LOKPAL: Case for an inclusive approach

Soldiers march past South Block in New Delhi. All references in the final Act to Group-A officers should also apply to Commissioned Officers, while those to Group-B and Group-C staff should be applicable to Junior Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks respectively.

The Lokpal Bill, expected to be placed before the Rajya Sabha in the next session, has kicked up a debate over the exclusion of the Armed Forces from its purview. Barring operational and intelligence matters, being under the Lokpal would be beneficial and not detrimental for the services as it could well prove that the levels of corruption in the defence services are lower than in other departments

Maj Navdeep Singh

THE reaction amongst the military community was apparently euphoric when it came to light that the Parliament had agreed on keeping the Armed Forces out of the purview of the Lokpal.

Why the elation, one may ask? The exclusion only leads to the solidification of the 'holy cow' image and a message is sent out that the Armed Forces do not want the cloak of secrecy to be removed since there could be skeletons to hide, which in fact, is not the case at all. Being one of the cleanest institutions, the Armed Forces must set an example and welcome probity of any kind rather than revelling in the bloated myth of being 'different'.

National security and operational aspects have become the much flogged reasons for circumventing transparency not only in the defence services but elsewhere too. The gullible public, including lawmakers, buy it in the name of patriotism. But real patriotism would only be displayed when the uniformed forces go all out to embrace the concept of Lokpal in line with the national effort.

Pointed out repeatedly is the theoretical plank by the defence forces of historically not sparing the guilty in corruption cases and the strong in-house mechanisms available for this purpose. However this approach may be conceptually faulty. Firstly, because the system within the forces is not properly geared up or attuned to handle even normal criminal offences, and secondly, when the already existing provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act have neither effectively worked nor resulted in deterrence in the 'outside world', it would be otiose to expect that the existing system would augur well for the forces. Yes, the judicial system of the defence services has seen speedier trials and has been quick in convictions but the question whether it conforms to the well-established democratic principles of jurisprudence has always remained debatable. The ratio of the persons tried vis-à-vis those convicted would establish the effectiveness but not necessarily the correctness of the system.

The Lokpal, in whichever format it buds ultimately, brings to our country an expert body to handle matters related to corruption. Except areas of national defence wherein security or operational aspects are involved, all other zones must remain open to the new system as envisaged. It is common knowledge that defence deals are a major source of corruption all over the world and involve an interplay of military and civilian elements. Keeping defence officers out of it would mean that while civilian officers would face the probity of Lokpal and the effectiveness of its expertise, the ones in uniform would continue to be governed by existing laws, though the offence would be the same and maybe arising out of the same transaction. Rather than leading to harmonising of procedures, this would lead to creating utter disarray. It is almost universally agreeable that defence procurement, supplies, contracts and construction require more rectitude than prevalent, and hence logically it should hurt none if these aspects are brought under the eye of the Lokpal.

Being pleased about having been excluded from the law of the land which applies to others has a sinister off-shoot. The differential treatment accorded to defence services in such situations is used as a plank to deny benefits which are available to others. Already, the facilities and advantages provided to defence personnel have become pinpricks leading to what many view as "sadistic behavior" amongst the policy-making machinery, which in turn stonewalls all progressive proposals for betterment of pay, allowances, status and pensionary awards to defence personnel. Factors such as availability of subsidised liquor and soaps from canteens at a rupee less than the market become sore points and reasons for denial of progression for serving and retired defence personnel. Otherwise who could explain the fact that today when almost every officer of the organised Group-A services is retiring with the pay and pension equal to a Lieutenant General on a non-functional basis even when not actually promoted, with the additional benefit of virtually 'One Rank One Pension' through the back-door, most of their military counterparts retire as Colonels.

