Ramanisblog

Tag: Rajya Sabha

  • Lokpal Bill Pros and Cons.

    The Lokpal Bill might have power concentrated on a single institution which is not healthy for a Democracy.

    Lokpal shall have powers to direct the Judiciary .

    This will compromise the independence of Judiciary.

    Even if this proposal were to be accepted, many Constitutional amendments have to be made..

    These points have to be taken note of.

    The LokThe word Lokpal means an ombudsman in India. The word hs been derived from the Hindi words “lok” (people) and “pal” (protector/caretaker). So the word Lokpal means ‘Protector of people’.The concept of Lokpal has been drawn up ostensibly to root out corruption at high places in the prevailing Indian polity.

    Lokpal Bill

    After 42 years the lokpal bill is still pending in India. The first Lokpal Bill was passed in the 4th Lok Sabha in 1969 but could not get through in Rajya Sabha, subsequently, Lokpal bills were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, yet they were never passed and its pending. [1][2]

    The Lokpal Bill provides for filing complaints of corruption against the prime minister, other ministers, and MPs with the ombudsman. The Administrative Reforms Commission(ARC) while recommending the constitution of Lokpal was convinced that such an institution was justified not only for removing the sense of injustice from the minds of adversely affected citizens but also necessary to instill public confidence in the efficiency of administrative machinery. Following this, the Lokpal Bill was for the first time presented during the fourth Lok Sabha in 1968, and was passed there in 1969.

    However, while it was pending in the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha was dissolved, resulting the first death of the bill. The bill was revived in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and most recently in 2008. Each time, after the bill was introduced to the house, it was referred to some committee for improvements – a joint committee of parliament, or a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry – and before the government could take a final stand on the issue the house was dissolved.

    Several flaws have been cited in the recent draft of the Lokpal Bill. [3] Meanwhile the activists of India Against Corruption (IAC) have prepared a draft for the bill called Jan Lokpal Bill.

    History

    The basic idea of the Lok Pal is borrowed from the office of ombudsman, which has played an effective role in checking corruption and wrong-doing in Scandinavian and other nations.In early 1960s, mounting corruption in public administration set the winds blowing in favour of an Ombudsman in India too. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) set up in 1966 recommended the constitution of a two-tier machinery – of a Lokpal at the Centre, and Lokayukt(a)s in the states.

    Duties

    Prime Minister or a House of Parliament — to whom a Lokpal sends its report holds that the allegations of corruption made in a complaint against the Prime Minister, or a Minister or MP (present or past) have not been proved, “notwithstanding anything contained in any other law”, “no prosecution shall lie on any complaint, report, information or otherwise and no court shall take cognisance of any offence on the basis of the same or substantially the same allegations.”

    The Lokpal is empowered to give directions for deferring or suspending any ongoing police investigations in matters covered by the complaints made to it.

    There are many more gems of justice that deserve attention. Contradictory to the government’s claim that the Lokpal would provide the common man with exemplary powers to censure his/her elected representative, every complainant, the government’s ‘common man’, has to pay a fees and take full responsibility for leveling charges and in case the complaint is found to be baseless, to discourage the same ‘common man’, serious punitive action extending to two years in jail and Rs.50,000 in fine will be imposed on the complainant.

    Charges of corruption in the Indian legal system are not necessarily covered only under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but also under many other Acts, but the Lokpal restricts its ambit to the cases under this Act.

    Regarding the constitution of the Lokpal, the Chairman of the Lokpal shall be from among past or present chief justices of Supreme Court. But the other two members of the Lokpal may also be from those qualified to be judges of the Supreme Court. The loose end left here makes countless many from India’s entire judiciary eligible for the post including those who are also senior party politicians with legal background.

    Lokpal is highest institution in India to investigate corruption at higher places in Government. Creation of Lokpal institution is under process. Many previous attempt were unsuccessful due to lack of political support.

    This institution will cover all government ministers, officers at centre including Prime Minister (Under Debate).

