From: Surendera M. Bhanot <surendera@avissoftware.com>
To: Chitta Behera <chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in>
Cc: Salil RK <protekmumbai@hotmail.com>; arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com; indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com; info@annahazare.org; annahazare@hotmail.com; satish.jha@gmail.com; focusorissa@yahoogroups.com; oregs-watch@googlegroups.com; social-watch-group@googlegroups.com; common-concern@googlegroups.com; loksamukhya@gmail.com; odishasoochanaadhikarabhiyan@googlegroups.com; saiprasan2@gmail.com; pradippradhan63@gmail.com; amitabhthakurlko@gmail.com; rti_india@googlegroups.com; rti_india@yahoogroups.com; National RTI Forum <nationalrtiforum@gmail.com>; sammukshya@gmail.com; amarajdhani@gmail.com; amarikatha@gmail.com; kshirodroutadv@gmail.com; Prasanta Patnaik <patnaikprasanta@gmail.com>; "Rahul Bhartiya" <rahul.bhartiya@rahulbhartiya.com>; ""*Kiran Bedi"" <kiranbedioffice@gmail.com>; "*indiaagainstcorruption" <info@indiaagainstcorruption.org>
Sent: Sun, 15 May, 2011 9:16:21 PM
Subject: Re: [Arkitect India] Fw: Fwd: Be ready for Jantar Mantar again if Lokpal Bill not passed in time : Anna Hazare
Please do not make echos in hollow. They will multiply and only come back to you only.
PARTICIPATE
Tell your friends i Orissa that every thing regarding Jan Lokpal Bill drafting committee is online for full public gaze. You and everybody is free to post their concerns (and also view them) online. Your views about its transparency are just is nothing but ignorance.
I request you to participate and not to spread mis-information.
Please visit the below mentioned site:
http://www.lokpalbillconsultation.org/
The drafting of the Jan Lokpal bill, which is to be finalized by June 30th, 2011, is underway. You can play your part in this historic moment by giving your invaluable comments/suggestions about the different provisions in the draft of the Jan Lokpal bill which will make it the effective, accountable and independent anti-corruption body that India needs right now. Otherwise, it will remain a law which exists only on paper and has no impact on the ground. Please provide your comments as detailed below:
- Online : Filling in the form made in the: http://www.lokpalbillconsultation.org/
- Email : Sending us an email to lokpalbillcomments@gmail.com
- Postal mail : Mail your comments to the following address
Lokpal Bill Public Consultation
A-119, Kaushambi
Ghaziabad - 201010
Dear Mr.Salil,
Very many thanks for the reply and your compliments that I have invested a lot of time after understanding Lokpal Bill. In reciprocation I cherish that the same be true in your case too. Let me re-confess at the cost of repetitiveness that you are the first person from IAC Team (of course from its Mumabi Chapter) to have sensibly responded to my posts on the subject of Jan Lokpal Bill by way of a reasoned appreciation, and sincerely look forward to a sustained relationship of dialogue between us in this respect in days to come.
Coming to the latest response of yours, you instead of replying to the points raised in my posts, have required me to go through an attached file named 'Jan Lokpal Bill - A Detailed Analysis (Arvind)' http://www.box.net/shared/se7qhcxgzu, saying it would help to 'assuage' my concerns. Having gone through the said document which is titled "JAN LOKPAL BILL, A DETAILED ANALYSIS, Ver 1.0 Dated: 15 May 2011, published by India Against Corruption" (The said document is also now available on website http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/janlokpalbill_detailed_analysis.html though dated 12 May 2011) I felt utterly dismayed at the crisscross nature of your reply. While my critique centred round the provisions contained in the latest two draft versions ( v.2.1 and v.2.2) of Jan Lokpal Bill, you shall surely admit, the attached document forwarded by you is avowedly in the nature of a backgrounder to a primitive version of the draft Bill (1.0). Apart from being out and out anachronistic, the said document is laid out in the shape of a semi-academic treatise dealing with what a Lokpal or say the would-be Jan Lokpal should ideally be in Indian context, worth of course a valuable text material for the college students offering Public Administration as a subject. This is however in sharp contrast to what I had precisely expected of the IAC Team i.e. a section-wise clarifying response to the critical issues and concerns that were raised in my series of analyses on draft Jan Lokpal Bill as it appears in its recent most two versions i.e. v.2.1 and v.2.2.
