Raja in 2G scam, or Suresh Kalmadi in Commonwealth Games scam and growing public anger over helplessness of the government to stop such cases of corruption, it was only natural for people to vehemently support Anna Hazare and his team to fight for Jan Lokpal bill.
The government, sensing the mood of the people, has shown intent to draft a proposed bill on the issue, and for this purpose held several meetings with Anna team to come up with a compromise formula as there are glaring differences between Jan Lokpal bill and the bill that government proposes to introduce.
Government has finally come up with a draft bill that it proposes to introduce in the Lok Sabha. However, the version of the bill, prepared by government is unacceptable to Anna Hazare and his civil society team, and Anna has declared that he will start a fast unto death from August 15 if his version of the bill, which is being labeled as Jan Lokpal bill, is not introduced in its original form in the Lok Sabha. It is in this context that differences between Lokpal and Jan Lokpal need to be highlighted for common people to appreciate and decide on which one to support.
Necessity drives invention. In case of anti-corruption legislation, this theory holds true. Besides seeking an independent body to investigate corruption cases, it suggested marked improvements to the Lokpal Bill. The first and foremost difference between the two proposed legislations is their approach towards team composition. The Lokpal Bill had proposed a chairperson and up to 8 members with half the members having a judicial background as a mandatory qualification. The Jan Lokpal Bill is content with a chairperson and 10 members, of which 4 can have a judicial background.
Jan Lokpal Bill suggested a two-fold approach. After a search committee shortlists potential candidates the selection committee would choose the members. The latter would consist of the PM, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, apex court judges, high court chief justices and others. The selection will be done by a committee comprising the PM, the leaders of Opposition in Parliament both houses , a Supreme Court judge, a high court chief justice, along with a reputed jurist and an eminent public figure.
On the flip side, the government bill wants the members to be a Supreme Court judge or a high court chief justice. Lokpal Bill suggests a top-down approach for the removal of the members.
It allows the president to make a reference to the apex court for an inquiry. If the investigation finds the member to be corrupt, he or she can be impeached. The CBI and Lokpal will be unconnected. Punishments will be a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of up to life imprisonment.
Punishment for corruption will be a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of up to 7 years. Judiciary Can be investigated, though high level members may be investigated only with permission of a seven member Lokpal bench. Judiciary is exempt and will be covered by a separate "judicial accountability bill". MPs Can be investigated with permission of seven member Lokpal bench.
Can be investigated, but their conduct within Parliament, such as voting, cannot be investigated. Lower bureaucracy All public servants would be included. Only Group A officers will be covered.
The CBI will remain a separate agency. Removal of Lokpal members and Chair Any person can bring a complaint to the Supreme Court, who can then recommend removal of any member to the President.
Any "aggrieved party" can raise a complaint to the President, who will refer the matter to the CJI. Removal of Lokpal staff and officers Complaints against Lokpal staff will be handled by independent boards set-up in each state, composed of retired bureaucrats, judges, and civil society members.
Lokpal will conduct inquiries into its own behavior. All state anti-corruption agencies would be closed and responsibilities taken over by centralized Lokpal. Whistleblower protection Whistleblowers are protected law.
0コメント