    Differences between Draft Lokpal Bill 2010 and Jan Lokpal Bill

    Draft Lokpal Bill (2010) Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen’s ombudsman Bill)
    Lokpal will have no power to initiate suo moto action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public. It can only probe complaints forwarded by LS Speaker or RS Chairman. Lokpal will have powers to initiate suo moto action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public.
    Lokpal will only be an Advisory Body. Its part is only limited to forwarding its report to the “Competent Authority” Lokpal will be much more than an Advisory Body. It should be granted powers to initiate Prosecution against anyone found guilty.
    Lokpal will not have any police powers. It can not register FIRs or proceed with criminal investigations. Lokpal will have police powers. To say that it will be able to register FIRs.
    CBI and Lokpal will have no connection with each other. Lokpal and anti corruption wing of CBI will be one Independent body.
    Punishment for corruption will be minimum 6 months and maximum up-to 7 years. The punishment should be minimum 5 years and maximum up-to life imprisonment.
    Lokpal will not be a monopoly for particular area 

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal

    Related.

    The existing Lokpal Bill proposed by the government is quite toothless and has glaring loopholes which make the whole anti-corruption exercise a sham exercise.The whole selection process,powers and member of Lokpal give rise to vested interests and would make it a fruitless bill.The deficiencies of the government version of the Lokpal are

    a) Selection of 3 retired judges by the ruling government only to the Lokpal Panel.Gives rise to vested interests,Jan Lokpal advocates selection of any eminent citizen who has fought against corruption.Selection will be made by government,civil society members and judiciary.

    b) Bureaucrats outside the purview of the Lokpal Bill,Speaker Power.This is a huge loophole as government bureaucrats have been found to be ringleaders in most corruption scams taking place in the country.The recent CVC case where PJ Thomas was implicated and Supreme Court had to force the government to remove him

    c) No Sou Moto Recognition of Legal Cases – Complaints against the Legislature Members can only be made to the Speaker of Parliament who can decide.This makes no sense as Speakers in India have sullied their image with repeated partisanship to their party.Independent and impartial speakers in Indian parliaments are hard to find.Jan Lokpal can take Sou Moto cases

    d) No Defence or Foreign Matter Jurisdiction – Again most of the large scams have taken place in Defence Deals.This has happened under the rule of both the main political parties.Bofors,HDW Submarine are some of the bigger Defence Scandals.Lokpal will have no authority to investigate these.The Jan Lokpal version allows investigations into such cases.Exceptions are only allowed in existing cases before judiciary or currently held legislation.It also imposes strict jail terms for corruption cases.

    The Jan Lokpal Bill has the power to transform Indian state and system and have a major impact on transperency like the RTI Bill.However there are extremely powerful interests opposing this Bill..Hazare alleges the 9 member group of ministers who drafted the proposed draft bill are the most corrupt ministers.A lot of support and pressure is needed from the civil society and citizens to get this to move forward.

    http://greenworldinvestor.com/2011/04/05/what-is-jan-lokpal-bill-and-how-it-plugs-the-giant-loopholes-in-government-version-lokpal-bill/

    Taking note of the swelling support for the Anna Hazare-led campaign for a tougher Jan Lokpal Bill, the UPA government on Friday agreed to issue an order for setting up a committee comprising civil society and elected representatives to draft the law.

    Anna HazareThe decision was taken after the government brass met Congress President Sonia Gandhi in the evening.

    Hazare said he would end his fast at 10 am tomorrow, when the government was expected to issue an order for the formation of the committee. 

    http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/govt-accepts-demands-hazare-to-end-fast/431612/

    NEW DELHI: The Congress sees as a “super” government the institution of the Lokpal as proposed in the draft Jan Lokpal Bill — it would virtually run a parallel government.

    It will be a “demi-God” with supreme powers to run the government, sources within the Congress party feel. It can seek the resignation of the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of India and all Constitutional authorities with the kind of overarching powers that are being envisaged, the sources said.