Granting your logic that the current version/s of Jan Lokpal Bill 'is a draft', and 'there will be modifications on it' in discussion with the Govt. a very pertinent question however arises- whether the modifications undertaken so far by IAC Team from version 1.0 to version 2.2 are in the direction envisaged in IAC's prime document 'Salient Features of Jan Lokpal Bill' http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/salient.html, or even in consonance with the presently referred backgrounder to v.1.0 of the Bill, which you have innocuously recommended to me for 'assuaging' my concerns? To me, certainly not. Rather these modifications have been made in a diametrically opposite direction, from bad to worse, and worse to worst.
For instance, Paragraph 6b(ii) of the forwarded treatise (centring round v.1.0) titled 'For their conduct inside Parliament' referring to Members of Parliament says the following, "If any politician indulges in any corruption inside Parliament, then either suo moto or on a complaint from anyone, the Chairperson of respective House shall forward the case to the Ethics Committee. If Ethics Committee so recommends, the Chairperson shall forward the complaint to Lokpal or Lokayukta for necessary investigations. Lokpal shall be responsible for conducting investigations and shall submit its report to the Chairperson, who will then present it in that House for necessary decision".
Now, please read Section 28B (2) of JL Bill v.2.2 in respect of the same matter on http://www.indiaagainstcorruption.org/docs/Jan%20lokpal%20bill%202.2.doc– "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. Such complaints shall be dealt in the following manner: (a) The complaint shall be forwarded to the Ethics Committee within a month of its receipt.(b) The Ethics Committee shall, within a month, decide whether to".
Do you mark any difference between the two? I do and that too, to the extent of difference between heaven and hell. Firstly, the v.1.0 albeit a primitive one at least makes a reference to the investigative role of Lokpal in respect of a corrupt MP, whereas the civilized avatar of the draft Bill v.2.2 has conspicuously omitted any role whatsoever to be played by Lokpal in respect of a corrupt MP. Secondly, a mid-generation Version 1.8 of draft Jan Lokpal Bill, in favour of which esteemed Anna Hazare the chief protagonist of Jan Lokpal Bill still continues to this day to muster public support through his personal website http://www.annahazare.org/pdf/Jan%20lokpal%20bill%20by%20Expert%20(Eng).pdf contains no such provision at all. Under the circumstances, are not the primitive versions better than their civilized counterparts?
Besides, as everyone can see, there is a horrible miscarriage of language in the above quoted excerpt (Section 28B-2) from the draft Bill v.2.2. The last line, purported to be a sentence, strangely enough, abruptly breaks off midway before reaching to a full stop, thereby smacking of rank idiocy of its drafters. When the common people basing upon the hearsay sourced from IAC team refer to such legal luminaries as Justice Santosh Hegde or Advocate Prashant Bhushan as the drafters of the Jan Lokpal Bill as it appears on www.indiaagainstcorruption.org website, I simply pooh-pooh their puerile suggestion saying these grandees of Indian law couldn't have degenerated to so low as to pen such rubbish stuff. From the day one I hold on to an unflinching intuition that somebody, who is a semi-literate in law and language but has some hidden agenda of his own, has taken over the electronic platform of IAC campaign to build his fanciful ideas into successive versions of Jan Lokpal Bill and brandish the same as the collective output of great men like Anna Hazare, Santosh Hegde or Prashant Bhushan.
To sum up, what I plead for at the moment is the following-
- Let eminent persons who have been identified with IAC Team such as esteemed Anna Hazare, Justice Santosh Hegde, lawyer Prashant Bhushan, activist Arvind Kejriwal, Swami Agnibesh and Mrs.Kiran Bedi announce on Anna Hazare website the very version of Jan Lokpal which all of them together must have attested to as the latest one by way of signing it;
- Any version of draft Bill that is projected as the one authenticated by IAC should and must be at least freed of technical and grammatical errors of silly or serious nature;
- As and when any modification is undertaken in a version of the Bill, the names of persons authorizing the same along with the brief justification thereof should be simultaneously made public;
- A mechanism should be put in place at IAC website, whereby one among the eminent drafters of the Bill should reply to and clarify the questions or suggestions as and when put by any person concerning the Bill;
- The minutes of the deliberations made in the Joint Drafting Panel meetings on Jan Lokpal Bill should be made available in extenso in text/audio formats to the members of public through the IAC website soon after a meeting is over.
