India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In order to ratify this
convention, the government introduced the Prevention of Torture Bill 2010.^106
This bill provides that any public servant who inflicts torture, or any person who
inflicts torture with the consent or acquiescence of any public servant, shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to a fine. The bill has been passed by the Lok Sabha, the lower
house of parliament, and is currently being considered by the upper house,
the Rajya Sabha.
Since the 2003 Central Vigilance Commission Act did not seem to prove very
effective in dealing with corruption by public servants,^107 one of the major
demands of the anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare has been the
enactment of a robustlokpal(ombudsman) law to deal with endemic corruption
in the country. Since Hazare’s team was not satisfied with the government’s draft of
the bill introduced in the parliament in August 2011 ,
108
they have come with their
own Jan Lokpal Bill. The major areas of controversy relate to whether thelokpal
should have the jurisdiction to deal with corruption allegations against the prime
minister, members of parliament who take bribes to speak or vote in the parlia-
ment, all government servants, and judges. Difference of opinion also exists on the
modus operandi for appointing thelokpaland its investigation and punishment
powers. Subsequent to the report submitted by a parliamentary standing commit-
tee, the Lok Sabha passed a revised version of the Lokpal Bill in December 2011.
109
Nevertheless, the fate of the bill remains uncertain, because the opposition parties
and NGOs consider it to be extremely weak. Although the Hazare movement has
compelled the government to initiate the enactment of a robust law to fight
corruption, it seems that civil society has overestimated the power and effect that
thelokpallaw can have on curbing corruption.
In the judiciary it is not uncommon to hear allegations of certain Supreme Court
and high-court judges acting in an improper manner or indulging in some kind of
corrupt behaviour. Nevertheless, apart from a virtually ineffective impeachment
process laid down in the Constitution^110 and a voluntary code of conduct, no robust
mechanism of accountability exists for judges of the higher judiciary. The Judicial
Standards and Accountability Bill 2010 seeks to change this situation by proposing
(^106) Bill No 58 -C of 2010.
(^107) In fact, inCentre for PILv.Union of India( 2011 ) 3 SCALE 148 , the Supreme Court
quashed the appointment of Mr P.J. Thomas as the Central Vigilance Commissioner.
(^108) Lok Pal Bill 2011 ,http:// 164. 100. 24. 219 /BillsTexts/LSBillTexts/asintroduced/Lokpal% 20 %
2039 % 20 of% 202011 % 20 English.pdf.
(^109) ‘Lokpal Bill passed in Lok Sabha, but no constitutional status’, NDTV News,
28 December 2011 , http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/lokpal-bill-passed-in-lok-sabha-but-no-
constitutional-status- 161294.
(^110) The Constitution of India, Arts. 124 ( 4 ) and 217 ( 1 ).