Patna, Nov. 11: A day after chief minister Nitish Kumar lambasted “Team Anna” for its criticism of the draft of “Bihar Lokayukta Bill, 2011”, ruling JD(U) in the state has labelled team members as “arrogant”.

“Arvind Kejriwal and other team members are behaving in a way as if they are the only people in the country committed to eradicate corruption. They have also developed a tendency of distributing certificates. Such things smack of arrogance,” JD(U) national general secretary and chief spokesperson Shivanand Tiwari told The Telegraph today over phone from Agartala. Tiwari, a Rajya Sabha member, is part of a parliamentary committee that is touring the northeastern states.

“It was our state which took lead in enacting the Bihar Special Courts Act that empowers the state government to confiscate the property of corrupt officials,” added the JD(U) spokesperson.

Tiwari went on to claim that the criticism of Nitish’s draft bill might be a result of Team Anna member’s concern that the path chosen by the Bihar government would be followed by other states also and the Team’s importance on the consultation front for drafting such bills would be reduced.“Our initiative for giving 50 per cent reservation to women in panchayats, bringing assets of ministers and government servants in the public domain and Special Court Act have been appreciated by one and all and Team Anna members might be feeling threatened that by setting an example for having a strong Lokayukta in place, our government would be followed by others this time also,” Tiwari said.

Some senior Bihar bureaucrats, who have been closely associated with the drafting of Bill, also expressed surprise over the criticism.

“Team Anna members are saying the Lokpal bill of Uttarakhand is the best and in the draft bill of Bihar, selecti-on of Lokayukta would be in the hands of government. Th-is charge appears to be baseless as the seven-member committee that would finalise the names of Lokayukta would have just two members from the government and thus the government would not be in a position to impose its views in the selection process,” said a senior government official.

The draft bill talks about a selection committee which would have chief minister as its chairman and he would nominate one of his cabinet colleagues as a member. As far as the other five members are concerned they would be — leader of opposition in Assembly, outgoing Lokayukta, two sitting judges of high court who would be nominated by the chief justice of Patna High Court and one eminent citizen, the selection of whom would be done by the chief minister in consultation with the Leader of Opposition and the chief justice of high court.

“In case of Uttarakhand, the selection panel would have seven members and the only difference is that it would have just one member from the government,” the official said.

Regarding the removal pr-ovision, on the basis of which Team Anna had criticised the Bill, the official said: “The government can use its power to remove any member or chairperson of Lokayukta only in case she/he is adjudged an insolvent or engages during his/her term of office in any paid employment outside the duties or is unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body. In normal circumstances, member or chair-person can be removed only on grounds of misbehaviour aft-er the apex court, on a reference being made to it by the governor, reports that the chair-person or member ought to be removed on such ground.”

He said the Uttarakhand Act too says that such matters would be referred to the apex court and removal would be effected only on the basis of report given by the court. “We fail to understand that how can anyone criticise the draft bill on this ground when the provisions are similar but for few obvious grounds on the basis of which the state too can remove a member or chairman,” said the official.

Speaking about one major point raised by the Team Anna for keeping the power of state government for giving sanction of prosecution after receiving a recommendation by the office of Lokayukta, the official said that it had been done intentionally as any change on this front would have forced the state to seek central approval even after passing of the Bill by the state legislature as corruption cases are lodged under Prevention Of Corruption Act which stipulates sanction for prosecution by the appointing authority. Any change in this Act cannot be made without the consent of the Centre. “Bihar government intends to implement the Lokayukta Act as early as possible and the central approval will consume a lot of time. Moreover, the draft bill clearly says that government will have to give sanction in such cases within three months,” said the official.

State’s fear on this front is not baseless as it had to wait almost for a year for getting central approval on the Special Courts Act.

Agreeing to the technical point raised by the official, former additional solicitor-general of India Amrendra Sharan said: “Had there been any provision of giving the sanctioning power to the Lokayukta, the bill, even after approval by the state legislature, would not have become law without central approval.”

Sharan said the Uttarakhand Lokayukta Act has given this power to the office of Lokayukta and it will have to get central approval else the Act would become “ultra virus”.

The official also rubbished the criticism of the provision which talks of imprisonment from six months to five years for those lodging frivolous cases against public servants. “One has to keep such provisions to safeguard the interests of people engaged in government works so that people don’t misuse the Act to harass any public servant,” he said.

As things stand now, the Bihar government has put the draft bill in public domain on November 8 and people can send their suggestions to the government till November 22.

Nitish, who is presently in West Champaran for his Seva Yatra, said today: “People are free to give their suggestions for we have kept the procedure transparent.” He, however, reiterated: “I, usually, refrain from speaking on others. But I will not keep quiet if someone speaks on my actions and questions my commitment.”