To The Hon'ble Supreme Court, PM, President, NAC, ARC, Union Ministry of Law and Justice, CECs, ECI, CAG, India's State Level Anti-Corrupt Ombudsmen or Lokayuktas, NHRC, SHRCs, MPs, Guvs, CMs, Legislators, MLAs, MLCs, Municipal Councillors,
Created: Monday, April 4, 2011 Last Update: Friday, April 15, 2011 @ 07:30 hrs IST
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/janlokpalbill/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/enact-anti-corruption-law-peoples-jan-lokpal-bill/
http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/indiaagainstcorruption
Watch videos related to India Against corruption movement
Pics: People's protests sweep the nation (India)
http://ibnlive.in.com//videos/148472/cnnibn-campaign-citizens-against-corruption.html

India's Anti corruption system needs a change
Why is it that no one goes to jail in India despite indulging in corruption? This is because it/India has completely rotten anti-corruption laws and anti-corruption agencies that it is almost impossible for the corrupt to be penalized.

Creation of Vote Banks to prevent divide and rule policy of Indian politicians
All the Indian political parties have looted India whenever they have had a chance. They divided Indians and created vote banks on caste, religious, community / communal, regional and linguistic lines because the Indians allowed them to do so. Indians should form vote banks against corruption which should contain people from all religions, regions, languages, communities, castes, gender etc. Such vote banks would unite India.

Series of scams involving politicians and bureaucrats at highest places has shaken the conscience of India in the last few months. Despite public outcry, no worthwhile investigations are going on in any one of them. This is because of several systemic deficiencies in the Indian anti-corruption systems. This campaign is not aligned to or against any political party. We feel that every political party has misused its position whenever they have been in power or otherwise. Therefore, it is extremely important that the citizens of India to unite to demand systemic changes.

India's stringent anti-corruption law - the people's Jan Lokpal Bill (drafted by the civil society) is the solution
Justice Santosh Hegde (former Supreme Court Judge and present Lokayukta of Karnataka), Prashant Bhushan (Supreme Court Lawyer) and Arvind Kejriwal (activist) have together drafted a strong anti-corruption law called Jan Lokpal Bill which requires that investigations into any case should be completed within a year and the trial should get over in the next one year so that a corrupt person goes to jail within two years of complaint and his ill gotten wealth is confiscated.

Click here to read deficiencies in India's present anti-corruption systems

Click here to read salient features of Indian civil society's newly drafted stringent anti-corruption law - the people's Jan Lokpal Bill 

Click here to read how Indian civil society's newly drafted stringent anti-corruption law - the people's Jan Lokpal Bill will improve existing anti-corruption systems. 

Download complete draft of Indian civil society's newly drafted stringent anti-corruption law - the people's Jan Lokpal Bill (English)...

Proposed Govt Lokpal Bill is an eyewash
Lokpal Bill has been introduced eight times in Parliament since 1968. All the eight versions have been very weak. Even these weak versions have not been passed so far because Lokpal Bill seeks to investigate politicians. The latest draft of Lokpal Bill prepared by the present UPA government is a complete eyewash. Rather than strengthen anti-corruption systems, it demolishes whatever exists in the name of anti-corruption systems today. It seeks to completely insulate politicians from any kind of action against them.

Click here to read Indian civil society's critique of Government's Lokpal Bill 

Click here to read comparison between Indian civil society's newly drafted stringent anti-corruption law - the people's Jan Lokpal Bill and Government's Lokpal Bill. 

Download Government's Lokpal Bill 

The civil society has drafted a similar Bill called Jan Lokayukta Bill for the Indian states. Presently 18 Indian states have Lokayukta Acts. However, they are quite ineffective. We want that the existing Lokayukta Acts should be replaced with Jan Lokayukta Bills.

Download complete draft of Indian civil society's newly drafted stringent state level anti-corruption law - the people's Jan Lokayukta Bill

Salient features of the civil society's or people's Jan Lokpal Bill

01. An institution called LOKPAL at the centre and LOKAYUKTA in each state will be set up.

02. Like Supreme Court and Election Commission, they will be completely independent of the governments. No minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations.

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

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

05. 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.

