Bhushan was of the view that imprisonment for life could act as a

13


14/18

\ 0'")

deterrent though it was for the courts to decide upon the quantum of

such punishment. There was also discussion on the term "life

imprisonment" which normally was viewed as imprisonment for 14

years but the Apex court had by its recent judgements taken a liberal

view. The existing provisions of law which spelled out both the

minimum and maximum levels was also pointed out. The provision was

thus square bracketed for evolving an appropriate phraseology for

spelling out the punishment.

4.20 Clause27speaks of proportionality of punishment with respect to

the rank and status of the accused. The Minister of HomeAffairs stated

that the quantum of punishment should be linked to the nature and

degreeof culpability of the accused rather than his status. The Minister

of Law and Justice also pointed out that there could not be any

--_ii~~~idelines for quantum of punishment in this regard and ity-

was for the courts to determine the quantum. Shri Prashant Shushan

was of the view that guidelines could be laid down for the courts. The

issue was also put with 'square bracket' for further discussion

4.21 The clause 28 was also placed under a square bracket for

discussion in so far as class distinction was concerned, and the issue of

"loss caused to the Government", already flagged at clause 15.

4.22 The clause 29 was discussed at length as regards deriving of a

benefit from the Government and the concept proposed to be introduced

relating to presumptiveness of deemedinvolvement of the beneficiary of

irregular act/misconduct of a public servant. The Minister of Home

Affairs stated that the ingredients of the said provision were already part

of the existing provisions of section 13(1)(d) & (e) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act and further that mens rea was an essential requirement

to be established for culpability of any person. Shri Shanti Bhushan and

Shri Arvind Kejriwal suggested that the provision could be qualified with

the condition of knowledge of any action being contrary to law, being

attributed to the beneficiary of any irregularity to make such "deeming"

14


15/18

clause operational. The Minister of Home Affairs stated that in such

case the person could be considered as a co-conspirator or abettor for

which existing laws provided for. It was thus suggested that the said

principle may be reformulated and the Civil Society may revert backwith

its views.

4.23 On 'Whistleblowers protection' (clause 30), the Minister of Home

Affairs apprised the Committee that a draft legislation was already

before the Standing Committee for consideration and that if the said

legislation was considered inadequate, the suggestions made through

the proposed provision for the Lokpal Bill could be considered for being

incorporated in the substantive statute. The Chairman stated that the

recommendations and views of the Standing Committee may be awaited

to consider this aspect.

4.24 The Minister of Home Affairs referring to the clause 31 regarding

public grievances with vigilance angle, confirmed acceptance of the

principle of Citizen's Charter being drawn up for progressive review and

enhancement of components, but suggested that areas ofmaladministration, tardiness, inefficiency, complacency etc and delays

due to infrastructural constraints may not be bracketed under

misconduct warranting penal action. Shri Shanti Bhushan was of the

view that such delays of non-adherenceto defined time lines should be

viewed with a deemedvigilance angle. The Minister of HumanResource

Development stated that non-corruption issues may be excluded from

the said provision. The Minister of Home Affairs suggested that

provision could be considered to be modified to enable the Lokpal to

deal with such issues when the action/inaction became a corruption

issue. The matter was flagged for further discussions.

4.25 Regarding merger of CBI, evc and Departmental Vigilance wing

with the Lokpal (clause 32), it was felt that this is major issue requiring

detailed discussions and this issue was put in square brackets for

further discussions.

15


16/18

4.26 (a) With respect to the principle on declaration of moveable and

immoveable assets by the public servants, as envisaged by clause 33

there was a general agreement as regards such declarations being

made. However, jurisdictional issues were raised suggesting that the

form and periodicity may be left to the concerned administrative

authority for being determined. Shri Prashant Bhushan was of the view

that uniform rules were required as certain authorities had reduced the

said exercise to perfunctory levels to indicate only total values which

prevented comparative analysis, and thus the Lokpal should be allowed

to prescribe a format and periodicity of receipt of such information. Shri

Arvind Kejriwal also referred to the resistance towards such

declarations on judicial side. It was clarified by the Minister of Human

Resource Development that the said aspect was being taken care of by

the Judicial Accountability Bill which was with the Standing Committee

and a copy thereof could be provided.

(b) Justice N. Santosh Hegde referring to his experience as

Lokayukta stated that under sections 176 and 177 of IPC, if any personfails to give information as required by law, such person is liable to be

punished with imprisonment of six months, and that he invoked the said

provisions in Karnataka to ensure compliance with the Lokayukta's

directions. The Minister of Human Resource Development suggested

that the existing Constitutional scheme of things may not be disturbed,

and in case of inadequacy of information, the same could be called for

by the Lokpal. It was thus decided to put this issue in square brackets

for further discussions.

4.27 With respect to the clause 34, regarding non-declaration of the

assets by the public servants which are subsequently found to be in

possession of such public servant, it was suggested that the provision

may be revised to take into account areas where such disclosure was

not willfully withheld or is due to lapse, inconsequential value of

property, etc. The reformulation of the clausewas thus agreed upon.

16


17/18

4.28 The provision of clause 35 relating to benami properties was

conveyed to be acceptable. The Minister of Human Resource

Development stated that such possession would be required to be

proved. The subsequent clause 36 relating to assets of candidates was

flagged for discussions primarily due to the same being in the domain of

the Election Commission of India and the fact that the provision referred

to "candldates" could be any of the contestants for elections. They

could not be considered to be public servants to fall within the ambit of

the Lokpal.

4.29 The Minister of Home Affairs referring to clause 37 making it

obligatory upon the C&AGto forward oases to the Lokpal, apprised the

members of the process of consideration of such reports by the

Parliament. The Chairman explained that after being laid in the

Parliament, it was the prerogative of the Public Accounts Committee to

pick up observations for further deliberations and till such time

privileges were attached to such deliberations. It was also observed

that creating an additional obligation on the C&AG would involveConstitutional amendment. It was pointed out that Lokpal could

however in terms of clause 6(a) of the basic principles act on a

complaint, if it is so received; it could also take suo moto cognizance of

such reports. Shri Arvind Kejriwal stated that the members of the Civil

Society would revert back to this issue.

4.30 Clause38 on framing of internal rules and regulations was agreed,

to subject to its being rephrasedto convey the true intent of addressing

the internal administration aspect.

4.31 With respect to transparency as envisaged through clause 39, the

Minister of Home Affairs conveyed agreement of the Government side

with the suggestion that such rules may be made ex-ante while Shri

Shanti Bhushan suggested making an exception to address to the issue

of privacy.

17


18/18

4.32 Finally, the provisions of clause 40 were confirmed to be

acceptable with a view to addressing frivolous, malicious and false

complaints.

5. At this stage the Minister of Water Resources also pointed out

discrepancies on the website of the Civil Society which were requested

to be corrected in conformity with the Minutes of the earlier meeting of

the Joint Drafting Committee.

6. The Chairman before concluding the meeting laid down the

agenda for the next meeting indicating that discussions will be initiatedtowards achieving convergence of views on areas isolated under square

brackets. In the meanwhile, the draftsmen could proceed to formulate

specific stand alone provisions based on the principles on which

agreement had already been reached.

Themeeting ended with vote of thanks.

I

18

Documents

Lokpal JDC - Minutes of Meeting 4