The Services Headquarters are focussing more on fortifying the imagery of exclusion of the military from the others and trumpeting operational facets by placing the future of millions of serving and retired personnel at stake as far as their status, pay, allowances and pensions are concerned. This is being done by blindly towing the line and opinion of non-military officers in important wings such as the 'Personnel Services Directorate' rather than concentrating on awareness and amalgamation of the military with the mainstream. For example, the creation of the concept of 'Rank Pay' during the Fourth Pay Commission, and moving away from normal pay-scales as applicable to all other services, was one such step which though established the military as 'different', resulted not only in financial loss but utter chaos and degradation of status of military officers, the after-effects of which are there for all to see with litigation pending on the subject even three decades later. A Selection Grade Major who used to draw the pay of a Director of the Central Government prior to the Fourth Pay Commission is today placed two steps lower with pay equal to that of an Under Secretary to Government of India, all thanks to the introduction of the 'Rank Pay'.

The differential, and sometimes preferential, treatment also means that most progressive concepts introduced for other services are not made applicable to those in the military since the defence services are 'different'. Already the defence services have no role to play in policy-making or in the Rules of Business contrary to the system prevalent for their counterparts. The military's internal bureaucracy appears to be busy indulging in self-defeatist moves, which are more harmful than external orchestration and where the end result is that the welfare, remuneration and pension related provisions are unilaterally thrust upon defence personnel all because the energies are focussed on issues which are more ceremonial or pseudo-operational and less substantial. Thanks to self-imposed exclusionary politics, these are actions that may result in great pomp and show and chest thumping within the perimeter of a cantonment, but a slide in the real society from where we all come from, that society where Lokpal shall apply. Moving away from the ordinary populace could well lead to alienation.

Being under the Lokpal would be beneficial and not detrimental to the defence services. There is nothing to fear if there is nothing to hide. All references in the final Act to Group-A officers must also apply to Commissioned Officers, while those to Group-B and Group-C staff should be applicable to Junior Commissioned Officers and Other Ranks respectively. Of course, security, operational and intelligence related aspects should be totally excluded and the RTI experience could provide a lead in that arena. Not only would it show that the defence services have no skeletons in the cupboard and are open to scrutiny from all quarters, but once the annual returns of prosecutions are made public after the implementation of the Act, it would also prove, reinforce and strengthen that the levels of corruption in the defence services are lower than others, and in that sense, the services are truly 'different'.

The writer practices at the Punjab and Haryana High Court and is president of the Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association.

Provisions of the Lokpal

ON December 27, 2011, the Lokpal Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha. It was later debated upon in the Rajya Sabha, with no final outcome and is expected to come up again in te hcoming session. The Home Minister, P. Chidambaram had then stated that the government was keen that the Bill is passed in the next session. The Indian Army, Indian Air Force and Indian Navy has been kept out of the ambit of the Lokpal. The bill also keeps the CBI independent.

Envisioned Features of the Lokpal Bill:

l An institution called Lokpal at the centre and Lokayukta in each state will be set up

l Like the Supreme Court and Election Com mission, they will be completely independent of the government. No minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations.

l Cases against corrupt people will not linger on for years: Investigations in any case will have to be completed within a year. Trial should be completed in next one year so that the corrupt politician, officer or judge, if con victed, is sent to jail within two years.

l The loss that a corrupt person caused to the government will be recovered at the time of conviction.

l How will it help a common citizen: If any work of any citizen is not done in prescribed time in any government office, Lokpal will impose financial penalty on guilty officers, which will be given as compensation to the complainant.

l People can approach Lokpal if ration card or passport or voter card is not being made or if the police is not registering a case or any other work is not being done as prescribed. Any case of corruption, like funds or supplies being siphoned off or poor quality roads been constructed, can be reported to the Lokpal.

l Lokpal members will be selected by judges, citizens and constitutional authorities and not by politicians, through a completely transparent and participatory process so that corrupt or weak people cannot be appointed.

l Any complaint against any officer of Lokpal shall be investigated and the officer dismissed within two months.

l Existing like CVC, departmental vigilance and anti-corruption branch of CBI will be merged into Lokpal. It will have complete powers to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.

l It will be the duty of the Lokpal to provide protection to those who are being victimised for raising their voice against corruption.

Fundamental duties

l To judge the cases and make jurisdictions against corruption cases with the Lokpal.

l To judge whether a case is legal or whether a fake complaint has been made.

l To potentially impose fines on a fake complaint, or even a short span of jail time, if the case is not proved to be legally true.

— Compiled from the Net

Click here for more read