The document highlights key differences between the central Lokpal bill and the AAP's proposed Jan Lokpal bill for Delhi. Some key differences include: 1) The composition and experience requirements of the selection committees that appoint Lokpal members differ, with the AAP bill potentially favoring those with legal experience or ties to AAP. 2) The AAP bill excludes MLAs of Delhi and NGOs from the Lokpal's jurisdiction, while the central bill includes them. 3) Provisions around frivolous complaints, repeal of existing laws, reporting structures, and prosecution powers are less stringent or clear in the AAP bill compared to the central bill.

1. Differences Central - Lokpal AAP Jan Lokpal Comments
Appointment
of Lokpal
Members: Lokpal will be selected 5 members:
by PM, Leader of Opposition, Speaker, CJI, and
one jurist nominated by these 4.
Experience: The Search Committee shall
consist of person having special knowledge and
expertise in the matters relating to anti-
corruption policy, public administration,
vigilance, policy making, finance including
insurance and banking, law and management
with experience of 25 years
Members: Lokpal will be appointed by a
Committee that shall be Constituted by the
Lieutenant Governor and also consist of Chief
Minister who will be the Chairperson of Selection
Committee, Leader of Opposition, 2 Judges of
High Court and One person amongst the
previous Chairperson of the Janlokpal
Experience: As per the AAP Jan Lokpal, the
Search Committee shall compromise of one
third of the members of having extensive and
outstanding experience of law and the remaining
with experience of vigilance or investigation or
investigative journalism or public
administration or finance or retired senior
officer of armed forces.
The experience of members shall not be less
than 20 years.
Members: The Central Lokpal Selection
Committee is a fairly balanced committee
comprising representative of Legislative,
Executive and Judiciary while on the other
hand AAP Jan Lokpal attempts to create to
concentrate power in Judiciary and the
Chief Minster. The Selection Committee
attempts to include One person amongst the
previous Chairperson of the Janlokpal which
can be seen as the precursor to dominating the
Selection Committee.
Experience: The AAP Jan Lokpal Search
Committee specifically tilts towards person with
legal experience and further includes members
having investigative journalism experience.
This is clearly an attempt to install Prashant
Bhusan and AAP’s media friends in the Search
Committee.
It is also curious to note that Shanti Bhusan and
Prashant Bhushan are well known for their
aggressive campaign against corruption in
judiciary and had told the Supreme Court that

2. at least eight of the 16 chief justices of India
(CJIs) were "definitely corrupt.
Recommendation and this definitive tilt towards
judiciary and legal fraternity is completely
contradictory of to their stand on the issue so
far.
Inclusion of
NGOs
Government’s Lokpal will have jurisdiction over
all NGOs in the country which are provided by
government funds.
Lokpal jurisdiction includes society or
association of persons or trust (whether
registered under any law for the time being in
force or not) in receipt of any donation from any
foreign source under the Foreign Contribution
(Regulation) Act, 2010 in excess of ten lakh
rupees in a year or such higher amount by
Central Government
No mention of NGO in the AAP Jan Lokpal
attempted to be placed in Delhi Legislative
Assembly
NGOs in the AAP Jan Lokpal were kept out
of its purview to keep the funding sources
of AAP outside the preview of Lokpal.
Recently, Arvind Kejriwal's close aide, Manish
Sisodia, is alleged to have diverted foreign
funds meant for his NGO, Kabir, for personal
use. The NGO had received more than Rs 2
crore in foreign contributions between 2005-06
and 2010-11.
In 2011, when Prashant Bhushan strongly
argued that NGOs should be kept out of the
Lokpal Bill’s purview, a committee member
objected saying that all NGOs are not angels
which have descended from heaven and there
are some corrupt ones as well.
Inclusion /
Exclusion of
MP / MLA
CM / PM
Jurisdiction of Lokpal to include Prime Minister,
Ministers, Members of Parliament, Groups A, B,
C and D officers and officials of Central
Government
The AAP’s Lokpal will not inquire or cause
inquiry or investigation to be conducted into any
matter with respect to any matter of corruption
against any Member of Legislative Assembly of
Delhi.
Contrary to the continuous demand for
inclusion of Prime Minister in the Central
Lokpal, the state Lokpal Bill excludes the
Member of Legislative Assembly of Delhi from
its jurisdiction

