Extreme problems don't always need extreme solutions

From: The Times of India
Sep 7, 2011, 06.10AM IST

Extreme problems don’t always need extreme solutions

The Anna Hazare-led civil society movement cannot be faulted for having come up with its version of the Lokpal Bill, because otherwise it would have been accused of campaigning for something essentially negative – the withdrawal of the flawed government version without putting forward an alternative. Frustration with everyday corruption – as well as the spectacular kind that explodes in the public sphere ever so often ( Commonwealth Games, 2G, Adarsh, illegal mining in Bellary district etc) – explains the widespread popular support received by the anti-corruption movement.

The depth of this support, coming from every corner of the country, should tell the government something. While the value of the movement lies in having highlighted the critically important issue of corruption – which has not been dealt with seriously by successive governments – the Jan Lokpal Bill put forward by Team Anna too is flawed in some of its specifics.

If the government Bill is minimalist, setting up a toothless ombudsman with limited powers, the Jan Lokpal is too overarching in its design and could topple under its own weight. It is somewhat contradictory in its approach, in that it envisions a superior layer of bureaucracy to fix bureaucratic corruption. If the government version of the Lokpal Bill can be likened to a cop with a lathi confronting an AK-47 wielding terrorist, the Jan Lokpal could be the equivalent of the trigger-happy supercop mowing down innocent citizens in his rage to establish order.

A third version of the Lokpal Bill, formulated by Aruna Roy and the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI), is superior to both the government version and the Jan Lokpal Bill. We are in sympathy with its broad philosophy, which is to have a series of interlocking bodies which will act as a check on each other rather than a centralised, overarching Lokpal which supervises everything. The way to check corruption is through an architecture of mutually supportive legislation, rather than through a single Bill which is required to deliver a magic bullet. This vision is best embodied in the NCPRI design.

The biggest flaw in the government version is that it excludes many categories of public servants from its ambit – anyone below grade A in the central government, state-level civil servants, the judiciary, the PM while he is in office. Moreover the dice is loaded in favour of the accused, which would make it extremely difficult to bring powerful people to justice and therefore defeat the purpose of the Bill.

For example, while there is no provision to protect whistleblowers, the Bill provides for all incriminating evidence to be made available to the accused even before the registration of an FIR. Moreover, the tough punishment provided for the subjectively determined ‘frivolous’ or ‘vexatious’ complaint (two to five years imprisonment) would deter most victims of corruption from lodging a complaint.

The Jan Lokpal Bill corrects for flaws in the government version by including everybody under the ambit of the Lokpal. Besides corruption cases, the Lokpal is asked to look into grievance redressal as well. This leaves it with the unenviable task of policing some four million employees of the central government alone, among many other categories.

Like our present court system, the Jan Lokpal could simply get buried under a backlog of cases. Moreover, too much power would be concentrated in the Jan Lokpal. Complaints against it may be lodged in the courts. But since the judiciary itself will be under the Jan Lokpal, that would have a chilling effect on any judgments against it.

For anti-corruption laws to work, the remit of anti-corruption bodies must be specific and focussed. To have a manageable task on its hands, the Lokpal should focus on corruption cases involving MPs, ministers and senior officers in the central government. If corrupt officers at grade A level are punished, the message is bound to percolate downwards. Besides, there can be other agencies to check corruption at other levels (more about this soon).

For the same reasons the Lokpal should confine itself to cases where public servants are involved, and not stray into cases of NGO or corporate fraud. The government Lokpal envisages harsh penalties for NGOs, the Jan Lokpal and NCPRI versions do the same for corporates. But the job of public servants is to regulate the working of civil society institutions. If public servants were honest and only some corporates and NGOs were corrupt, we wouldn’t have so much of a problem as the government can throw the book at the latter using a whole gamut of legal instruments: the Companies Act, the Prevention of Corruption Act, IPC provisions which deal with bribery and corruption, income tax laws, the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act and so on.

The real problem arises when the regulators themselves, ie public servants, are corrupt. Anti-corruption laws will work if we keep the architecture simple, without diversionary red herrings – the government polices civil society, Lokpal polices the government.

Who polices the Lokpal? It could be the Supreme Court, which would entail keeping the higher judiciary outside the purview of the Lokpal. The NCPRI suggests strengthening the Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill as a check on judicial corruption. But a superior solution is to have a National Judicial Commission (NJC), which would look at judicial appointments as well.

