Write Comment     |     E-Mail To a Friend     |     Facebook     |     Twitter     |     Print

NEW DELHI: Law minister Veerappa Moily on Friday said the government draft on the Lokpal Bill had been "evolved" after the nine meetings of the joint drafting committee and would be one considered for further consultations. The Team Anna draft was "at best a dissent note", he said.

Moily’s statement is significant because so far it was felt the two drafts were parallel initiatives with some points of divergence. This assertion from one of the members of the panel and the law minister is a clear indication that as and when Lokpal Bill is taken up either at the Cabinet or the all-party meeting next month, the government version will take precedence.

"The Lokpal drafting committee was constituted with five nominees of the government and five nominees of Anna Hazare with the intention of preparing a suggestive document for the actual process of drafting the Lokpal Bill. Now, after nine meetings, there have been several changes in the government draft compared to the one that was drawn up in 2010. As per the discussions, the Lokpal Bill 2011 has been prepared by the drafting committee. Nobody has rejected it. There was not a word of rejection in any of the meetings. The civil society draft may at best be a dissent note and it will be put to the government and political parties as such," Moily said.

Moily also released what he called a clause by clause comparison between the government’s version and the civil society version. The comparative statement, though, is largely an exercise in proving the superiority of the government draft, especially with respect to the contentious provisions. In fact, under most heads, the provisions of the Jan Lokpal Bill have been replaced by just a line about how the government Bill is better.

On the matter of the selection committee for the Lokpal – an issue which emerged as a point of divergence in the meeting on June 15 – there is a detailed description of the government proposed selection committee. Where the Jan Lokpal provision should have been, there is a statement about how the government committee is wider, making the selection process "fair" and how the government Bill allows the selection committee greater maneuvering space regarding procedures.

On the issue of jurisdiction of inquiry, the column for the Jan Lokpal Bill says, "It proposes to have jurisdiction over various functionaries by defining certain expressions. The government Bill widens the jurisdiction of Lokpal to ministers, MPs, group A officers... (and) other bodies under the government or controlled or financed by the government including other association of persons or trusts."

On some sections like action on inquiry in relation to public servants not being ministers or members of Parliament, or action on inquiry against public servants or ministers and MPs, the Jan Lokpal column simply reads "Provisions differ materially". It is the same for confirmation of attachment of assets and on the power of Lokpal to recommend transfer or suspension of public servant accused of corruption.

On annual statement of accounts, against the detailed description of the provisions in the government Bill, where the Jan Lokpal provisions should have been, it says, "Detailed provisions are there in the government Bill empowering CAG adequately on this behalf. Sketchy provision is made in Jan Lokpal Bill."