06. So, you could approach Lokpal if your ration card or passport or voter card is not being made or if police is not registering your case or any other work is not being done in prescribed time. Lokpal will have to get it done in a month's time. You could also report any case of corruption to Lokpal like ration being siphoned off, poor quality roads been constructed or panchayat funds being siphoned off. Lokpal will have to complete its investigations in a year, trial will be over in next one year and the guilty will go to jail within two years.

07. But won't the government appoint corrupt and weak people as Lokpal members? That won't be possible because its members will be selected by judges, citizens and constitutional authorities and not by politicians, through a completely transparent and participatory process.

08. What if some officer in Lokpal becomes corrupt? The entire functioning of Lokpal/ Lokayukta will be completely transparent. Any complaint against any officer of Lokpal shall be investigated and the officer dismissed within two months.

09. What will happen to existing anti-corruption agencies? CVC, departmental vigilance and anti-corruption branch of CBI will be merged into Lokpal. Lokpal will have complete powers and machinery to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.

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

Salient Features of Civil Society's proposed Jan Lokpal Bill

01. There shall be an institution of Lokpal with ten members and headed by a Chairperson.

02. That part of CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) which deals with cases of corruption, shall be merged with Lokpal.

03. CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) and the entire internal vigilance set in various central government departments will be merged with Lokpal.

04. Lokpal will be completely independent of the Government.

05. Lokpal shall have jurisdiction over bureaucrats, politicians and judges.

06. Lokpal shall have the powers to initiate investigations and prosecution without needing permission from any other agency.

07. Public grievances are often linked to demands/expectations of bribery. Lokpal shall act as appellate authority and supervisory body for grievance redressal systems in all central government departments.

08. Lokpal shall be responsible for providing protection against physical and professional victimization to whistleblowers.

09. Members and Chairperson in Lokpal shall be selected through a transparent and participatory process.

10. The functioning of Lokpal shall be completely transparent to avoid it from becoming a hub of corruption.

11. Any complaint of wrongdoing against an official of Lokpal shall be investigated and acted upon within a month through a transparent enquiry process.

12. If charges are proved and conviction takes place, loss to the exchequer caused due to his wrongdoing shall be recovered from all those who are convicted.

How India can curb the corruption

Existing System
01) No politician or senior officer ever goes to jail despite huge evidence because Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) and CBI directly come under the government. Before starting investigation or initiating prosecution in any case, they have to take permission from the same bosses, against whom the case has to be investigated.

System Proposed by civil society
01) Lokpal at centre and Lokayukta at state level will be independent bodies. ACB and CBI will be merged into these bodies. They will have power to initiate investigations and prosecution against any officer or politician without needing anyone's permission. Investigation should be completed within 1 year and trial to get over in next 1 year. Within two years, the corrupt should go to jail.

Existing System
02) No corrupt officer is dismissed from the job because Central Vigilance Commission, which is supposed to dismiss corrupt officers, is only an advisory body. Whenever it advises government to dismiss any senior corrupt officer, its advice is never implemented.

System Proposed by civil society
02) Lokpal and Lokayukta will have complete powers to order dismissal of a corrupt officer. CVC and all departmental vigilance will be merged into Lokpal and state vigilance will be merged into Lokayukta.

Existing System
03) No action is taken against corrupt judges because permission is required from the Chief Justice of India to even register an FIR against corrupt judges.

System Proposed by civil society
03) Lokpal & Lokayukta shall have powers to investigate and prosecute any judge without needing anyone's permission.

Existing System
04) Nowhere to go - People expose corruption but no action is taken on their complaints.

System Proposed by civil society
04) Lokpal & Lokayukta will have to enquire into and hear every complaint.

Existing System
05) There is so much corruption within CBI and vigilance departments. Their functioning is so secret that it encourages corruption within these agencies.

System Proposed by civil society
05) All investigations in Lokpal & Lokayukta shall be transparent. After completion of investigation, all case records shall be open to public. Complaint against any staff of Lokpal & Lokayukta shall be enquired and punishment announced within two months.

Existing System
06) Weak and corrupt people are appointed as heads of anti-corruption agencies.

System Proposed by civil society
06) Politicians will have absolutely no say in selections of Chairperson and members of Lokpal & Lokayukta. Selections will take place through a transparent and public participatory process.

Existing System
07) Citizens face harassment in government offices. Sometimes they are forced to pay bribes. One can only complain to senior officers. No action is taken on complaints because senior officers also get their cut.