    The Jan Lokpal Bill, proposed by the civil society group that is now spearheading the anti-corruption crusade, seeks to include the Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, bureaucracy and the judiciary within its ambit. The National Advisory Council, chaired by Congress president Sonia Gandhi, has favoured the draft Jan Lokpal Bill.

    http://www.hindu.com/2011/04/09/stories/2011040966411800.htm

  • CVC Case,What are you Manmohan Singh?

    S.M.Krishna does not know to locate his  a Speech.

    Prime Minister does not know the file.

    PrithviRaj Chavan will point at a section officer, he, a case worker!

    Excellent!

    Hand over Kashmir to Pakistan ,state ‘error of judgement,a chaprasi did not prepare a note’.

    New Delhi: Triggering a new controversy, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh Tuesday said former minister of state for personnel and training Prithviraj Chavan (currently Maharashtra chief minister) had prepared the file on the controversial ex-bureaucrat P.J. Thomas for selection as chief vigilance commissioner (CVC).

    “…Was I aware of the charge-sheet against Shri Thomas, the honest answer is that the notes which were prepared by the department and these notes are prepared under the guidance of the minister of state in charge of the DoPT (department of personnel and training), that note did not contain this information,” Manmohan Singh said in the Rajya Sabha, after making a statement on the issue.

    Reiterating that “there was a error of judgement”, the prime minister said he took “full responsibility” and was “accountable” for the decision.

    http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=5006212

  • JPC ends before It begins.

    Of the 30, 12 ‘Ayes’ are assured for Congress.(Con.-8,DMK -2,NCP-1,TMC-1).

    Getting another 4 will be no problem.

    Final decision of the JPC is not going to be the Truth.

    Funny, the accused have 10 votes.

    AIADMK which forced the Government to act has one vote!

    Viva la Democracy!

     

    The government sources said, “We have decided to have a 30-member panel to accommodate smaller parties which could not have been represented in a 21-member JPC.”

    20 members of the JPC will be from the Lok Sabha while 10 will be from the Rajya Sabha. The seats given to each party are based on its strength in the two Houses. In a 30 member JPC, 38 members in the House entitle a party to one seat in the panel.

    Congress will have eight members in the Committee from the Lower House and three from the Upper House.

    BJP will have four members from the Lok Sabha in the committee, one of which it will give to ally Shiv Sena which is not getting any representation. The main opposition will also have two members from the Upper House.

    The DMK will have two members and AIADMK will have one member in the panel.

    http://news.outlookindia.com/item.aspx?712851

  • Joint Parliamentary Committee(JPC)

    In a JPC,PM may be forced to come and testify and there lies the catch.

    In a Parliamentary Committee you can hush up;in JPC very difficult

    The very fact a PM has been asked to testify may make the opposition to demand his resignation.

    JPC can even summon Sonia Gandhi.

    Story:

    Mandated to inquire into a specific subject, a JPC is constituted either through a motion adopted by one House and concurred by the other, or, through communication between the presiding officers of the two Houses. The members are either elected by the Houses or nominated by the presiding officers. As in the case of other parliamentary committees, they are drawn from different groups. The strength of a JPC may vary. For instance, one JPC comprised 15 members, while two others had 30 members each. The Lok Sabha share is double than that of the Rajya Sabha.

    When a committee is unable to complete its work before the expiry of its term or before the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, it reports that fact to the House. In such cases, any preliminary report, memorandum or note that may have been prepared by the committee is made available to the succeeding committee.

    Powers of a JPC?

    A JPC can obtain evidence of experts, public bodies, associations, individuals or interested parties suo motu or on requests made by them. If a witness fails to appear before a JPC in response to summons, his conduct constitutes a contempt of the House.

    The JPC can take oral and written evidence or call for documents in connection with a matter under its consideration. The proceedings of parliamentary committees are confidential, but in the case of the joint committee which went into “Irregularities in Securities and Banking Transactions”, the committee decided that considering the widespread public interest in the matter, the chairman should brief the press about deliberations of the committees.

