Skip to main content

POWERS AND SUGGESTIONS RELATED TO LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA

 LOKPAL LOKAYUKTA JURISDICTION POWER AND SUGGESTIONS



LOKPAL JURISDICTION AND POWER


LOKPAL'S MANDATE INCLUDES THE PRIME MINISTER, MINISTERS, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT, OFFICIALS OF GROUPS A, B, C AND D AS WELL AS OFFICIALS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.

LOKPAL'S POWERS INCLUDE THE PRIME MINISTER WITHOUT ALLEGATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL CORRUPTION.LOKPAL HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE MINISTERS AND MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT IN THE MATTER OF ANYTHING SAID IN PARLIAMENT OR THE VOTE GIVEN THERE.

ITS AUTHORITY INCLUDES ANY PERSON IN CHARGE OR IN CHARGE (DIRECTOR / SUPERVISOR / SECRETARY) OF ANY PERSON / COMMUNITY SUSPENDED BY A CENTRAL ACT OR ANY OTHER FUNDED BODY / CONTROLLED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND ANY OTHER PERSON INVOLVED IN THE ACT OF AID, BRIBERY. GIVING OR BRIBING.

LOKPAL LAW MANDATES THAT ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS MUST PROVIDE THEIR ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AND THOSE WHO RELY ON THEM.

IT HAS THE POWER TO MANAGE, AS WELL AS PROVIDE CBI GUIDANCE.

IF LOKPAL APPEALS TO THE CBI, THE INVESTIGATOR IN SUCH A CASE WILL NOT BE REFERRED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF LOKPAL.

THE LOKPAL QUESTIONNAIRE HAS BEEN EMPOWERED IN THE CIVIL COURT.

LOKPAL HAS THE POWER TO CONFISCATE ASSETS, PROFITS, RECEIPTS AND PROFITS ARISING FROM OR OBTAINED FRAUDULENTLY IN SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

LOKPAL HAS THE POWER TO RECOMMEND A CHANGE OR SUSPENSION OF A PUBLIC SERVANT RELATED TO ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPTION.

LOKPAL HAS THE POWER TO PROVIDE GUIDELINES TO PREVENT THE DESTRUCTION OF RECORDS DURING THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION.


LIMITATIONS


THE LOKPAL CENTER HAS TRIED TO BRING ABOUT MUCH-NEEDED CHANGE IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION IN THE INDIAN ADMINISTRATION BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE ARE LOOPHOLES AND LACUNAE THAT NEED TO BE REPAIRED.

FIVE YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS ACT OF 2013 WAS PASSED BY PARLIAMENT, BUT NOT A SINGLE LOKPAL SO FAR HAS SHOWN A LACK OF POLITICAL WILL.

THE LOKPAL LAW HAS ALSO REQUIRED STATES TO APPOINT LOKAYUKTA WITHIN A YEAR TO TAKE EFFECT. BUT ONLY 16 DISTRICTS HAVE ESTABLISHED LOKAYUKTA.

LOKPAL IS NOT FREE FROM POLITICAL INFLUENCE AS THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE ITSELF CONSISTS OF MEMBERS FROM POLITICAL PARTIES. LOKPAL'S APPOINTMENT MAY BE PUT TO GOOD USE AS THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR DETERMINING WHO IS A 'SUPERIOR LAW' OR A 'SINCERE PERSON.'

THE 2013 LAW DID NOT PROVIDE MATERIAL PROTECTION FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS. THE PRINCIPLE OF INITIATING AN INVESTIGATION INTO A COMPLAINANT IF THE DEFENDANT IS FOUND NOT GUILTY WILL MAKE PEOPLE LESS LIKELY TO COMPLAIN.

THE LARGEST LACUNA IS THE REMOVAL OF JUSTICE IN THE LOKPAL AREA.

LOKPAL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND THERE IS NOT ENOUGH APPEAL. AGAINST LOKPAL.

SPECIFIC DETAILS REGARDING LOKAYUKTA'S APPOINTMENT HAVE BEEN LEFT ENTIRELY IN THE STATES.

TO SOME EXTENT, THE NEED FOR EFFECTIVE INDEPENDENCE OF THE CBI IS OFFSET BY THE CHANGES REFLECTED IN ITS DIRECTOR'S SELECTION PROCESS, THROUGH THIS ACT.

A COMPLAINT OF CORRUPTION CANNOT BE REGISTERED AFTER SEVEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ALLEGED COMPLAINT


SUGGESTIONS RELATED TO LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA 

SUGGESTIONS

TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM OF CORRUPTION, THE OMBUDSMAN’S INSTITUTION SHOULD BE STRENGTHENED WITH REGARD TO OPERATIONAL INDEPENDENCE AND STAFFING.

GREATER TRANSPARENCY, INCREASED ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND EMPOWERMENT OF CITIZENS AND CITIZEN GROUPS AND GOOD LEADERSHIP ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT TO PUBLIC SCRUTINY.

THE APPOINTMENT OF LOKPAL ITSELF IS NOT ENOUGH. THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS BASED ON WHETHER PEOPLE WANT LOKPAL. JUST ADDING TO THE POWER OF INVESTIGATIVE STRUCTURES WILL INCREASE THE SIZE OF GOVERNMENT BUT NOT IMPROVE GOVERNANCE. THE GOVERNMENT’S MOTTO OF “SMALL GOVERNMENT AND MORE GOVERNMENT”, SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN WRITING AND IN SPIRIT.

IN ADDITION, LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA SHOULD BE FINANCIALLY, ADMINISTRATIVELY AND LEGALLY INDEPENDENT OF THOSE CALLED UPON TO INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE.

THE APPOINTMENTS OF LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA SHOULD BE MADE TRANSPARENT IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE CHANCES OF THE ENTRY OF THE WRONG KIND OF PEOPLE.

THERE IS A NEED FOR A NUMBER OF INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE PROPERLY ALLOCATED TO POWER, IN ORDER TO AVOID THE ACCUMULATION OF TOO MUCH POWER IN ANY INSTITUTION OR AUTHORITY.


CONCLUSION 

NEGLECTED ADMINISTRATION IS LIKE TERMITES THAT SLOWLY DESTROY THE VERY FABRIC OF THE NATION AND PREVENT ITS MASTERS FROM COMPLETING THEIR WORK. CORRUPTION IS THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM.

MOST ANTI-CORRUPTION ORGANIZATIONS ARE NOT INDEPENDENT AT ALL. EVEN THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN CALLED BY THE CBI AS A “DETAINED PARROT” AND “THE VOICE OF ITS MASTER”.

MANY OF THESE INSTITUTIONS ARE COUNSELING CENTERS THAT DO NOT HAVE EFFECTIVE CAPACITY AND THEIR ADVICE IS RARELY FOLLOWED.

THERE IS ALSO THE PROBLEM OF INTERNAL TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY. MOREOVER, THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE AND EFFECTIVE WAY TO LOOK AT THESE INSTITUTIONS.

IN THIS CONTEXT, THE LOKPAL PRIVATE CENTER HAS BECOME A MILESTONE IN THE HISTORY OF INDIAN POLITICS THAT HAS PROVIDED A SOLUTION TO THE ENDLESS RISK OF CORRUPTION.
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