Civil rights activist Aruna Roy on Sunday termed the notion of parliamentary privilege ‘fundamentally flawed' and said it needed a relook.
“The privilege issue, we [the National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI)] feel, is fundamentally flawed. We will have to examine it. Not only now, we have raised this over a number of issues [earlier],” she said at an interaction with the media.
On Parliament's breach of privilege motion against the core team of Anna Hazare's Jan Lokpal campaign, she said it was ‘completely unnecessary' as there were other laws to “prosecute people making such comments.”
“Why do you have to invoke legislative privilege now? In the present climate, we should reduce areas of irritation so that a genuine debate on the bill can take place,” she said.
Briefing the media on the NCPRI-formulated Lokpal anti-corruption and grievance redress measures, NCPRI convener Nikhil Dey and Ms. Roy said that the advocacy group was working on it since September last. While the Jan Lokpal formulation sought to create an anti-corruption regime with ‘excessive powers' that would override the democratic checks and balances, the Anti-Corruption Lokpal presented in Parliament was ‘dangerous' in that it allowed government control over the agency by granting government power to appoint and remove the Lokpals. “The Jan Lokpal also left out corporate groups, political parties, NGOs, professional groups, religious corruption and the like,” said Ms. Roy.
Besides suggesting a series of amendments to the draft Lokpal, the NCPRI had envisaged strengthening of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) into an independent body to tackle bureaucratic graft at the middle and lower level; creation of a decentralised grievance redress commission to respond to the common man's daily needs; amendments to the existing Judicial Accountability and Standard Bill to ensure functional independence and independent scrutiny of the judiciary and modification of the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill to provide suitable protection to whistleblowers, Mr. Dey maintained.
The NCPRI's formulation covered the Prime Minister, too. “But he will not be held vicariously responsible. Also, if the whole Lokpal demands a probe on him, it should have the endorsement of the full bench of the Supreme Court. The Prime Minister's is an important office and we don't want it to be destabilised. When it comes to MPs, they will have immunity when they are in the geographical area of the Floor of the House. Outside, they are like any other public servants,” he said.
Drawing a clear distinction between pre-legislative campaigns and legislative action, Mr. Dey said Parliament could not be dictated to. “You can only persuade it. Similarly, you cannot use democracy as an argument to suppress someone else's opinion.”
Referring to the notion that those who differed with the Jan Lokpal favoured corruption, Ms. Roy said that intolerance of dissent was a serious democratic problem. “Today there is an organised attack on anybody who has a different point of view. Currently we have four Lokpal formulations in circulation. The Jan Lokpal, the NCPRI version, the Bahujan Lokpal and Loksatta's part Lokpal. And, there will be many more. But to say that you have to be of standard formulation is completely unacceptable,” she said.
Rubbishing charges of siding with the government, Ms. Roy said she was in an absurd situation. “The National Advisory Council (NAC) [of which Ms. Roy is a member] is part of the pre-legislative process [of the Lokpal]. It only looks at social sector policy. Since NAC was to look at the National Food Security Bill, the Communal Violence Bill and issues that are of concern for the marginalised groups, the campaigners felt if there is a voice which represents them in the NAC, maybe it would help.
“To what degree it helped [their cause] you all know. Even though the chairperson of the NAC and the United Progressive Alliance is the same individual, a lot that has been sent by the NAC to the Government of India has been broken up, reduced in strength and applicability.
“You just have to see the National Food Security Bill [to realise] what the government has done to the already muted bill that the NAC sent up.”