If the quality of judges in the Supreme Court and high courts could be regulated at entry, that would be a more holistic way of dealing with corruption. To widen the scope of discussion on judicial practices, the NJC should incorporate a balanced mix of non-judicial members as well (the relevant authority in the current Judicial Bill can induct only judges and members of the legal profession). It may require a constitutional amendment to set up the NJC, but the government could commit to bring in such an amendment within a year.

As for dealing with corruption at other tiers of public service, the NCPRI makes sound suggestions. A strengthened Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) can look at corruption among civil servants below grade A level. State Lokayuktas should be appointed to rein in corruption at the state level.

While a serving prime minister should be under the aegis of the Lokpal, strong safeguards are needed to ensure he is not unduly harassed in conducting the work of government. A full bench of the Supreme Court should be convinced there is a prima facie case and clear the investigation, vicarious liability (due to misconduct of other ministers) shouldn’t be considered, national security matters should be kept outside the purview of the Lokpal.

There is need for a strong Bill to protect whistleblowers. Another one should set up a grie-vance redressal commission, to look into redress of grievances not amounting to corruption.

Finally, it’s important to remember that corruption cannot be controlled through punitive steps alone. Side by side, we need to reform the system to reduce incentives for corruption. For that we need to look carefully at policies and processes through which scarce resources such as land, spectrum and minerals are allocated. We also need to look at how elections are funded.

High stamp duties, for example, incentivise the undervaluing of property and therefore the setting up of a black economy. Heavily distorted land markets make the rise of a land mafia inevitable. Rs 40 lakh as the legally designated upper limit for electoral spending by a Lok Sabha candidate is ridiculously low and impractical, inviting evasion by successful candidates.

Perhaps, instead of a mechanical cap on spending we need to put in place a full disclosure requirement, whereby every candidate is obliged to place on record all campaign contributions received beyond a prescribed minimum level. For insights into how reforming the system (as opposed to punitive measures alone) could reduce incentives for corruption, watch this space tomorrow for an article on the subject by Arvind Panagariya.

Tackling graft: The many drafts

Whom should the Lokpal cover?

GoI Lokpal draft: Includes NGOs in the Lokpal’s ambit
Jan Lokpal draft : Includes corporates in its purview
NCPRI draft: Includes corporates within its radar

Times View: The Lokpal must focus on graft in government. Existing laws should be strongly applied to corrupt practices in civil society but the Lokpal must focus on corruption within government.

The higher judiciary

GoI Lokpal draft: Excludes the higher judiciary from the Lokpal’s purview
Jan Lokpal draft: Includes the higher judiciary within the Lokpal’s purview
NCPRI draft: Excludes the higher judiciary from the Lokpal’s ambit – it instead proposes a stronger Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill for tackling issues of corruption in the judiciary

Times View: The judiciary must be free to survey the Lokpal itself. The judiciary can be managed via a National Judicial Commission – that’s better than just a Judicial Accountability Bill as it surveys graft and legal appointments and is open to non-legal members too

Covering the PM

GoI Lokpal draft: The PM is under the Lokpal’s purview – but only after leaving office
Jan Lokpal draft: The PM is fully included while in office
NCPRI draft: The PM is included during office – with proper safeguards

Times View: The PM should be included – with due checks. The NCPRI draft provides good safeguards (due process, no vicarious liability and confidentiality on matters of national interest)

The bureaucracy

GoI Lokpal draft: Only includes Group A officers under the Lokpal’s purview
Jan Lokpal draft: Includes all government servants
NCPRI draft: Envisions all government officers outside Group A to be surveyed by a stronger CVC’s office

Times View: The Lokpal must focus on corruption in high places. Putting all government officials under it is over-burdening it. A stronger CVC and state-level Lokayuktas should oversee all officers outside senior level

Public grievance redressal

GoI Lokpal draft: Makes no provisions for public grievances or their redressal
Jan Lokpal draft: Includes public grievances and redressal at all levels under the Lokpal
NCPRI draft: Envisions a separate commission specifically to hear public grievances and manage redressal

Times View: The Lokpal is a unique institution designed to weed out corruption in government. As the NCPRI draft suggests, public grievances over a range of issues should be routed to another body that can make enquiries at diverse levels and make effective, hard-hitting changes where needed.