3. Frivolous
complaints
Any person making a false complaint can be
jailed for one year and imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one year
Penalty for frivolous complaint is up to Rs 1
lakh; no imprisonment
The Centre Government bill contains
appropriate deterrent in case any false or
frivolous complaint is filed.
Repeal of
Existing Laws
Centre’s provides guideline to every State to
establish a body to be known as the Lokayukta
for the State, if not so established, constituted or
appointed, by a law made by the State
Legislature, to deal with complaints relating to
corruption against certain public functionaries,
within a period of one year from the date of
commencement of this Act.
The Legislative Assembly Lokpal bill attempted
to repeal the existing The Delhi Lokayukta and
UPA - Lokayukta and The Delhi (Right of
Citizen to Time Bound Delivery of Services
Act, 2011) which already existed.
Reporting of
Work
The duty of the Lokpal to present annually to the
President a report on the work done by the
Lokpal
Under AAP Lokpal it will be the Commission
comprising the Chairperson and other Member
of Janlokpal to present annually a report on the
work done
The Lokpal ideally should hold the authority to
report the matter rather the “Commission”
whose responsibility ends with the selection of
Lokpal. It appears that under structure of AAP
Lokpal the authority of Lokpal is compromised
and will be subjected to scrutiny of
“Commission”
Prosecution The prosecution of public servants in relation to
any offence punishable under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988
Prosecution of public servants under the AAP
Lokpal unclear and ambiguous
Selection
Committee
Includes the Speaker of the House of the
People
Does not Include the Speaker of the Legislative
Assembly
The Speaker is an important functionary of the
legislative and acts as a presiding officer,
hence the inclusion would have increased the
depth of the Selection Committee.
Filing of the
Report
The Director of Prosecution shall, after having
been so directed by the Lokpal, file a case in
accordance with the findings of investigation
report.
The Director of Prosecution shall file the case
within 30 days after approval from Lokpal
Undue haste and shoddy investigation will be
undertake if appropriate time is not given for
investigation.

4. Important Differences between the Jan Lokpal Bill & AAP Jan Lokpal
Jurisdiction In
Respect Of
Inquiry
The Jurisdiction In Respect Of Inquiry in
case of Centre’s Lokpal provide definitive
scope of persons/ organization/ corporation
/ authority or company/ Society/ Trust.
The inquiry can only be filed against the “public
servants” and “such other person”
Ambiguous and imprecise jurisdiction under
AAP. The organization/ corporation / authority
or company are clearly let off.
Policy
Decision and
Authority
Transparent and participative and clearly
defines the role and power of Lokpal
All policy decision under the Act including the
assignment, Transfer of Cases, delegation of
function and power to be taken by the
“Commission”
The power and authority seems to be
concentrated in the “Commission” rather
Lokpal
Power of
Lokpal
Lokpal to act as the final appellate authority in
respect of appeals arising out of any other law
for the time being in force providing for delivery
of public services and redressal of public
grievances by any public authority in cases
where the decision contains findings of
corruption under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
The AAP Lokpal may make any
recommendation to the public authority to stay
the implementation or enforcement or any
decision. The public Authority shall either
comply with the recommendation or reject the
recommendation made within 30 days failing
which the recommendation so made shall be
deemed to have been accepted.
Clear authoritarian role of AAP- Lokpal seen.
This is bound to create unnecessary friction
and struggle with the local public authority.
Grant of
Immunity
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to act
as guiding force
A grant of immunity to bribe giver can be
provided by special court.
Any illegal gratification needs to be strictly
dealt with and any immunity provided will
make the Lokpal toothless.