Re: [HumJanenge] PLEASE CLEAR THE AIR IN VIEW OF THE

Thank you, finally hope to get some emails relating to RTI.

On 30/04/2011, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Mr Surendera Bhanot
>
> Kindly do not crosspost messages to this group. If you feel that the IAC
> should rebut Mr. Behera please ask them do do so.
>
> In any case what is wrong with what Mr Behera has written ?.
> For example :-
>
> Is it not correct that whereas the Govt version of LKP Bill deals with
> tackiing HIGH LEVEL CORRUPTION, the IAC version deals essentially with PETTY
> CORRUPTION ??
> .
> In any case form midnight tonight, all discussion on LKP BIll is taboo /
> prohibited and violators will be booted off this RTI group without warning.
> A detailed post on this follows.
>
> Sarbajit
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Surendera M. Bhanot <
> surendera@avissoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Sir,
>>
>> One Mr.Chitta Behera of Cuttack , Orissa Mobile : 9437577546
>> is spreading a misinformation about the draft Jan Lokpal Bill
>> quoting the "prodded by the hyperboles fanned out by the IAC team on
>> www.indiaagainstcorruption.org".
>>
>> The text of the misinformation is reproduced below. It is your bounden
>> duty
>> to clear the air by suitably rebutting the misinformation point-by-point
>> so
>> this misinformation could be checked.
>> *
>> TEXT OF THE MISNFORMATION BY Mr.Chitta Behera of Cuttack*
>>
>> Dear Mr.Thakur,
>>
>> Thanks for your candid response approving of the fact that there exists a
>> big hiatus between what most people innocuously think about Jan Lokpal
>> Bill
>> prodded by the hyperboles fanned out by the IAC team on
>> www.indiaagainstcorruption.org and what actually transpires to a studious
>> reader after he or she seriously goes through the weird letters of its
>> bare
>> text. To recapitulate, the last mail 'Jan Lokpal Bill – can it rein in a
>> corrupt government servant?' strived to drive home the queer provisions
>> made
>> in the Bill, thanks to which Lokpal would never be able to fix any
>> allegedly
>> corrupt official even at the investigation stage, let alone penalize him
>> by
>> way of fine, disciplinary action or imprisonment. Now, let us see if Jan
>> Lokpal has any teeth whatsoever to bite a corrupt politician. In order not
>> to be judgmental in our probe into this all-important question, we need
>> first of all to recapture the very rationale made out by the protagonists
>> of
>> the alternative Bill vis-à-vis the official Bill in the founding meeting
>> held on 10 August 2010 at Delhi, which was attended among others by
>> Justice
>> Santosh Hegde, Mr.Prashant Bhushan and Mr.Arvind Kejriwala the 3 civil
>> society members of the present Joint Drafting Committee. After critiquing
>> the existing anti-corruption regime, the said meeting had envisaged that
>> the
>> would-be Lokpal of their genre (now called Jan Lokpal), unlike today's CVC
>> which is merely an advisory body and that too with a limited jurisdiction
>> over bureaucrats only, can get its decisions enforced against corrupt
>> bureaucrats and politicians as well. Further, the would-be Lokpal they
>> envisaged would be an independent and autonomous powerhouse unlike today's
>> CBI, which has though teeth to bite both politicians and bureaucrats,
>> takes
>> instruction from its political bosses as to whom to bite, when and to what
>> degree. *(vide Minutes of Meeting)*. A catchy brochure 'The Salient
>> Features of Jan Lokpal Bill' hung on the website of
>> www.indiaagainstcorruption.org, which is so to say the much touted
>> manifesto of the proposed Jan Lokpal Bill, assures us as follows,
>> *"Investigations
>> in any case will have to be completed in one year. Trial should be
>> completed
>> in next year so that the corrupt politician, officer or judge is sent to
>> jail within two years . . . the loss that a corrupt person caused to the
>> Government will be recovered at the time of conviction"*. And mind you,
>> this is the kernel of the new illusion that instantly mobilized millions
>> of
>> people across the country to rally behind Anna Hazare's clarion call for
>> enactment of a strong anti-corruption law in the shape of Jan Lokpal Bill.