Jan Lokpal campaign trying to 'dictate' terms to Parliament: Aruna Roy

From: The Economic Times

4 Sep, 2011, 07.54PM IST, PTI

Jan Lokpal campaign trying to ‘dictate’ terms to Parliament: Aruna Roy

KOCHI: National Advisory Council member Aruna Roy today said the Jan Lokpal Bill campaign against corruption was an attempt by Team Anna to “dictate” terms to Parliament, which she described as an “organised attack” on those who express dissent.

“We can only persuade Parliament, not dictate terms to it,” Roy, who leads the National Campaign for Peoples Right to Information (NCPRI), told reporters here.

“We agree people want change. What has disturbed us greatly in the whole Ramlila mobilisation is they (Team Anna) are saying only their Jan lokpal should be accepted. There is an intolerance of dissent on their part. We cannot say you don’t have the right to dissent,” she said.

Roy said, “We see an organised attack on those who express dissent.”

The bill does not address corruption as a whole as it leaves out this malady in politics, party, corporate and religious institutions, she said.

She termed as completely unnecessary, the breach of privilege notice of Parliament against some key Team Anna members. “We think in the present climate, we must reduce this. Action can be taken against then under IPC,” she said.

NCPRI convenor Nikhil Dey said they were not against Prime Minister being brought under the ambit of Jan Lokpal bill. “The Prime Minister should be included with certain conditions,” Dey said.

He said the Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill currently before Parliament must ensure that judiciary is also made effectively and appropriately accountable without compromising its independence.

National Campaign for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) on the Lokpal Bill : Video Interviews

INTERVIEWS By Anhad Media, August 2011

Aruna Roy :

Anjali Bhardwaj :

Amrita Johri :

Lok Pal Bill : An Alternate View – Videos of NCPRI Press Conference of 20 August 2011, New Delhi

Lok Pal Bill : An Alternate View – A 2 part video of the NCPRI Press Conference of 20 August 2011 at Press Club of India, New Delhi

ncpri press conf part 1

ncpri press conf part 2

Towards an Informed Pre-Legislative Debate on the Lokpal Bill (Kalpana Kannabiran, Rohini Hensman, Sumi Krishna)

From: sacw.net – 22 August 2011

Each State Party shall, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its legal system, develop and implement or maintain effective, coordinated anti-corruption policies that promote the participation of society and reflect the principles of the rule of law, proper management of public affairs and public property, integrity, transparency and accountability.

— UN Convention Against Corruption Article 5(1)

The anti-corruption campaign led by Anna Hazare and his team has evoked a very mixed response from the Left and feminists, between those who rule out any association with the movement and those who want to be part of it. The campaign has also drawn unequivocal support from the right wing Hindutva forces (Baba Ramdev and Sri Sri Ravi Shanker for instance). Like the anti-nuclear struggle in Jaitapur and a few others, this campaign has been backed by ideologically and politically oppositional formations. While this might be reason for some discomfort, it is ultimately the goal of the protest that determines participation, even if this means the coming together of the Left and the Right. We believe, however, that there are other key issues that need to be debated on an anti-corruption platform. It is necessary to disentangle different strands of argument that figure in this discussion.

We support the fundamental right of the campaigners to the freedom of association and peaceful assembly to voice their opinions and engage in peaceful protest. We unequivocally condemn the arrest of Anna Hazare. We believe that preventive detention of conscientious protestors does irreparable damage to the fabric of democracy and undermines the spirit of the Indian Constitution.

That said, it is necessary to examine the goals of Anna Hazare’s campaign. On the face of it, this is a stand against corruption and a rejection of the government’s draft Lokpal bill. But clearly, it is not as simple as that. From the large-scale corruption that has ripped through the country recently to the petty corruption that has tortured all of us at one time or another, the phenomenon is a blot on public life that should certainly be eliminated. Instead, the government bill threatens draconian measures against persons making false complaints – which include imprisonment and compensation to public servant against whom such complaint is made (Section 50). This jeopardizes the security of whistle-blowers and is just one example of the government’s lack of seriousness in tackling the problem. But – and this is a big ’but’ – rejection of the government draft and enactment of strong anti-corruption legislation is not all that the Hazare movement is demanding.

