Questions for Spin Minister

Governance Now, July 16-31



Kapil Sibal’s twopart article in the Hindustan Times (‘A free-floating entity’ and ‘Up the garden path’) trashing Team Anna’s version of the Lokpal bill is breathtaking in its sweeping comments. Had he not been an eminent lawyer one would have dismissed him for being political with the attendant licence to spread lies to deceive the citizens. But he being an eminent lawyer needs to be questioned for writing an eminently trashable article.

Here is a list of his halftruths, untruths, myths and misconceptions about our constitution and parliamentary democratic set-up vis-à-vis the Jan Lokpal Bill:

Sibal repeatedly describes the Jan Lokpal as a body of “11 unelected wise men”, “unelected executive body” etc. The emphasis is on “unelected”.


If such is the sanctity of the election, why isn’t he asking the “topmost executive” of the land, the prime minister, to get elected first? The PM is not only “unelected” for seven years in running he is “unelectable” too. Does that not violate the “essence of parliamentary democracy”, he being a “nominated” man of you-know-who?

Besides, which of these authorities wielding immense power is elected – CJI, CJs, judges, judicial officers, CBI director, CVC, CAG?

Sibal says, “The judiciary seeks to protect citizens. The (Jan) Lokpal seeks to prosecute them.”


Why then, pray, the Judicial Accountability bill? Why the impeachment move against justice Soumitra Sen? Why the CBI is after justice Nirmal Yadav? Why a probe against former CJI K G Balakrishanan on charges of amassing disproportionate assets?


Sibal says Jan Lokpal “seeks to arrogate to itself the power to discipline government servants” and that it will require a “mammoth machinery” to deal with corruption acts of about 10-12 million government servants.


Well, if so, what is the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act and how do the CBI and CVC deal with 10-12 million government servants? The Jan Lokpal seeks a merger of the CBI and CVC with itself, so why the fuss?


He also says the constitution “protects the tenure” of government servants and hence it would need a constitutional amendment if disciplinary power is given to the Jan Lokpal.


If so, how are the government servants being disciplined in the first place? And shouldn’t he be the first one to seek amendment to the constitution?

As for the constitutional sanctity, since when has the Congress become so fastidious? Indira Gandhi amended the constitution with impunity, suspending fundamental rights and cutting the apex court down to size. And haven’t we amended the constitution more than 100 times?

Did Rajiv Gandhi bother about the constitutional niceties when he tried to gag the media? Did Sibal ever protest against the Emergency or suspension of fundamental rights?

Sibal says Jan Lokpal is seeking to prosecute MPs who are protected by the constitution to vote and speak freely in parliament.


Does the constitution protect the MPs who take bribe to vote and ask questions? Does it sanction the JMM bribery and cash-for-vote scams too in which everyone involved got away? Why were the MPs thrown out for cash-for-question scandal?

Sibal says Lokpal will prosecute judiciary too.

The Jan Lokpal seeks power to sanction investigation against a judge in corruption cases because the present system, which has failed to punish even a single judge in the past 64 years, doesn’t allow investigation without the court’s permission. That is why justice Nirmal Yadav was allowed to retire peacefully. Will there not be a similar mechanism in the Judicial Accountability bill?

And finally,

Sibal says “some eminent jurists believe Jan Lokpal might fall foul of the basic structure of the constitution” and that it is “answerable to none”.

Really? Will the Lokpal bill not be debated in and passed by parliament? As for answerability, here is a counter:
To the government: Since all answerable-to-the-government anti-corruption mechanisms have failed, the idea is to set up a body “independent” of the government.
To parliament: As in the case of the PSUs, CVC, a parliamentary committee can oversee the Lokpal and annual reports of the Lokpal can be tabled and debated in parliament.
Simple, isn’t it, Mr Sibal?
To the judiciary: Since all decisions of the Lokpal are subjected to review of the high court and supreme court, where is the question of non-accountability?