New Delhi, May 31 (IANS) Chairman of the joint drafting committee on Lokpal Bill Pranab Mukherjee wrote to political parties and chief ministers seeking their views on contentious issues in the proposed legislation, including inclusion of prime minister and higher judiciary.
The government, which released Mukherjee’s letter Tuesday, asserted that the discussions of the joint drafting committee on the anti-graft Lokpal Bill were constructive.
Home Minister P. Chidambaram said the government was hopeful of preparing a draft of the law by June 30.
‘We think that the talks were constructive,’ Chidambaram told reporters here, referring to the talks Monday with the civil society representatives.
However, he added there was no unanimity in the meeting on some issues.
He said there were also differences ‘among civil society and those who have spoken or written on the subject (of Lokpal Bill)’.
Baba Ramdev, who has announced a fast from June 4 on issues of corruption and black money, has not agreed to the suggestion of civil society activists to bring the prime minister and the chief justice of India in the purview of Lokpal.
The home minister discounted reports that there was a deadlock in the talks or they had broken down.
Mukherjee, who enclosed a questionnaire with his letter written Tuesday, said there were some basic issues where consultations with stakeholders was necessary before finalisation of the draft.
He said that the issues were of vital importance that would impinge upon structure of governance in the coming years and also possibly affect the framework envisaged in the Constitution.
The joint drafting committee had decided at its fifth meeting Monday to consult political parties and states on contentious issues following differences between the government and civil society members.
The civil society members, which include Gandhian Anna Hazare, had described the Monday meeting as ‘quite disastrous’ and said they will go back to streets if the government stuck to its stand on contentious issues.
The questionnaire contains ‘yes’ and ‘no’ options besides points of conditional acceptance or rejection.
Mukherjee sought views of chief ministers preferably by June 6 as the joint drafting committee had been given a mandate to complete its work by June 30.
The letter posed six questions:
1. ‘There have been demands from the civil society members that one single Act should provide for both the Lokpal in the centre and Lokayukta in the state. Would your state government be willing to accept a draft provision for the Lokayukta on the same lines as that of the Lokpal?’
2. ‘Should the prime minister be brought within the purview of the Lokpal? If the answer is in the affirmative, should there be a qualified inclusion (in which case you may also suggest qualifications for such an inclusion)?’
3. ‘Should judges of the Supreme Court/high court be brought within the purview of the Lokpal?’
4. ‘Should the conduct of members of parliament inside parliament (speaking or voting in the house) be brought within the purview of the Lokpal? (Presently such actions are covered under Article 105 (2) of the Constitution).’
5. ‘Whether articles 311 and 320 (3) (c) of the constitution notwithstanding members of a civil service of the union or an all India service or a civil service of a state or a person holding a civil post under the union or state, be subject to enquiry and disciplinary action including dismissal/removal by the Lokpal/Lokayukta, as the case may be?’
6. ‘What should be the definition of the Lokpal, and should it itself exercise quasi-judicial powers also or delegate these powers to its subordinate officers?’
Some questions in the questionnaire ask for suggestions or have option of conditional acceptance or rejection.
The question on inclusion of prime minister in the purview of Lokpal has an option of ‘Yes’, but with certain areas excluded apart from ‘Yes’ and ‘No.’
The question of inclusion of higher judiciary also contains the option: ‘No, but with provisions should be made to investigate misconduct of judges in the proposed judicial accountability and standards bill.’
The question on bringing conduct of parliament within ambit of Lokpal has two options: ‘No, because Articles 105(2) of the Constitution prohibits such an inquiry’ and ‘Yes, but the Constitution would have to be amended suitably’.