What Anna Hazare and his colleagues are also demanding is that their particular draft – the Jan Lokpal Bill – be adopted by parliament without discussion or debate, without substantial criticism or revision, without looking at alternative drafts. And that this be done within a couple of weeks in the backdrop of Anna Hazare’s indefinite fast. Even if the Jan Lokpal Bill were flawless, this haste would be unacceptable. And the fact is that in its present form this is a flawed document. It seeks to set up an unelected body that would have power over the legislature, executive and judiciary, in theory with the mandate to root corruption out from governance structures. But given the tendency for power to corrupt, and for absolute power to corrupt absolutely, there is no safeguard against the very real possibility of a corrupt Jan Lokpal. In that event, according to the bill, there could be an appeal to the judiciary. But with the Lokpal overseeing the judiciary, what is to prevent a corrupt Lokpal from removing honest judges who might challenge their corruption? Or from removing honest politicians or bureaucrats who stand in the way of the corporations or NGOs it favours? It cannot even be voted out of power by a frustrated public! Not only will it be a failure to root out corruption, it will also strike a fatal blow against democracy.

Indeed, the proclamation by a member of Team Anna that ’Anna is India, India is Anna!’ with its disquieting echoes of both Rudolf Hess (’Adolf Hitler is Germany and Germany is Adolf Hitler!’) and Congress during the Emergency (’Indira is India and India is Indira!’) inadvertently reveals the profound authoritarianism that drives this agenda. Likewise Anna’s views on the death penalty, his response to a question at a televised press conference (on 21st August at Ramlila Grounds) that the people who had voiced specific criticisms should go to a mental hospital, and Team Anna’s rejection of a public consultation on the Lokpal legislation. The idea that one person can represent the interests of a nation divided by class, gender, caste, ethnicity, language and so much else is little short of grotesque. Even when Team Anna advocates a referendum as the way to resolve the issue, it is clear that the referendum will have only two choices: the government draft or the Jan Lokpal Bill. This is far from being a democratic procedure, not only because the vast majority of people supporting the Jan Lokpal Bill have no idea what it contains, but also because such a procedure leaves no room for a third alternative, much less agreement over some provisions and disagreement over others.

By contrast, the National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI), which waged a sustained grassroots campaign for the Right to Information Act, has put forward a multi-pronged approach to tackling corruption through ’collective and concurrent’ anti-corruption and grievance redress measures. The NCPRI’s basket of measures would establish a much more decentralised approach to the problem of corruption. Its proposals tackle a wider spectrum of issues than the Jan Lokpal Bill, while avoiding the massive concentration of power that constitutes a threat to democracy.

– Separating grievance redressal from anti corruption mechanisms and establishing a new multi-tiered, decentralised grievance redress structure to tackle day-to-day grievances swiftly at different levels.

– Establishing a National Lokpal to tackle corruption at the top – the Prime Minister, elected representatives and senior bureaucracy and all other co-accused including the private and the social sector

– Strengthening the Central Vigilance Commission to tackle corruption at the middle level

– Strengthening and passing the Judicial Accountability Bill, now in parliament, while maintaining its independence from the executive

– Strengthening the Whistle Blowers Protection Bill now in parliament,

The NCPRI has consistently pushed for a public debate on the legislation before it is debated in parliament. A pre-legislative process and debate was indeed initiated, with the draft being prepared by and presented to a wide cross-section of people across the country, and revised several times in response to comments and concerns. Public participation in the framing of legislation and how this is facilitated are critical aspects of the working of democratic systems. This requires extensive local consultations with reasonable time frames and without inordinate delay. It also requires democratic mechanisms to prevent the consultation process being captured by particular sections of society.

Feminists and other progressive people of various hues who want to engage actively with a campaign against corruption should insist that a robust pre-legislative debate is non-negotiable. We should participate and determine the terms of the debate, with the support of an informed and inclusive media, rather than recede into a docile presence on media screens, with anchors determining the terms of the debate and cameras doing a head count. Instead of allowing our presence to be used by the media as evidence of ’civil society’ support, progressive voices need to articulate the deep disquiet over a monolithic Jan Lokpal Bill that promises to be authoritarian.

(Kalpana Kannabiran is Director, Council for Social Development, Hyderabad; Rohini Hensman is an independent scholar, writer and activist based in Mumbai; Sumi Krishna is an independent feminist scholar and writer based in Bangalore).

An alternative approach to the Anti Corruption Watchdog ’Jan Lokpal’ Bill

From: sacw.net

August 10, 2011 at 6:03 PM, aruna roy wrote:

Dear . . .

As a preface and a possible apology, let me say that this is a combination between a letter and a note. Please bear with the length of it. We write to you on a matter of mutual and common concern, the Lokpal bill, now in Parliament. The context of this letter is explained below.