System Proposed by civil society
07) Lokpal & Lokayukta will get public grievances resolved in time bound manner, impose a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay to be deducted from the salary of guilty officer and award that amount as compensation to the aggrieved citizen.

Existing System
08) Nothing in law to recover ill gotten wealth. A corrupt person can come out of jail and enjoy that money.

System Proposed by civil society
08) Loss caused to the government due to corruption will be recovered from all accused.

Existing System
09) Small punishment for corruption - Punishment for corruption is minimum 6 months and maximum 7 years.

System Proposed by civil society
09) Enhanced punishment - The punishment would be minimum 5 years and maximum of life imprisonment.

Critique of Lokpal Bill 2010 (Proposed to be passed as an ordinance by the Central / Union government)

UPA government has been under constant attack due to exposure of one scam after the other on the issue of corruption. In order to salvage its image, the government proposes to set up an institution of Lokpal to check corruption at high places. However the remedy seems to be worse than the disease. Rather than strengthening anti corruption systems, this bill if passed, will end up weakening whatever exists in the name of anti corruption today.

The principal objections to government's proposal are as follows:

01. Lokpal will not have any power to either initiate action suo motu in any case or even receive complaints of corruption from general public. The general public will make complaints to the speaker of Lok Sabha or chairperson of Rajya Sabha. Only those complaints forwarded by Speaker of Lok Sabha/ Chairperson of Rajya Sabha to Lokpal would be investigated by Lokpal. This not only severely restricts the functioning of Lokpal, it also provides a tool in the hands of the ruling party to have only those cases referred to Lokpal which pertain to political opponents (since speaker is always from the ruling party). It will also provide a tool in the hands of the ruling party to protect its own politicians.

02. Lokpal has been proposed to be an advisory body. Lokpal, after enquiry in any case, will forward its report to the competent authority. The competent authority will have final powers to decide whether to take action on Lokpal's report or not. In the case of cabinet ministers, the competent authority is Prime Minister. In the case of PM and MPs the competent authority is Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, as the case may be. In the coalition era when the government of the day depends upon the support of its political partners, it will be impossible for the PM to act against any of his cabinet ministers on the basis of Lokpal's report. For instance, if there were such a Lokpal today and if Lokpal made a recommendation to the PM to prosecute A. Raja, obviously the PM will not have the political courage to initiate prosecution against A. Raja. Likewise, if Lokpal made a report against the PM or any MP of the ruling party, will the house ever pass a resolution to prosecute the PM or the ruling party MP? Obviously, they will never do that.

03. The bill is legally unsound. Lokpal has not been given police powers. Therefore Lokpal cannot register an FIR. Therefore all the enquiries conducted by Lokpal will tantamount to "preliminary enquiries". Even if the report of Lokpal is accepted, who will file the chargesheet in the court? Who will initiate prosecution? Who will appoint the prosecution lawyer? The entire bill is silent on that.

04. The bill does not say what will be the role of CBI after this bill. Can CBI and Lokpal investigate the same case or CBI will lose its powers to investigate politicians? If the latter is true, then this bill is meant to completely insulate politicians from any investigations whatsoever which are possible today through CBI.

05. There is a strong punishment for "frivolous" complaints. If any complaint is found to be false and frivolous, Lokpal will have the power to send the complainant to jail through summary trial but if the complaint were found to be true, the Lokpal will not have the power to send the corrupt politicians to jail! So the bill appears to be meant to browbeat, threaten and discourage those fighting against corruption.

06. Lokpal will have jurisdiction only on MPs, ministers and PM. It will not have jurisdiction over officers. The officers and politicians do not indulge in corruption separately. In any case of corruption, there is always an involvement of both of them. So according to government's proposal, every case would need to be investigated by both CVC and Lokpal. So now, in each case, CVC will look into the role of bureaucrats while Lokpal will look into the role of politicians. Obviously the case records will be with one agency and the way government functions it will not share its records with the other agency. It is also possible that in the same case the two agencies arrive at completely opposite conclusions. Therefore it appears to be a sure way of killing any case.

07. Lokpal will consist of three members, all of them being retired judges. There is no reason why the choice should be restricted to judiciary. By creating so many post retirement posts for judges, the government will make the retiring judges vulnerable to government influences just before retirement as is already happening in the case of retiring bureaucrats. The retiring judges, in the hope of getting post retirement employment would do the bidding of the government in their last few years.