Needless to say, as an ever willing foot-soldier for India against Corruption campaign inaugurated by esteemed Anna Hazare, I am ready to volunteer any kind of service that may be required of me in addressing to the above mentioned demands of time.
Chitta Behera,
Cuttack, Orissa
Mobile: 9437577546
From: Salil RK <protekmumbai@hotmail.com>
To: arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com; no-reply@causes.com; indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com; info@annahazare.org; annahazare@hotmail.com; satish.jha@gmail.com; focusorissa@yahoogroups.com; oregs-watch@googlegroups.com; social-watch-group@googlegroups.com; common-concern@googlegroups.com; loksamukhya@gmail.com; odishasoochanaadhikarabhiyan@googlegroups.com; saiprasan2@gmail.com; pradippradhan63@gmail.com; amitabhthakurlko@gmail.com; chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in
Sent: Sat, 14 May, 2011 10:56:30 PM
Subject: RE: [Arkitect India] Fw: Fwd: Be ready for Jantar Mantar again if Lokpal Bill not passed in time : Anna Hazare
Dear Chitta Behera,
You have invested a lot of time in understanding the Jan Lokpal. Since it is a draft, there will be modifications on it & discussed with the Govt.
I am attaching a detailed analysis which will help to assuage your concerns.
Regards
Salil Rameshchandra
To: no-reply@causes.com; indiaagainstcorruption.2010@gmail.com; info@annahazare.org; annahazare@hotmail.com; satish.jha@gmail.com; arkitectindia@yahoogroups.com; focusorissa@yahoogroups.com; oregs-watch@googlegroups.com; social-watch-group@googlegroups.com; common-concern@googlegroups.com; loksamukhya@gmail.com; odishasoochanaadhikarabhiyan@googlegroups.com; saiprasan2@gmail.com; pradippradhan63@gmail.com; amitabhthakurlko@gmail.com
From: chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 10:32:28 +0530
Subject: [Arkitect India] Fw: Fwd: Be ready for Jantar Mantar again if Lokpal Bill not passed in time : Anna Hazare
Salient Features of Jan Lokpal Bill x-rayed
Dear Gitesh Devhane,
I had the privilege to go through your post 'Be ready for Jantar Mantar again if Lokpal Bill not passed in time: Anna Hazare' where you have reproduced the much publicized 'Salient Features of Jan Lokpal Bill' displayed on www.indiaagainstcorruption.org for refreshing the memory of the public about the very mission with which had begun the civil society's maiden undertaking to script an alternative Bill vis-à-vis the weak and flawed official Lokpal Bill. But regrettably enough, it seems that you have not read the text of the latest version 2.2 of Jan Lokpal Bill dished out on the said website. Because whatever promise is made by the 'Salient Features' has been systematically and squarely belied by the provisions made in the draft Bill. Besides, there is a glaring confusion among the public as to which of the versions (v. 2.2 or v. 1.8) is now the official plank of the campaign for Jan Lokpal Bill, since the chief protagonist of the Bill Anna Hazare continues to canvass for v. 1.8 of the Bill in his website http://www.annahazare.org/pdf/Jan%20lokpal%20bill%20by%20Expert%20(Eng).pdf as against the version 2.2 hosted by the IAC team, and there is evidently a huge gap between the two versions. The first issue that deserves therefore to be settled and that too by Anna Hazare himself is which of these two versions is now the basis for deliberations by the civil society members in the Joint Drafting Panel meetings. The next important issue to be sorted out by Anna Hazare and rest of us together is how to bridge the yawning gap between what the Jan Lokpal Bill purported to be and what it is in its latest avatar Version 2.2.