When the Joint Drafting Committee of the Lokpal was working on the Jan Lokpal, the NCPRI had written to the Chair, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, and the co-chair Shri Shanti Bhushan, enquiring about the TORs and the process of and participation, in public consultation. Both assured us that there would be formal public consultation. It did not happen.

When the government bill went to cabinet with the intention of placing it in the monsoon session of parliament, the NCPRI decided to make its position known. The NCPRI is continuing with its deliberations and consultations and has prepared an approach paper and a set of principles for circulation. This is a work in progress.

The belief in consultations and discussion is the reason why we write to you.

The NCPRI’s (National Campaign for People’s Right to Information) involvement with legislation to deal with corruption and arbitrary use of power, began with the demand for an RTI law in 1996. The Lokpal was flagged as a law that needed to be taken up along with the Whistle Blowers Bill to address the killing of RTI activists and establish accountability. A committee was set up in the September 2010 for that purpose. The issue of the Lokpal was however taken up by some members of the NCPRI Working Committee, who formed the IAC and the NCPRI discussions remained suspended.

The Lokpal discussion has had an interesting trajectory. It began as the stated logical end of a large middle class mobilization on corruption. The stated end of that campaign was the demand for the setting up of a Joint Drafting Committee for a Lokpal bill. In common usage and understanding of corruption, the term casually refers to a range of corrupt practices. The political/governance spectrum is indeed more culpable than others. For it is mandated to maintain integrity in public life, to keep the country on keel with constitutional and other guarantees. This includes preventing the arbitrary use of power and corrupt practices. The Lokpal was too simplistically ordained by the campaign as a solution to all varieties of corrupt practices in our lives.

However the assurance that all solutions to the entire gamut of corrupt practices could be worked out through a strong Lokpal has left us with a great sense of disquiet. Not only because it does not address the arbitrary use of power. But because it is an unrealistic promise to rising expectations that it is an alleviation of all ills through one bill. It is also a question of the contents of the Jan lokpal draft itself.

There have been public meetings but few consultations on the content of the Act in detail . While gestures and symbolic assent – like sms and referendums – may approve the intent, drafting of an Act needs more informed debate. The Lokpal debate has had its share of general platitudes, we need now to go beyond that. We also have to place the role of dissent squarely in the fulcrum of the debate. The discussions after all, flow from the acceptance that a strong Lokpal bill is needed. Also that the earlier and even the current government draft is faulty, even on principles.

The NCPRI however did make efforts before the 5th of April to arrive at a consensus with the IAC in a meeting held on 3rd April in the NMML. The NAC took up the matter independent of the NCPRI on the 4th April. The NCPRI had expressed reservations about the over arching and overwhelming structure of a law, which included grievances and corruption within its ambit. It was argued that though both are equally important, they require different mechanisms for implementation.

Subsequently events took over, and in the polarised discourse, it became impossible to make suggestions and or suggest changes. Every critique was attributed to wrong intent and viewed with suspicion and mistrust by the civil society members of the Joint Committee. Critique of the Bill has evoked sharp reactions, and statements have been made that no amendments or change to the principles or the framework is possible, and that disagreement with the draft was tantamount to promoting corruption. We were baffled by such statements. The NCPRI however continued with the consultations to evolve an approach, a set of principles and measures to unpack the huge unwieldy and much too powerful structure proposed by the IAC.

We are attaching a set of documents defining our approach to the Lokpal, different both from the Jan Lokpal and the Government bills. The NCPRI would like to share a set of principles and a framework for deliberation. The summary of our basic arguments is detailed below. This was placed in the public domain by the NCPRI and the Inclusive Media 4 Change ( CSDS) on the 5th and 6th of June 2011.

The consensus that emerged was that in place of a single institution there should be multiple institutions and that a basket of collective and concurrent Lokpal anti corruption and grievance redress measures should be evolved.

Summary of the NCPRI approach towards a series of concurrent and collective Anti-corruption and Grievance Redress measures:

Rationale: Vesting jurisdiction over the length and breadth of the government machinery in one institution will concentrate too much power in the institution, while the volume of work will make it difficult to carry out its tasks.

1. Unanimous endorsement of the need for accountability of all public servants, including the contentious issue of inclusion of the PM, with a few caveats. ( No one is above the law, enforcing the rule of law).

