I somehow missed this article where Shekhar Gupta has thoroughly analyzed and listed all that is wrong with the then Jan Lokpal Bill. (I think the Jan Lokpal Bill has since been modified. The version at http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/downloads.html is dated June 21, 2011. So some of the issues pointed out by Shekhar Gupta may no longer hold. Nevertheless, it gives an idea of the mindset of and (dis)ability of the Jan Lokpal bill drafters in drafting such an important bill.) Following are some excerpts:

… The Musharraf reference is also tempting because the standard answer from this group of civil society leaders to the question if their bill violates the basic spirit of the Constitution is, so what, the Constitution can be amended as it has been so many times. But the kind, and number of Constitutional amendments this draft will require, will need a Musharraf.

… Where will the rest come from? Your guess is as good as mine. All of these will have to be people of “unimpeachable integrity” and also “should have demonstrated their resolve to fight corruption in the past.” From where will you find these people, particularly as you are working on the presumption that a large number of judges of the Supreme Court and high courts do not pass that test of unimpeachable integrity. And who will choose them? A committee headed by the prime minister who, in turn, will be under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal he chooses. But, wait, it is more complicated than that. This committee shall include the two youngest judges of our high courts and Supreme Court respectively, the presumption being that the young are cleaner (Clause 6, 5 c and d). But, if a Lokpal has to be fired for misdemeanour, the case will be heard by a bench consisting of the five seniormost judges of the Supreme Court? Confused? Why are the youngest virtuous while hiring, and the seniormost equally so while firing?

… If this is not sounding impossible already, this search committee has to recommend at least “three times the names as there are vacancies” (Clause 6, 10 f). So if you thought it is hard enough to find so many perfect men and women, you now know that you have to find thrice as many. And, of course, when the selection committee’s choice is finally forwarded to the president, she “shall” sign it within a month.

… If the idea of this bill is to take away all discretion, and strike terror in the hearts of the bad guys, it does that very effectively.

Except, so many of the rest, generally innocent Indians, may live in that terror as well. The bill, for example, entitles the Lokpal to collect 10 per cent of all the fines collected, stolen wealth recovered, or even national wealth saved from being stolen, in its own corpus for its own use, thereby creating extortionist incentive: the more you value, the more you collect.

… If you report on another citizen and he is caught and convicted, you would similarly earn 10 per cent of the money recovered, and/ or the money saved from being swindled as your reward. We will, therefore, be incentivised by law to become a nation of cops and spies, sneaking on neighbours and family for pecuniary gain. Such things happen in North Korea and if it is your argument that its people are happier than us Indians, we will need some convincing.

… the Lokpal members will be deemed police officers, have the powers of seizure and search without going to a magistrate — precisely the question with Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act) — have protection of contempt of court law, will function as civil courts, be investigators and prosecutors, throwing out the very principle of separation of powers, checks and balances (Clauses 8-19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 32).

… This bill, in this form, is designed to match the dictum of “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It also presumes all Indians are thieves, unless proven otherwise, and can only be governed in a police state. Further, that a society of a billion-plus thieves can be cleansed by barely a dozen individuals armed with the most undemocratic law drafted in a democracy outside its Parliament. That is why this needs greater, cooler discussion.