Saturday, August 27, 2011

Loksabha discussion on Lokpal Bills

Sushma Swaraj:

1. Include PM under Lokpal.

2. No objection if CBI is brought under the purview of Lokpal.

3. Ensure selection committee is balanced with members of both the govt and the non-govt members.

4. Don't bring judiciary under Lokpal. Along with Judicial Accountability bill, we support setting up National Judicial Commission.

5. Doesn't agree with Janlokpal Bill that Lokpal can impose penalties when a public servant doesn't perform a task written in a citizen's charter.

6. Parliament can pass legislation to set up Lokayuktas in states using the provisions in Article 252. The article requires that two states pass such a legislation before the parliament can pass its own legislation in this regard.

7. We can bring lower bureaucracy under Lokpal.

Sandeep Dikshit:

1. Parliament can legislate after two states legislate. Agree with Sushma Swaraj.

2. Lokpal will be burdened if grievance redressal is brought under its purview.

3. The structure to cover lower bureaucracy needs more discussion.

4. There is consensus that Judiciary cannot be brought under Lokpal.

5. Corruption in Corporate and NGOs should also be covered under some law. Not sure if this can be under the purview of Lokpal.


Anonymous said...

Can you elaborate on judiciary brought under lokpal ? What's wrong with a judge against whom an FIR is filed be investigated ? Today they need an approval from the Chief Justice and in many cases that approval has not been given..

I think investigating a FIR against a judge and bringing judiciary under Lokpal are 2 different things and folks are just twisting the words here...


Anonymous said...

I was against the hard stance taken by the IAC folks saying the bill must be passed by Aug 30 - but them asking for a vote today on the bill was fine in my opinion.

The parliament should have voted and defeated the bill and clearly stated what would be needed to get such a bill passed.

So many bills (let me use the incorrect term useless here) get tabled and voted upon - what was wrong with having a vote on this bill ? Let the people know what kind of bill will pass the parliament and why the legislatures are against the bill.

When voting is treated so sacrosanct while electing the legislatures. why not on the bill ?

Why was the parliament hiding behind "sense of the house" ?


Balaji said...

i personally have no problem with judges coming under the purview of lokpal. there is no restriction even today on a police inspector from investigating/arresting a judge after having received appropriate permissions.

the idea is Lokpal decisions can and will be challenged in a court of law. so its suggested that natural laws of justice will be in conflict if higher judiciary are tried by lokpal. remember today a judge cannot be removed by other judges. only parliament/assemblies can remove as its currently doing in the impeachment proceedings against Justice Sen.

so i think the judicially oversight committee is a good idea.

at any rate i think a permission from chief justice is a must to proceed against a judge. judges create enemies in every verdict they deliver. so some protection must be offered. in general, the prime minister, speaker of the loksabha and the chief justice of the supreme court are kind of totems so that the buck stops at their tables. it would have stopped at the president's table if it was a directly elected office.

on a related note, i think a parliamentary panel or the national judicial commission shd appoint judges instead of a collegium of judges as it the case now. in the US, President appoint judges after confirmation hearings in the senate.

Balaji said...

no, no. there is no bill yet on the floor of the house. its still with the standing committee. janlokpal bill has been submitted to rajya sabha by Rajeev Chandrasekhar. discussing it and defeating it would have sent a message. but i think even that shd not have been done without studying it in detail in the standing committee. so i'm happy govt didn't resort to it at this early stage.

passing a resolution itself would not be binding on the standing committee or the house later on. house should not have prejudiced the standing committee findings by voting at this stage. sense of the house was itself an act of magnanimity on the part of parliament.

incidentally Lalu Yadav did say that Loksabha set a wrong precedent by discussing the line items ahead of standing committee findings.