2. An independent system for judicial scrutiny and standards.

3. An independent and strong institution to scrutinize corruption of public servants and issues, which require different administrative processes and organizational set-up.

4. and a mechanism to redress grievances of the common citizen

5. Whistle Blowers protection.

The five measures proposed by NCPRI are:

1. Rashtriya Bhrashtachar Nivaran Lokpal (National Anti-corruption Lokpal): An institution to tackle corruption of all elected representatives, including the Prime Minister (with some safeguards), Ministers and Members of Parliament and senior bureaucrats (Group ‘A’ officers) and all other co-accused including those in the private and social sector. The Lokpal will be financially and administratively independent from the government and will have both investigative and prosecution powers.

2. Kendriya Satarkta Lokpal (Central Vigilance Commission): Amending the Central Vigilance Commission Act to remove the single directive and empower the CVC to investigate corruption and take appropriate action against mid-level bureaucracy.

3. Nyayapalika Lokpal (Judicial Standards and Accountability Lokpal): To strengthen the existing Judicial Accountability and Standards Bill, that is currently before the Parliament, to ensure that the judiciary is also made effectively and appropriately accountable, without compromising its independence from the executive or the integrity of its functions.

4. Shikayat Nivaran Lokpal (Public Grievances Lokpal): To set up an effective time-bound system for grievance redress for common citizens to make the government answerable in terms of its functions, duties, commitments and obligations towards citizens. The grievance redress structure would have decentralized institutional mechanisms going right down to each ward/block level, and would ensure a bottom-up, people centric approach so that complaints and grievances can be dealt with speedily and in a decentralized, participatory and transparent manner. It will integrate public vigilance processes like vigilance committees and social audits, and provide for facilitation for the filing of all grievances/complaints through the setting up of block information and facilitation centres in every Block (rural) and ward(urban) in the country.The grievance redress mechanism will be a three-tier structure consisting of grievance redress officers at the local level within the department, independent district level grievance redressal authorities and central/State level grievance redress commission. It will include and rationalize existing structures.

5. Lokrakshak Kanoon (Whistleblower Protection Lokpal): To strengthen the existing Public interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, that is currently before the Parliament, to ensure appropriate protection of whistleblowers.

These institutions, where relevant, will also be established at the State level. In addition there will be a common selection process to staff these institutions. We feel that all these measures need to be brought in simultaneously to effectively tackle corruption at all levels and provide a mechanism to redress grievances of citizens.

We write to you, to present this alternative, to elicit your responses, and to invite you to be part of the discourse. Please do let us know whether you are interested in being part of the discourse and in receiving periodic updates.

Please forward this on to friends and other interested people.

We look forward to your reply.

Warm regards,

Aruna Roy
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS)
Village Devdungri, Post Barar
District Rajsamand 313341
Rajasthan

The National Campaign for Peoples’ Right to Information (NCPRI) have suggested an alternative approach to the Jan Lokpal. Shankar Singh, Nikhil Dey and Aruna Roy of MKSS and NCPRI have critiqued the government draft of the Lokpal now in Parliament and also the Jan Lokpal bill for its lack of accountability and concentration of power in a single body. They have suggested an alternative framework that takes a multi-pronged approach to tackling corruption through concurrent anti-corruption and grievance redress measures.

Some links to relevant discussions and documents, below.

Shoma Choudhury, The Third Flight Path

The Jan Lokpal requires more discussion with Jan‚ interview with Aruna Roy

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main50.asp?filename=Ne130811COVERSTORY.asp

Nikhil Dey & Ruchi Gupta, Putting the “Jan” in Lokpal Bill

http://bourgeoisinspirations.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/putting-the-jan-in-the-lokpal-bill/

Aruna Roy & Nikhil Dey, Make Sure the Cure Isn’t Worse than the Disease

http://www.outlookindia.com/printarticle.aspx?271400

Aruna Roy & Rakshita Swamy, Lokpal Must Lead by Example

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/analysis_lokpal-must-lead-by-example_1544616

NCPRI, Draft Concept Notes from Public Consultations on Collective and Concurrent Lokpal Anti-Corruption and Grievance Redress Measures

NCPRI, Background Documents on Jan Lok Pal Bill

Website of the NCPRI http://righttoinformation.info/
Attached documents

COLLECTIVE AND CONCURRENT LOKPAL ANTI CORRUPTION AND GRIEVANCE REDRESS MEASURES – 3 July 2011 (PDF – 82.3 kb)