Since you have addressed your post to the members of IAC, it is worthwhile to examine the provisions of the draft Bill v. 2.2 broached by IAC website, in juxtaposition to the promises made in the 'Salient Features of Jan Lokpal Bill'. As for its mode of presentation, the promises made in 'Salient Features' are first quoted verbatim one after another, followed by an analysis thereof. What is now being presented is the 1st Part covering the first five salient features, to be shortly followed by the 2nd Part covering the remaining five ones.
How far Jan Lokpal Bill v.2.2 is reflective of its 'Salient Features' (Part-1)(Analysis of Jan Lokpal Bill from the standpoint of the Bill's brochure 'Salient Features')
Salient Feature 1- An institution called LOKPAL at the centre and LOKAYUKTA in each state will be set up. The whole Bill starting from Section-1 all through speaks about the setting up Lokpal at centre only, and there is no mention in the text of the Bill about Lokayukta to be set up at state level. Commenting on the skewed purview of the draft Bill Justice Santosh Hegde himself has admitted the other day, "The Lokpal (ombudsman) Bill will only help to fight corruption at the centre and not in states where the magnitude of graft is alarming and accounts for almost 90 percent of corruption in the country encountered by the common man". (Times of India, Bhubaneswar Page-7, dated 16 April, 2011). Of course, there is an opening note, added a few days back to the Draft Bill, appearing now in its v. 2.2 saying, "The following Bill has been drafted only for setting up an institution of Lokpal at the centre. We propose that in this same Bill, provisions on the same model may be made for setting up similar institution of Lokayukta in each state". But as learnt from the media reports, the deliberations in the Joint Drafting Panel meetings held so far have focused only on the Lokpal at the Central level without any reference made to Lokayukta at State level. Thus until and unless appropriate provisions relating to Lokayukta at state level are incorporated duly into the text of the draft Bill, how can we rest assured that the Joint Drafting Panel shall finally draw up a Bill catering to both Centre and States?
Salient Feature 2- Like Supreme Court and Election Commission, they will be completely independent of the governments. No minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations. One ought to simply glance over some provisions made in Section 18 of JL Bill v.2.2 to realize the falsity of this spacious claim. For instance, Section 18(iv) says, "If, during the course of a preliminary inquiry or investigation under this Act, the Lokpal is prima facie satisfied that the allegation or grievance in respect of any action is likely to be sustained either wholly or partly, it may, through an interim order, recommend the public authority to stay the implementation or enforcement of the decision or action complained against, or to take such mandatory or preventive action, …. in its order to prevent further harm from taking place. The public authority shall either comply with or reject the recommendations of Lokpal under this sub-section within 15 days of receipt of such an order. Lokpal, if it feels important, may approach appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to the public authority". It plainly means that Lokpal even if convinced prima facie on the genuineness of an allegation of corruption against a public servant following a preliminary enquiry, may issue only a recommendation, not an order to the concerned public authority to take necessary deterrent measures to stem the further pursuit of the alleged act of corruption, but said public-authority has also the discretion to reject the above recommendation of Lokpal. Under the circumstances, can further investigation to be conducted thereafter by Lokpal be fair and free from possible manipulation by the guilty public servant and his colleague-accomplices? Further, a similarly impotent provision about Lokpal's powers has been placed under Section 18 (vi) about a government servant who is held prima facie guilty of corruption. Here also the concerned public authority has been endowed with the power to reject the recommendation which might have been issued by Lokpal to remove, suspend or transfer a government servant from his office with a view to safeguard against the destruction or manipulation of evidence and witnesses by the latter, but said public authority as in the previous case has been endowed with the discretion to reject the Lokpal's recommendation. And in the event of such rejection, Lokpal shall have no option except, 'if it feels important', to 'approach appropriate High Court seeking appropriate directions to the public authority'. As there is no time-limit or parameters specified in the Bill for disposal of the case by the concerned High Court, it is very much probable that the concerned government servant held guilty prima facie shall continue to hold his office ad infinitum and get ample scope to destroy or manipulate evidence and witnesses in his favour. Then again, let's see what Section 18(vii) provides for in respect of a public servant whose action or conduct is dubious (mind it the definition of public servant under Section 2-11 includes a Minister too). Here the Lokpal may issue an interim order to the appropriate authorities to take necessary action inter alia 'to prevent the public servant from secreting the assets allegedly acquired by him by corrupt means'. But as in other cases referred above, 'the public authority shall either comply with or reject the recommendations of Lokpal' and 'Lokpal, if it feels important, may approach appropriate High Court for seeking appropriate directions to the public authority'. Needless to say, such a spacious discretion given to the concerned public authority to reject Lokpal's order or recommendation shall be used, more often than not, by the corrupt public servant for shielding his illicit wealth within the country or abroad. Thus, not only shall any investigation against a corrupt Minister or bureaucrat remain ever incomplete, but also immense scope, now made legitimate, shall be available to him to stash away his black money in safe havens within the country or abroad. In sum, the Jan Lokpal, as envisaged under the JL Bill v.2.2 shall, far from being an autonomous institution, remain ever dependent on any damn public authority and High Court for getting its investigation and orders carried out to their logical conclusion.