>> But as irony would have it, in the heat of euphoria most of the people who
>> either supported the Bill or opposed it at that point of time didn't care
>> to
>> read its provisions, let alone scan or critique the same.
>>
>> Now that the phase of frenzied hullabaloo has visibly waned for various
>> reasons beyond the control of anybody, the moot question arises, do the
>> provisions made in the Jan Lokpal Bill fall in sync with the assurances
>> dished out by IAC Team? To start with we need too ascertain whether the
>> much
>> trumpeted Bill has any teeth to bite any politician, be he Prime Minister,
>> a
>> Ministers, a Member of Parliament or such constitutional functionaries as
>> President, Vice President or Speaker of Loksabha.
>>
>> Firstly, the proviso to Section 18 (8) says, "Provided that the provisions
>> of this section shall not apply to the Prime Minister". The Section-18 is
>> captioned as 'Provisions relating to complaints and investigations'. Thus,
>> going by the above proviso, no complaint can be lodged against the Prime
>> Minister nor any enquiry or investigation whatsoever made into his conduct
>> by the would-be Jan Lokpal.
>>
>> Secondly, the Section 18(8) says that even if the allegation of corruption
>> against a Minister is substantiated and he should therefore not continue
>> to
>> hold that post, 'Lokpal shall make such recommendation to the President,
>> who
>> shall decide either to accept such recommendation or reject it within a
>> month of its receipt". In case the President rejects the recommendation of
>> Lokpal for removal of the concerned Minister, Lok Pal is left with no
>> option
>> to do anything about it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thirdly, as per Section 28B (2), "For an allegation against a Member of
>> Parliament that he has taken a bribe for any conduct in Parliament,
>> including voting in Parliament or raising question in Parliament or any
>> other matter, a complaint could be made to the Speaker of Lok Sabha or the
>> Chairperson of Rajya Sabha, depending upon the House to which that member
>> belongs". Then it is said that a complaint of such nature shall be
>> forwarded
>> to the Ethics Committee within a month of its receipt, and then "The
>> Ethics
>> Committee shall, within a month, decide whether to . .". It is
>> interesting to know that the last line is still an incomplete sentence
>> conveying no meaning whatsoever. Is it a grammatical slip or a moral slip?
>> What is striking above all is that there is no mention of the word
>> 'Lokpal'
>> in the entire provision. It clearly implies that Lokpal has no power to
>> receive, let alone dispose of a complaint of corruption against a Member
>> of
>> Parliament in respect of his conduct in Parliament.
>>
>> Fourthly, the sub-section (2) of Section 17 says, "Nothing in this Act
>> shall be construed as authorising the Lokpal to investigate any action
>> which
>> is taken by or with the approval of the Presiding Officer of either House
>> of
>> Parliament". Thus not only any alleged act of corruption by the Speaker or
>> Chairman of Rajya Sabha himself, but also that of any Minister, MP or
>> official who are in league with the Speaker of Loksabha or Chairman of
>> Rajya
>> Sabha shall enjoy immunity from the investigative scanner of Lokpal.
>>
>> Fifthly, the definition of 'Public Servant' as provided under Section
>> 2(11)
>> is not inclusive of such constitutional authorities as President,
>> Vice-President and Speaker of Lok Sabha, and as such these politicians in
>> the guise of constitutional authorities remain outside the jurisdiction of
>> Lokpal.
>>
>> Sixthly, though Section -15 (Making a complaint to the Lokpal) in its
>> sub-section (1) says inter alia that *"*any person may make a complaint
>> under this Act to the Lokpal", the sub-section (1) of Section 8 (Functions
>> of Lokpal) provides no scope to Lokpal for receiving complaints against
>> Judges or Minister/MPs.
>>
>> Seventhly, Section 18(iii) says, "The conduct of an investigation under
>> this Act against a public servant in respect of any act