08. The selection committee consists of Vice President, PM, Leaders of both houses, Leaders of opposition in both houses, Law Minister and Home minister. Barring Vice President, all of them are politicians whose corruption Lokpal is supposed to investigate. So there is a direct conflict of interest. Also selection committee is heavily loaded in favor of the ruling party. Effectively ruling party will make the final selections. And obviously ruling party will never appoint strong and effective Lokpal.

09. Lokpal will not have powers to investigate any case against PM, which deals with foreign affairs, security and defence. This means that corruption in defence deals will be out of any scrutiny whatsoever. It will become impossible to investigate into any Bofors in future. Therefore, the draft Lokpal ordinance is eyewash, a sham. It is sad that despite so much of embarrassment caused to UPA due to so many scams, UPA is still making a fool of the people in the form of this draft ordinance.

Comparison of Government's Lokpal Bill with Civil Society's Jan Lokpal Bill

Government's proposal
01. Lokpal will not have any power to either initiate action suo motu in any case or even receive complaints of corruption from general public. The general public will make complaints to the speaker of Lok Sabha or chairperson of Rajya Sabha. Only those complaints forwarded by Speaker of Lok Sabha/ Chairperson of Rajya Sabha to Lokpal would be investigated by Lokpal. This not only severely restricts the functioning of Lokpal, it also provides a tool in the hands of the ruling party to have only those cases referred to Lokpal which pertain to political opponents (since speaker is always from the ruling party). It will also provide a tool in the hands of the ruling party to protect its own politicians.

Civil Society's proposal
01. Lokpal will have powers to initiate investigations suo moto in any case and also to directly entertain complaints from the public. It will not need reference or permission from anyone to initiate investigation into any case.

Government's proposal
02. Lokpal has been proposed to be an advisory body. Lokpal, after enquiry in any case, will forward its report to the competent authority. The competent authority will have final powers to decide whether to take action on Lokpal's report or not. In the case of cabinet ministers, the competent authority is Prime Minister. In the case of PM and MPs the competent authority is Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha, as the case may be. In the coalition era when the government of the day depends upon the support of its political partners, it will be impossible for the PM to act against any of his cabinet ministers on the basis of Lokpal's report. For instance, if there were such a Lokpal today and if Lokpal made a recommendation to the PM to prosecute A. Raja, obviously the PM will not have the political courage to initiate prosecution against A. Raja. Likewise, if Lokpal made a report against the PM or any MP of the ruling party, will the house ever pass a resolution to prosecute the PM or the ruling party MP? Obviously, they will never do that.

Civil Society's proposal
02. Lokpal is not an advisory body. It will have the powers to initiate prosecution against any one after completion of investigations in any case. It will also have powers to order disciplinary proceedings against any government servant.

Government's proposal
03. The bill is legally unsound. Lokpal has not been given police powers. Therefore Lokpal cannot register an FIR. Therefore all the enquiries conducted by Lokpal will tantamount to "preliminary enquiries". Even if the report of Lokpal is accepted, who will file the chargesheet in the court? Who will initiate prosecution? Who will appoint the prosecution lawyer? The entire bill is silent on that.

Civil Society's proposal
03. Lokpal would have police powers. It will be able to register FIR, proceed with criminal investigations and launch prosecution.

Government's proposal
04. The bill does not say what will be the role of CBI after this bill. Can CBI and Lokpal investigate the same case or CBI will lose its powers to investigate politicians? If the latter is true, then this bill is meant to completely insulate politicians from any investigations whatsoever which are possible today through CBI.

Civil Society's proposal
04. That part of CBI, which deals with cases of corruption, will be merged into Lokpal so that there is just one effective and independent body to take action against corruption.

Government's proposal
05 There is a strong punishment for "frivolous" complaints. If any complaint is found to be false and frivolous, Lokpal will have the power to send the complainant to jail through summary trial but if the complaint were found to be true, the Lokpal will not have the power to send the corrupt politicians to jail! So the bill appears to be
meant to browbeat, threaten and discourage those fighting against corruption.

Civil Society's proposal
05. Deterrence has been provided against frivolous complaints in the form of financial penalties against the complainant, however, Lokayukta is empowered to prosecute the corrupt and take disciplinary action against them.