Salient Feature 3- Cases against corrupt people will not linger on for years anymore: Investigations in any case will have to be completed in one year. Trial should be completed in next one year so that the corrupt politician, officer or judge is sent to jail within two years. Such an assurance is out and out hollow in view of the absolute exemption allowed to every category of public servant under various provisions of the draft Bill. First of all, as per the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 18 (Provisions relating to complaints and investigations), no complaint against the Prime Minister can ever be lodged by any person before Lokpal, let alone any investigation to be conducted by the Lokpal against him. Secondly, Section 18(8) says that if the Lokpal is satisfied that the allegation of corruption against a Minister is substantiated and that the public servant concerned should not continue to hold the post held by him, the Lokpal may make such recommendation to the President, who shall decide either to accept or to reject such recommendation. In the event of rejection by the President of such recommendation which is most likely in view of the close functional link between the President and Council of Ministers mandated by the Constitution, is there an iota of possibility that Lokpal shall ever be able to complete its investigation against a corrupt Minister, let alone send him to jail within two years? Thirdly, as per Section 28B(2), any complaint of corruption against a Member of Parliament shall be sent to the Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha as the case may be, and the latter shall send it to the Ethics Committee constituted under Parliament. As regards the duty of Ethics Committee to be discharged thereafter, it is pathetic to note that the provision made under clause (b) of Section 28B(2) consists of an incomplete sentence conveying dilemma but no conclusion. Thus Lokpal is bereft of any power to receive a complaint against a corrupt MP, let alone enquire, adjudicate or penalize him. Fourthly, the Section 17(2) 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". It simply means that not only the Speaker of Lok Sabha or Chairman of Rajya Sabha, but also any Minister or MP, who might have concurred with such presiding officers of Parliament in respect of any alleged act of corruption, shall remain absolutely exempt from the investigative purview of Lokpal, negating thereby even the remotest possibility of Lokpal receiving any complaint against them, not to talk of investigating or penalizing them in any manner.
Now let's see if a corrupt officer can be sent to jail within two years as promised by Jan Lokpal Bill? As a matter of fact, the Section 19A (Punishment for Offenses) prescribes that the punishment for an act of corruption by the public servant to be 'not less than one year of rigorous imprisonment' which may extend upto life imprisonment' and 'the punishment shall be more severe if the accused is higher in rank'. Again, Section 30 (time limits) prescribes that preliminary enquiry should be completed within a month, investigation 'within six months, and in any case, not more than one year, from the date of receipt of complaint' and 'trial in any case filed by the Lokpal should be completed within one year'. Given these two provisions, the Bill seems to fall in sync with the promise made in 'Salient Features' for sending a corrupt officer to jail within two years. But there are other provisions in the Bill which completely nullify the above dispensation. For instance, in the chapter on 'Imposition of major and minor penalties', Sections 21B and 21C read together authorize a hierarchy of vigilance officers to enquire and hear into the allegations of 'misconduct and public grievances with deemed vigilance angle' against the government servants. As per clause (1) of Section-21C, vigilance officer shall within 3 months complete the enquiry and present its report to the Chief Vigilance Officer, who in turn, shall as per clause (2) constitute a 3 member Bench within a fortnight. And said Bench shall, as per clause (3) hold a summary hearing and as per clause (4) pass an order imposing minor or major penalties on the accused officers within a month of its constitution. But, as if to negate the entire exercise already undertaken to book the culprit, the proviso to clause (4) clearly stipulates, "such order shall be in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate appointing authority", which implies that such order/recommendation may be flatly rejected by the concerned governmental authority. Besides, the clause (5) offers the guilty officers, anxious for redemption, a further scope for exoneration from all manner of liability, by way of appeal against the said order/recommendation to CVC, who shall dispose it within a month. To cap it all Lokpal has no role to play in the whole episode of enquiry and hearing of the corruption charges against a government servant, let alone send him to jail within two years.
