Skip to main content

LOK PAL AND LOKAYUKTA

                                LOK PAL AND LOKAYUKTA 



WHAT IS  LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA?


THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA ACT, 2013 PROVIDED FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE LOKPAL UNION AND THE LOKAYUKTA PROVINCES.

THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE STATUTORY BODIES THAT HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS.

THEY PERFORM THE DUTIES OF AN "OMBUDSMAN" AND INQUIRE ABOUT ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION AGAINST CERTAIN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND RELATED MATTERS.


BACKGROUND


IN 1809, THE OMBUDSMAN WAS OFFICIALLY OPENED IN SWEDEN.

IN THE 20TH CENTURY, THE OMBUDSMAN AS A CENTER DEVELOPED AND PROSPERED AFTER WORLD WAR II.

NEW ZEALAND AND NORWAY ADOPTED THE PROGRAM IN 1962 AND PROVED TO BE VERY IMPORTANT IN SPREADING THE OMBUDSMAN'S IDEAS.

IN 1967, ACCORDING TO THE 1961 WHYATT REPORT, GREAT BRITAIN ADOPTED A DEFENSIVE CENTER AND BECAME THE FIRST LARGE NATION IN A DEMOCRATIC WORLD TO HAVE SUCH A SYSTEM.

IN 1966, GUYANA BECAME THE FIRST DEVELOPING COUNTRY TO EMBRACE THE CONCEPT OF OMBUDSMAN. LATER, IT WAS RE-ADOPTED BY MAURITIUS, SINGAPORE, MALAYSIA, AND INDIA.

IN INDIA, THE CONCEPT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL OMBUDSMAN WAS FIRST PROPOSED BY THEN-LAW MINISTER ASHOK KUMAR SEN IN PARLIAMENT IN THE EARLY 1960S.

THE NAMES LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA ARE NAMED AFTER DRS. L. M. SINGHVI.

IN 1966, THE FIRST COMMISSION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE RECOMMENDED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF TWO INDEPENDENT STATE-LEVEL AUTHORITIES, TO ADDRESS GRIEVANCES AGAINST PUBLIC SERVANTS, INCLUDING MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT.

IN 1968, THE LOKPAL BILL WAS PASSED IN LOK SABHA BUT ENDED WITH THE DISSOLUTION OF LOK SABHA AND HAS SINCE EXPIRED IN LOK SABHA SEVERAL TIMES.

BY 2011 EIGHT ATTEMPTS WERE MADE TO PASS THE BILL, BUT ALL FAILED.

IN 2002, THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW COMMISSION HEADED BY M.N. VENKATACHALIAH COMMENDED THE APPOINTMENT OF LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS; ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE PM BE KEPT OUTSIDE THE DOMAIN OF THE AUTHORITIES.

IN 2005, THE SECOND COMMISSION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGE LED BY VEERAPPA MOILY RECOMMENDED THAT LOKPAL'S OFFICE BE ESTABLISHED WITHOUT DELAY.

IN 2011, THE GOVERNMENT FORMED A CABINET OF MINISTERS, LED BY PRANAB MUKHERJEE TO PROPOSE WAYS TO TACKLE CORRUPTION AND SCRUTINIZE THE PROPOSAL OF THE LOKPAL BILL.

THE "INDIA AGAINST CORRUPTION MOVEMENT" LED BY ANNA HAZARE PUT PRESSURE ON THE UNITED PROGRESSIVE ALLIANCE (UPA) GOVERNMENT AT THE CENTER AND RESULTED IN THE PASSING OF THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS BILLS, 2013, IN BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.

IT RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE PRESIDENT ON 1 JANUARY 2014 AND TOOK OFFICE ON 16 JANUARY 2014.


LOKPAL CONSTITUTES 


LOKPAL IS A MULTI-MEMBER BODY, CONSISTING OF ONE CHAIRMAN AND NOT MORE THAN 8 MEMBERS.

THE CHAIRMAN OF LOKPAL SHOULD BE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA OR A FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR AN OUTSTANDING PERSON WITH IMPECCABLE INTEGRITY AND OUTSTANDING ABILITY, WITH SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE FOR AT LEAST 25 YEARS IN MATTERS OF ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, SURVEILLANCE, FINANCE INCLUDING INSURANCE AND BANKING AND MANAGEMENT.

OF THE TOP EIGHT MEMBERS, HALF WILL BE MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY AND AT LEAST 50% OF THE MEMBERS WILL BE FROM SC / ST / OBC / MINORITIES AND WOMEN.

A MEMBER OF THE LOKPAL JUDICIARY CAN BE A FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OR A FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT.

A NON-JUDICIAL MEMBER MUST BE A PROMINENT PERSON WITH IMPECCABLE INTEGRITY AND OUTSTANDING ABILITY, WITH SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERTISE OF 25 YEARS IN MATTERS RELATING TO ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, OVERSIGHT, FINANCE INCLUDING INSURANCE AND BANKS, LAW AND ADMINISTRATION. .

THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF LOKPAL IS 5 YEARS OR UP TO 70 YEARS.

MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE.

THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE IS MADE UP OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CHAIRPERSON; SPEAKER OF LOK SABHA, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION PARTY IN LOK SABHA, CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA OR A JUDGE APPOINTED BY HIM AND ONE PROMINENT LAWYER.

IN ELECTING THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS, THE SELECTION COMMITTEE COMPRISES A SEARCH TEAM OF AT LEAST EIGHT PEOPLE.



LOKPAL COMMITTEE


UNDER THE LOKPAL ACT OF 2013, DOPT MUST COMPILE A LIST OF CANDIDATES FOR THE LOKPAL CHAIRMANSHIP OR MEMBERSHIP.

THE LIST WILL THEN BE FORWARDED TO THE PROPOSED EIGHT-MEMBER SEARCH COMMITTEE, WHICH WILL SELECT THE NAMES AND PRESENT THEM TO THE SELECTION PANEL LED BY THE PRIME MINISTER.

THE SELECTION PANEL MAY OR MAY NOT CHOOSE THE NAMES RECOMMENDED BY THE SEARCH COMMITTEE.

IN SEPTEMBER 2018, THE GOVERNMENT ESTABLISHED A SEARCH COMMITTEE LED BY HIGH COURT JUDGE JUSTICE RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI.

THE 2013 ACT ALSO PROVIDES THAT ALL PROVINCES MUST ESTABLISH A LOKAYUKTA OFFICE WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACT.



 




CONCLUSION 

Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 provided for the establishment of the Lokpal Union and the Lokayukta Provinces.

These institutions are statutory bodies that have no constitutional status.

They perform the duties of an “ombudsman” and inquire about allegations of corruption against certain government employees and related matters
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more