Government's proposal
06. Lokpal will have jurisdiction only on MPs, ministers and PM. It will not have jurisdiction over officers. The officers and politicians do not indulge in corruption separately. In any case of corruption, there is always an involvement of both of them. So according to government's proposal, every case would need to be investigated by both CVC and Lokpal. So now, in each case, CVC will look into the role of bureaucrats while Lokpal will look into the role of politicians. Obviously the case records will be with one agency and the way government functions it will not share its records with the other agency. It is also possible that in the same case the two agencies arrive at completely opposite conclusions. Therefore it appears to be a sure way of killing any case.

Civil Society's proposal
06. Lokpal will have jurisdiction over politicians, officials and judges. CVC and the entire vigilance machinery of government will be merged into Lokpal.

Government's proposal
07. Lokpal will consist of three members, all of them being retired judges. There is no reason why the choice should be restricted to judiciary. By creating so many post retirement posts for judges, the government will make the retiring judges vulnerable to government influences just before retirement as is already happening in the case of retiring bureaucrats. The retiring judges, in the hope of getting post retirement employment would do the bidding of the government in their last few years.

Civil Society's proposal
07. Lokpal would have ten members and one Chairperson. Out of them four need to have legal background (they need not be judges). Others could be from any background.

Government's proposal
08. The selection committee consists of Vice President, PM, Leaders of both houses, Leaders of opposition in both houses, Law Minister and Home minister. Barring Vice President, all of them are politicians whose corruption Lokpal is supposed to investigate. So there is a direct conflict of interest. Also selection committee is heavily loaded in favor of the ruling party. Effectively ruling party will make the final selections. And obviously ruling party will never appoint strong and effective Lokpal.

Civil Society's proposal
08. Selection committee consists of members from judicial background, Chief Election Commissioner, Comptroller and Auditor General of India and international awardees (like Nobel prize winners and Magsaysay awardees of Indian origin). A detailed transparent and participatory selection process has been prescribed.

Government's proposal
09. Lokpal will not have powers to investigate any case against PM, which deals with foreign affairs, security and defence. This means that corruption in defence deals will be out of any scrutiny whatsoever. It will become impossible to investigate into any Bofors in future.

Civil Society's proposal
09. There is no such bar on Lokpal's powers.

Government's proposal
10. Whereas a time limit of six months to one year has been prescribed for Lokpal to enquire, however, subsequently, there is no time limit prescribed for completion of trial.

Civil Society's proposal
10.  Investigations should be completed within one year. Trial should get over within the next one year.

Government's proposal
11. It does not deal with corruption of Bureaucrats. Corrupt bureaucrats continue in their job without any actions against them.

Civil Society's proposal
11. Lokpal will have power to direct disciplinary action, including dismissal of a corrupt officer from job.

Government's proposal
12. It does not talk of investigation of complaints against judges.

Civil Society's proposal
12. Lokpal will have powers to initiate investigations on complaints of corruption against judges.

Government's proposal
13. Speaker would decide which complaints shall be enquired into by Lokpal.

Civil Society's proposal
13. Lokpal will not be able to dismiss any complaint from public without hearing the complainant.

Government's proposal
14. Our entire governance system suffers from inadequate public grievance redressal systems, which force people to pay bribes. Lokpal bill does not address this issue.

Civil Society's proposal
14. Lokpal will have the powers to orders redressal in a time bound manner. It will have powers to impose financial penalties on guilty officers, which would be paid to complainant as compensation.

Government's proposal
15. Large number of people raising their voice against political corruption are being murdered. Lokpal does not have any powers to provide protection to them.

Civil Society's proposal
15. Lokpal will have powers to provide protection against physical and professional victimization of whistleblowers.

Government's proposal
16. Nothing has been provided in law to recover ill gotten wealth. A corrupt person can come out of jail and enjoy that money.

Civil Society's proposal
16. Loss caused to the government due to corruption will be recovered from all accused.

Government's proposal
17. Under the present law, there is Small punishment for corruption - Punishment for corruption is minimum 6 months and maximum 7 years.

Civil Society's proposal
17. Enhanced punishment - The punishment would be minimum 5 years and maximum of life imprisonment.

Deficiencies in the present anti-corruption systems

Central Government level:

At central Government level, there is Central Vigilance Commission, Departmental vigilance and CBI. CVC and Departmental vigilance deal with vigilance (disciplinary proceedings) aspect of a corruption case and CBI deals with criminal aspect of that case.