Now let's look at the provisions of the Bill meant for fixing corrupt judges. The Bill provides for an exclusive, single section chapter speciously entitled 'Dealing with complaints against judges of High Courts or Supreme Court' (vide Section-19B). Clause (1) of this Section authorizes only the Chairperson of Lokpal to deal with a complaint of corruption against a judge, while Clause (2) provides for a preliminary screening by a member of Lokpal who shall present his findings to a full Bench. Clause (3) makes it clear that no case shall be registered against the judge complained against without the approval of the full bench. Then the Clause (4) entrusts the investigation of the case, if registered at all, to a special team headed by a police officer not below the rank of SP. Lastly, the Clause (5) says, "A decision whether to initiate prosecution shall be taken by a full bench of Lokpal with majority of members with legal background". What is most baffling about this Section is that there is no time limit specified for any of the stages in the process of disposal of a complaint against a corrupt judge, be it preliminary screening, registration of the case, investigation or decision to prosecute. Secondly, even if Lokpal decides to prosecute a Judge the Bill is conspicuously silent on such crucial matters as to where and how long the prosecution of the corrupt Judges shall take place. Thus the grandiose promise made in 'Salient Features' that a corrupt judge too shall be sent to jail within two years is empty of any substance.
Salient Feature 4: The loss that a corrupt person caused to the government will be recovered at the time of conviction. In fact, Section 19 (Recovery of loss to the Government) says, "When a person is convicted of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, then the trial court shall quantify the loss caused to the government and additional gains that the accused would have earned by investing the proceeds of corruption and apportion such total amount amongst various convicts from whom this money must be recovered as arrears of land revenue". And at tandem with the above, Section 28A (Properties deemed to have been obtained through corrupt means) in its Clause (2) also rightly says, "If any property, moveable or immoveable, is subsequently found to be in possession of the public servant or any of his family members, which had not been declared under this section by that public servant, the same shall be deemed . . . to have been acquired through corrupt means by that public servant, the onus of proving otherwise shall be on the public servant". Then, as per Clause (3) "The public servant shall be given an opportunity to explain, within 15 days" in respect of the allegedly illicit wealth owned by him. Next, the Clause (4) maintaining the rigour of preceding provisions also says, "If public servant fails to provide satisfactory reply … with respect to some properties, Lokpal shall immediately confiscate all such properties". While Clause (5) declares any transfer of all such dubious properties as invalid, Clause (6) provides for intimation of such information by Lokpal to Income Tax Department for appropriate action. So far so good. However, then the process moves in a reverse gear. The Clause (7) provides for an appeal by the accused public servant against the orders of Lokpal to lie in High Court of appropriate jurisdiction, which shall decide the matter within three months of filing of the appeal. Here the question arises, given the lawyer-driven process of adjudication in our courts of law, is there any guarantee that the concerned High Court will disallow the appeal so made by the corrupt public servant? A further question arises, supposing that the High Court dismisses the said appeal and upholds the Lokpal's charges of illicit wealth against the corrupt public servant, will not the latter appeal against the said verdict of High Court before the Supreme Court? Since there is no time-limit specified in the Bill or otherwise for the Supreme Court to dispose of cases of such nature, there is a veritable possibility that either the case would linger on ad infinitum or the Supreme Court may allow the appeal resulting in a grand fiasco at the end of the day. It is also very much probable that the concerned public servant, who was initially charged by Lokpal but ultimately exonerated by the apex court, would have no cause to worry about the safety and security of his 'illicit wealth' in the intervening period, since the proviso to Clause (8) says, "if an appeal has been filed in any case, the auction shall not take place till the disposal of appeal". Thus, is there any meaning at all in the principal provision made under Clause (8)? - "All properties confiscated under this section shall be auctioned to highest bidder. Half of the proceeds from the same shall be deposited by the Lokpal in Consolidated Fund of India. The balance amount could be used by Lokpal for its own administration".
