With the passage of the Lokpal bill by Parliament the country is finally set to have an anti-corruption ombudsman.
It took many decades for the bill to be approved, since its first version was introduced in Parliament in 1968. Many other versions have later been introduced, discussed by committees and in public forums but they failed to go through. The last attempt in December 2011 to pass the bill, prompted by the Anna Hazare movement, was also a failure. The lack of interest of governments and political parties in creating an anti-corruption institution was the real reason for the successive failures. While they claimed that they wanted it they actually made sure that the idea did not fructify. It is the rising public opinion against corruption and the stellar performance of the Aam Aadmi Party, which campaigned on the plank of a clean and accountable public life, in the Delhi elections that has now forced the parties to deliver the bill. The immediacy of the Lok Sabha elections gave them a sense of urgency about the bill.
The bill, as it has been passed, is short of expectations but the Lokpal which will be created will not be a decorative and ineffective body. The selection procedure of the Lokpal could have been better. The cases under its purview will be investigated by the CBI, which is not an independent agency. But its prosecution wing will report to the Lokpal, which will also have effective power to supervise the investigation of cases. The government cannot transfer the investigating officers. The Lokpal will also not have to get the sanction from government to prosecute officials against whom it is pursuing cases. The setting up of Lokayuktas at the state level has been delinked from the Lokpal and it is for the state governments and Assemblies to create their own anti-corruption agencies. The record and performance of states in this respect is varied and mostly unsatisfactory and there is the need for public pressure on governments to act on the matter.
Even in the present form the Lokpal bill can be considered a good beginning. It may be hoped that it will make a difference in the fight against corruption once it is set up and starts functioning. The areas that need improvement will become clear when it starts dealing with individual cases. The infirmities, if any, can be addressed and the office further strengthened on the basis of experience in future.