Central Vigilance Commission: CVC is the apex body for all vigilance cases in Government of India.

However, it does not have adequate resources commensurate with the large number of complaints that it receives. CVC is a very small set up with a staff strength less than 200. It is supposed to check corruption in more than 1500 central government departments and ministries, some of them being as big as Central Excise, Railways, Income Tax etc. Therefore, it has to depend on the vigilance wings of respective departments and forwards most of the complaints for inquiry and report to them. While it monitors the progress of these complaints, there is delay and the complainants are often disturbed by this.  It directly enquires into a few complaints on its own, especially when it suspects motivated delays or where senior officials could be implicated. But given the constraints of manpower, such number is really small.

CVC is merely an advisory body. Central Government Departments seek CVC's advice on various corruption cases. However, they are free to accept or reject CVC's advice. Even in those cases, which are directly enquired into by the CVC, it can only advise government. CVC mentions these cases of non-acceptance in its monthly reports and the Annual Report to Parliament. But these are not much in focus in Parliamentary debates or by the media.

Experience shows that CVC's advice to initiate prosecution is rarely accepted and whenever CVC advised major penalty, it was reduced to minor penalty. Therefore, CVC can hardly be treated as an effective deterrent against corruption.

CVC cannot direct CBI to initiate enquiries against any officer of the level of Joint Secretary and above on its own. The CBI has to seek the permission of that department, which obviously would not be granted if the senior officers of that department are involved and they could delay the case or see to it that permission would not be granted.

CVC does not have powers to register criminal case. It deals only with vigilance or disciplinary matters.

It does not have powers over politicians. If there is an involvement of a politician in any case, CVC could at best bring it to the notice of the Government. There are several cases of serious corruption in which officials and political executive are involved together.

It does not have any direct powers over departmental vigilance wings. Often it is seen that CVC forwards a complaint to a department and then keeps sending reminders to them to enquire and send report. Many a times, the departments just do not comply. CVC does not have any really effective powers over them to seek compliance of its orders.

CVC does not have administrative control over officials in vigilance wings of various central government departments to which it forwards corruption complaints. Though the government does consult CVC before appointing the Chief Vigilance Officers of various departments, however, the final decision lies with the government. Also, the officials below CVO are appointed/transferred by that department only. Only in exceptional cases, if the CVO chooses to bring it to the notice of CVC, CVC could bring pressure on the Department to revoke orders but again such recommendations are not binding.

Appointments to CVC are directly under the control of ruling political party, though the leader of the Opposition is a member of the Committee to select CVC and VCs. But the Committee only considers names put up before it and that is decided by the Government. The appointments are opaque.

CVC Act gives supervisory powers to CVC over CBI. However, these supervisory powers have remained ineffective. CVC does not have the power to call for any file from CBI or to direct them to do any case in a particular manner. Besides, CBI is under administrative control of DOPT rather than CVC.

Therefore, though CVC is relatively independent in its functioning, it neither has resources nor powers to enquire and take action on complaints of corruption in a manner that meets the expectations of people or act as an effective deterrence against corruption.

Departmental Vigilance Wings: Each Department has a vigilance wing, which is manned by officials from the same department (barring a few which have an outsider as Chief Vigilance Officer. However, all the officers under him belong to the same department).

Since the officers in the vigilance wing of a department are from the same department and they can be posted to any position in that department anytime, it is practically impossible for them to be independent and objective while inquiring into complaints against their colleagues and seniors. If a complaint is received against a senior officer, it is impossible to enquire into that complaint because an officer who is in vigilance today might get posted under that senior officer some time in future.

In some departments, especially in the Ministries, some officials double up as vigilance officials. It means that an existing official is given additional duty of vigilance also. So, if some citizen complains against that officer, the complaint is expected to be enquired into by the same officer. Even if someone complains against that officer to the CVC or to the Head of that Department or to any other authority, the complaint is forwarded by all these agencies and it finally lands up in his own lap to enquire against himself. Even if he recuses (disqualifies) himself from such inquiries, still they have to be handled by those who otherwise report to him. There are indeed examples of such absurdity.

There have been instances of the officials posted in vigilance wing by that department having had a very corrupt past. While in vigilance, they try to scuttle all cases against themselves. They also turn vigilance wing into a hub of corruption, where cases are closed for consideration.

Departmental vigilance does not investigate into criminal aspect of any case. It does not have the powers to register an FIR.