Salient Feature 5: How will it help a common citizen: If any work of any citizen is not done in prescribed time in any government office, Lokpal will impose financial penalty on guilty officers, which will be given as compensation to the complainant. This is in fact the great credo that enthused and mobilized millions of otherwise disillusioned people to rally round Anna's fast-unto-death campaign against corruption, with a strong hope that with enactment of Jan Lokpal Bill, the government officers who were corrupt, exploitative and oppressive would be brought to punitive justice and the deprived citizens compensated against the loss suffered by them for no fault of theirs. Ironically, however, the text of the Bill is such as surely to frustrate their newly aroused hope beyond redemption. It is true, Section 21A(5) holds, "After giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard the Appellate Grievance Officer shall pass an order fixing responsibility for failure to satisfactorily redress complainant's grievance in prescribed time and direct the Drawing and Disbursing Officer of that public authority to deduct from the salary of such officials, as mentioned in the order, such penalty amounts as are directed by Appellate Grievance Officer, which shall not be less than Rs 250 per day of delay calculated from the day the time limit mentioned in citizens' charter or the time limit specified in the order passed under sub-section (3) of this section, for redressing that grievance got over", and "direct the Drawing and Disbursing Officer to compensate the complainant with such amounts as are deducted from the salaries of the said officers". So far, so good. But the trouble arises, what is then the use of inserting the next provision (Clause-6), a repetitive one, which requires the guilty officers "to show cause that they acted in good faith and did not have corrupt motives. If they fail to do so, the Appellate Grievance Officer shall proceed to recommend penalties against the said officers under CCS Conduct Rules". The moot question arises, while the defaulting officers were held guilty and liable to penalty after being given 'the reasonable opportunity of being heard' under Clause (5), why should they be given another opportunity of similar sort albeit couched as 'show cause of good faith' under Clause (6)? Further, the provision of penalty against a guilty officer has been perilously diluted by the already referred 2nd proviso to Clause (4) of Section 21C, which dealing with 'Allegations of misconduct and public grievances with deemed vigilance angle' held that any order of penalty passed by the Bench on the accused government servants 'shall be in the form of a recommendation to the appropriate appointing authority' only. Thus, under the given provisions of Jan Lokpal Bill, which are too skewed in favour of the guilty and corrupt government servants, there is absolutely no chance for any accused government servant getting finally convicted or any amount of penalty whatsoever realized from him. There being no chance for realizing any penalty from a guilty officer, the question of compensating a deprived citizen from the collected penalty doesn't therefore arise at all.
Besides, there are some additional snags in Section-21A which render the Bill impotent against the creamy layer of India's officialdom on one hand and dubious in respect of compensating the deprived citizen on the other. Its Clause (6) refers only to offenses under CCS Conduct Rules in accordance which the guilty officers shall be penalized, implying thereby the exemption of Officers of All India Services like IAS, IPS and IFS from the penal purview, since the latter are dealt with under All India Services Conduct Rules 1968, not the Central Civil Service Conduct Rules 1964 as already referred to. As regards the provision for compensating the deprived citizen, the Clause (5)(ii) refrains from mentioning the time limit within which the amount of penalty realized from the guilty officer is to be paid by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer to the aggrieved citizen towards compensation. (End of Part-1, to be continued)
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com>
To: chittabehera1 <chittabehera1@yahoo.co.in>
Sent: Mon, 9 May, 2011 8:43:21 AM
Subject: Fwd: Be ready for Jantar Mantar again if Lokpal Bill not passed in time : Anna Hazare
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: India Against Corruption <no-reply@causes.com>
Date: Sun, May 8, 2011 at 2:16 PM
Subject: Be ready for Jantar Mantar again if Lokpal Bill not passed in time : Anna Hazare
To: pradippradhan63@gmail.com
![Causes]()
![]()
Bulletin from the cause: India Against Corruption
Go to CausePosted By: Gitesh Devhane To: Members in India Against Corruption Be ready for Jantar Mantar again if Lokpal Bill not passed in time : Anna Hazare
Salient features of Jan Lokpal Bill (PLEASE SHARE)
Drafted by Justice Santosh Hegde, Prashant Bhushan and Arvind Kejriwal, this Bill has been refined on the basis of feedback received from public on website and after series of public consultations. It has also been vetted by and is supported by Shanti Bhushan, J M Lyngdoh, Kiran Bedi, Anna Hazare etc.
