Lokpal panel may scrap need for sanctions to prosecute MPs, bureaucrats

NEW DELHI: Prior sanction for prosecution of public servants like bureaucrats and MPs in a criminal case will not be required if the strong consensus within the parliamentary committee examining the Lokpal bill is reflected in the panel's recommendations.
At present, presiding officers of the two Houses of Parliament are required to give their assent for prosecution of MPs while the government is the relevant authority for civil servants. But the proposed Lokpal's view might be final if the ombudsman is convinced of the gravity of charges against a public servant.

The prospects of this key provision becoming part of the Lokpal law are bright as there was convergence on doing away with prior sanctions in the deliberations between government representatives and Team Anna in June when a joint drafting committee had been formed.

Provisions regarding prosecution in a criminal case are separate from the protection accorded to civil servants under Article 311 dealing with dismissal, removal or reduction in rank which states that "a civil servant cannot be removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed".

Panel to clarify law that shields babus

Members of civil service serve at the pleasure of the President and Article 311 protects them from politically motivated or vindictive action. But this provision is also likely to be reviewed as the Lokpal may be able to recommend departmental proceedings.

The emerging view within the parliamentary standing committee on personnel, law and justice is that a recommendation for disciplinary action can only be rejected by the secretary of a department or a higher authority after submitting reasons in writing. So, some modicum of protection to civil servants will remain.

The committee may need to clarify on the controversial "single directive" that shields bureaucrats of the rank of joint secretary and above from a CBI probe in a corruption case. Sanction in this case lies with the department where the official is serving - a clear case of conflict of interest. While the committee has negated Team Anna's demand that MPs' powers to speak and vote in Parliament be brought within the ambit of the law, they will be vulnerable to action for corrupt practices outside the two Houses once the sanction of presiding officers is done away with.

In the context of prosecution of public servants, the committee is likely to recommend waiver of legislations including the Prevention of Corruption Act's section 19, CrPC 197 and the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act section 6A. These mandate that the investigating authority must take permission from the central or state government before initiating investigation against a public servant.

The committee is also likely to agree with the government draft over the possible punishment for the accused. While Team Anna had demanded life imprisonment, the government draft suggests 10 years behind bars.

Responding to Team Anna's view that CBI's anti-corruption wing should report to the Lokpal, committee chairperson Abhishek Manu Singhvi said, "It's easy to be prescriptive but more difficult to be operationally pragmatic. We believe we have arrived at a good equilibrium ensuring independence of CBI from political control to a degree never done before, demarcation between investigation and prosecution that has increased quality and objectivity of each and creation of an independent and autonomous directorate of prosecution frequently desired but never hitherto created."

Significantly, the committee has so far incorporated only one of three issues mentioned in the resolution passed by Parliament in August