They also do not have any powers against politicians.

Since the vigilance wing is directly under the control of the Head of that Department, it is practically impossible for them to enquire against senior officials of that department.

Therefore, the vigilance wing of any department is seen to softpedal on genuine complaints or used to enquire against " inconvenient" officers.

CBI: CBI has powers of a police station to investigate and register FIR. It can investigate any case related to a Central Government department on its own or any case referred to it by any state government or any court.

CBI is overburdened and does not accept cases even where amount of defalcation is alleged to be around Rs 1 crore.

CBI is directly under the administrative control of Central Government.

So, if a complaint pertains to any minister or politician who is part of a ruling coalition or a bureaucrat who is close to them, CBI's credibility has suffered and there is increasing public perception that it cannot do a fair investigation and that it is influenced to scuttle these cases.

Again, because CBI is directly under the control of Central Government, CBI is perceived to have been often used to settle scores against inconvenient politicians.

Therefore, if a citizen wants to make a complaint about corruption by a politician or an official in the Central Government, there isn't a single anti-corruption agency which is effective and independent of the government, whose wrongdoings are sought to be investigated. CBI has powers but it is not independent. CVC is independent but it does not have sufficient powers or resources.

National Vote Bank
Indians should not vote for that party in next elections, which does not enact Jan Lokpal or Jan Lokayukta Bill wherever it is in power - whether it is in state or at centre. If Congress wants any Indian's vote, it should enact it in Centre and in all the states wherever they are in power. If any other party wants any Indian's vote, it should enact it in the states where it is in power.

Wardwise Vote Bank
The political parties and candidates win by very narrow margins. In Delhi, almost 110 candidates won by less than 1000 votes in last municipal elections. This means that if 500 votes were polled differently, it could have changed election results. 500 votes mean roughly 200 families. So, if 200 families in a ward come together and decide to vote as a block, they can change the electoral results of a ward. They can force all candidates to agree to their demands. Together, they can't make anyone win, but they can make anyone lose elections. Indians should get such people together in each ward and form a "vote bank against corruption" in each ward.

Click here to download instructions and pamphlet for making wardwise vote banks.

What Indian Politicians and Political Parties say?
The Indian civil society contacted all the major political parties and their prominent leaders and discussed Jan Lokpal bill with them.

Click here to see how Indian Politicians and Political Parties responded

Events

1. March 12 - 26, 2011: Join Dandi
March II

2. "March 9, 2011: Youth Marches Against Corruption."

Downloads

Anna Hazare serves an ultimatum to the Indian PM to sit on indefinite fast from Tuesday, April 5, 2011 

Letter to the Indian Prime Minister dated Wednesday, December 1, 2010 

Letter to the Chief Justice of India dated Wednesday, December 1, 2010 

Police complaint filed against corruption in Commonwealth Games 

Letter dated Sunday, November 14, 2010 to the Prime Minister of India 

An article on Commonwealth Games 

Open letter dated Sunday, November 14, 2010 to Mrs. Sonia Gandhi, Chairperson of India's ruling UPA United Progressive Alliance 

Status of Indian Anti-Corruption agencies and reforms needed 

1. Excellent action plan meeting at Mumbai

2. Momentum is turning - Jt statement by political parties Jan Lokpal

3. Political parties come out in support of Jan Lokpal Bill

4. Anna's letter to PM

http://indiaagainstcorruption.org/blog/

Fight Against Corruption Takes a Decisive Turn 

Mumbai meet - the momentum is building 

Anna Hazare calls on the nation to fast, Kapil Dev supports the cause 

The stage is being set for the confrontation 

Government Refuses to Form a Joint Committee to Discuss Jan Lokpal Bill 

Mumbai updates 

Amazing Dandi March - youth blessed by freedom fighters 

Activists demand removal of Delhi Minister Raj Kumar Chauhan 

ANNA HAZARE REFUSES TO ATTEND THE MEETING WITH SUB-COMMITTEE 

Change in Mumbai Public Meeting

Press Release

"Anna's response to PMO's invitation to discuss Jan Lokpal Bill." 