1. An institution called LOKPAL at the centre and LOKAYUKTA in each state will be set up
2. Like Supreme Court and Election Commission, they will be completely independent of the governments. No minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations.
3. Cases against corrupt people will not linger on for years anymore: Investigations in any case will have to be completed in one year. Trial should be completed in next one year so that the corrupt politician, officer or judge is sent to jail within two years.
4. The loss that a corrupt person caused to the government will be recovered at the time of conviction.
5. How will it help a common citizen: If any work of any citizen is not done in prescribed time in any government office, Lokpal will impose financial penalty on guilty officers, which will be given as compensation to the complainant.
6. So, you could approach Lokpal if your ration card or passport or voter card is not being made or if police is not registering your case or any other work is not being done in prescribed time. Lokpal will have to get it done in a month's time. You could also report any case of corruption to Lokpal like ration being siphoned off, poor quality roads been constructed or panchayat funds being siphoned off. Lokpal will have to complete its investigations in a year, trial will be over in next one year and the guilty will go to jail within two years.
7. But won't the government appoint corrupt and weak people as Lokpal members? That won't be possible because its members will be selected by judges, citizens and constitutional authorities and not by politicians, through a completely transparent and participatory process.
8. What if some officer in Lokpal becomes corrupt? The entire functioning of Lokpal/ Lokayukta will be completely transparent. Any complaint against any officer of Lokpal shall be investigated and the officer dismissed within two months.
9. What will happen to existing anti-corruption agencies? CVC, departmental vigilance and anti-corruption branch of CBI will be merged into Lokpal. Lokpal will have complete powers and machinery to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician.
JAN LOKPAL BILL will act as deterrent and instill fear against corruption
(This movement is neither affiliated nor aligned to any political party)
Powerpoint Presentation:
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0AVlUGCzGem_9ZGdmanhnbXFfNXJ0djIydGQ3&hl=e
P.S.: Please share this message and join us in making our country a better place to live.![]()
Call to Action
Spread the word. Every invitation counts:
You are receiving this email because you are a member of the cause India Against Corruption.
To stop receiving emails from this cause, leave the cause
Causes Privacy Policy | Causes Address: 88 Kearny St, Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94108 United States
Tip: Add no-reply@causes.com to your address book to make sure you don't miss any opportunities to change the world.
--
"Our biggest competition is never with the others.
Instead, it is always within ourselves.
It doesn't matter if where we end up - first or at last.
If we do our best to do better than before, we've won"
Warm Regards
Surendera M. Bhanot
- President, RTI Help & Assistance Forum Chandigarh
- Youth for Human Rights International YHRI - South Asia
- CEO, Avis Software, Chandigarh
- Convener & Life Member, Consumers Association Chandigarh
- Jt. Secretary, Amateur Judo Association of Chandigarh
- Member, SPACE - Society for Promotion and Conservation of Environment, Chandigarh
- Member, RTI Activist Federation, Punjab, Chandigarh
No. 3758, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh-160022
Mob: +91-9888-810-811
PHONE: +91-172-2780838
FAX: 0871 266 8523
Mail Me
DISCLAIMER: You have received this email because you any one time contacted me through mail or otherwise gave your mail-id. This e-mail is intended to be sent to the persons on my regular mail-list. In case you think this mail infringes your privacy or otherwise you do not want to receive this mail anymore, please reply with the word 'UNSUBSCRIBE" in the body of the mail. Please do not disturb the Subject line. I am sorry to see you go. But please mention the reason why you want to go. It will help me improve my services in future. Thanks
No comments:
Post a Comment