    Ministers are not generally called by the committees to give evidence. However, in case of the Irregularities in Securities and Banking Transactions probe again, an exception was made, with the JPC, with the permission of the Speaker, seeking information on certain points from ministers and calling Ministers of Finance and Health and Family Welfare.

    The government may withhold or decline to produce a document if it is considered prejudicial to the safety or interest of State. The Speaker has the final word on any dispute over calling for evidence against a person or production of a document

    .

    There have been only four investigative JPCs so far.

    The first was instituted to inquire into the Bofors contract on a motion moved by then defence minister K C Pant in the Lok Sabha on August 6, 1987. The Rajya Sabha endorsed it a week later. The committee, headed by B Shankaranand, held 50 sittings and gave its report on April 26, 1988. Opposition parties boycotted the committee on the ground that it was packed with Congress members. The JPC report was tabled in Parliament, but it was rejected by the Opposition.

    The second investigative JPC, headed by former Union minister and senior Congress leader Ram Niwas Mirdha, was set up to probe Irregularities in Securities and Banking Transactions in the aftermath of the Harshad Mehta scandal. The motion was moved by then minister for parliamentary affairs Ghulam Nabi Azad in the Lok Sabha on August 6, 1992. The Rajya Sabha concurred with it the next day. The recommendations of the JPC were neither accepted in full nor implemented.

    The third investigative JPC was assigned to probe the market scam. Then parliamentary affairs minister Pramod Mahajan piloted a motion in the Lok Sabha on April 26, 2001, to put it in place. Senior BJP member Lt Gen Prakash Mani Tripathi (retd) was named the chairman. The committee held 105 sittings and gave its report on December 19, 2002. The committee recommended sweeping changes in stock market regulations. However, many of these recommendations were diluted later.

    The last JPC was set up in August 2003 to look into pesticide residues in soft drinks, fruit juice and other beverages and to set safety standards. The committee, headed by NCP chief Sharad Pawar, held 17 sittings and submitted its report to Parliament on February 4, 2004. The report confirmed that soft drinks did have pesticide residues and recommended stringent norms for drinking water.

    Why does the Opposition want a JPC?

    The Public Accounts Committee of Parliament is supposed to conduct a detailed examination of the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General (CAG), scrutinising the yearly accounts of the Government. Having 15 members of the Lok Sabha and seven members of the Rajya Sabha, the chairmanship of the PAC conventionally goes to a nominee of the main opposition party. The PAC calls upon ministries to explain cases of financial irregularities. The Opposition argument is that the 2G spectrum scam goes far beyond accounting. A JPC can spread its net wider and go into the larger gamut of allocation and look into the role of various players. More, once a JPC gets going, it would help the Opposition keep the heat on the government through consistent reporting of proceedings. The moot point is that PAC chairman Murli Manohar Joshi is already waiting in the wings to go into the CAG report. In case the government accepts the demand for a JPC, in effect, it may mean both a JPC and PAC.

    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/jpc-probe-a-goblet-of-fire/713146/0


    Related:

    Parliamentary Committee.

    Broadly, Parliamentary Committees are of two kinds – Standing Committees and ad hoc Committees. The former are elected or appointed every year or periodically and their work goes on, more or less, on a continuous basis. The latter are appointed on an ad hoc basis as need arises and they cease to exist as soon as they complete the task assigned to them

    http://india.gov.in/knowindia/parliamentary.php

    The government on Wednesday offered to hold a special session of Parliament to discuss the Opposition demand for a joint parliamentary committee (JPC) to probe the 2G spectrum allocation scandal.

    It was a direct response to the call for Prime Minister Manmohan Singh‘s resignation made earlier in the day at the National Democratic Alliance rally on the Ramlila maidan here that focussed on the numerous scams that have surfaced in recent months. Opposition leaders said the government must agree to a JPC probe or else the Prime Minister must resign.

    http://hindu.com/2010/12/23/stories/2010122359120100.htm