Anna Hazare Sends an Ultimatum to PM - to sit on indefinite fast 

India Marches Against Corruption-27th jan 

Political parties come out in support of Jan bill (Feb 11) 

The decisive battle against corruption in India has begun 

Thousands of people March against corruption across the country - (January 30)

http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/donate.php 

http://gandhiansatyagrahabrigade.org/aboutus/index.html

http://gandhiansatyagrahabrigade.org/constitution/index.html

http://gandhiansatyagrahabrigade.org/appeal/index.html

http://gandhiansatyagrahabrigade.org/events/index.html

http://gandhiansatyagrahabrigade.org/gallery/index.html

http://gandhiansatyagrahabrigade.org/newsletter/index.html

http://gandhiansatyagrahabrigade.org/archives/index.html 

Archives of Circulars issued by GSB (Gandhian Satyagraha Brigade)

1. Letter to Shrimathi Prathibha Devisingh Patil, Hon'ble President of India, Tuesday, April 22, 2008

2. Letter to Shri Mohammad Hamid Ansari, Hon'ble Vice President of India Tuesday, April 22, 2008 

3. Letter to Shri Somnath Chatterjee, Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha  Sub : Probity in public life and elimination of corruption and criminality from Indian politics - Lok Pal legislation Tuesday, April 22, 2008

4. Urgency of Lok Pal Legislation and other measures for the eradication of corruption and criminality from Indian politics. Letter dated February 19, 2007 to the Hon'ble Prime Minister (PM) of India.

5. Appeal for the formation of an All India Gandhian Satyagraha Brigade (or some better name if forthcoming) March, 2007

6. Satyagraha for eliminating corruption, criminality and abuse of authority from Indian Politics to ensure ethical governance. Letter dated August 9, 2007 to the Hon'ble Prime Minister (PM) of India

http://gandhiansatyagrahabrigade.org/downloads/index.html 

For downloadable pdf files, click here


An enduring experiment with truth - Ruchika Talwar - Indian Express - Sunday, August 3, 2008

Conclusion: India Against Corruption movement is an expression of collective anger of people of India against corruption. They have all come together to force / request / persuade / pressurize the Government of India to enact the Jan Lokpal Bill. We the petition signers / signatories feel that if this Bill were enacted it would create an effective deterrence against corruption.

This petition has been addressed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Prime Minister (PM), President, National Advisory Council (NAC), Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), Union Ministry of Law and Justice, Chief Election Commissioners (CECs), Election Commission of India (ECI), Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India, State Level Anti-Corrupt Ombudsmen or Lokayuktas, National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs), Members of Parliament (MPs), Governors/Guvs, Chief Ministers (CMs), Chief Secretaries, Legislators, MLAs (Members of Legislative Assemblies), MLCs (Members of Legislative Councils), Municipal Councillors,

http://twitter.com/tanveer_indian

http://www.facebook.com/tanveerindian

Gandhian brigade calls for corruption free India  Mizoram Express Nation Thursday, July 1, 2010

http://mizoramexpress.com/index.php/2010/07/gandhian-brigade-calls-for-corruption-free-india/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/enact-undiluted-anti-corrupt-lok-pal-bill/ Created on: Wed, Jun 30, 2010 Last Update: Sat, Oct 16, 2010 (will be fully updated as soon as possible)

Mysore Grahakara wants teeth for Lokayukta -  Mizoram Express - Nation - Tuesday, June 29, 2010

http://mizoramexpress.com/index.php/2010/06/mysore-grahakara-calls-for-empowerment-of-lokayukta/

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/give-anti-corruption-prosecution-powers-to-kla/ Created on June 23, 2010 will be fully updated as soon as possible

http://www.petitiononline.com/lokpalbl/ (petition's / petition body can't be updated)

Pics: People's protests sweep the nation (India)

http://ibnlive.in.com/photogallery/3730-9.html


Supporters of social activist Anna Hazare attend a candlelight protest march against corruption in front of India Gate in New Delhi April 7, 2011. India's government held talks with supporters of a leading social activist on a new anti-graft law on Thursday, hoping to persuade him to end a fast until death that has caught the imagination of thousands of citizens fed up with scandals. Inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's protests that helped end British colonial rule, the septuagenarian Anna Hazare launched his campaign in the centre of New Delhi's business district this week, demanding that the proposed Ombudsman Bill be strengthened to make it an effective tool against rampant corruption. REUTERS/Parivartan Sharma

Pics: Hazaar (Thousand) Hazare join anti-corruption crusade

http://ibnlive.in.com/photogallery/3723-12.html

Sponsor

Links