Skip to main content

Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013

 Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013

The administration is very important for any management. Maladministration is like a termite that slowly erodes the foundation of the nation. The administration is important to the regulation of the government. These days corruption is considered as one of the root causes of mis -administration. Various organizations are working against corruption. These agencies are hardly independent, due to which it is hard to limit the scope of corruption.

In 2011, India was ranked 95th in the corruption perceptions index of transparency international. It was seen that India lost a staggering dollar of 462 billion in illicit financial flows due to tax evasion. This shows that it was immensely important to take steps to cure the corruption.

Lokpal act is considered a very important act, as it is an anti-corruption act of the Indian parliament in India. The bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 22 December 2011 and was passed by the house on 27th December as the Lokpal bill 2011. On 29th December, this bill was tabled in front of Rajya sabha. This bill was debatable and rejected by the parliament, it came into force on 16 th January. After the introduction of this act, there was a huge protest public one such protest is known as Anna Hazare and his associates.

There is a long history of the Lokpal bill. This article only discusses the origin of the act. This act is not an Indian concept instead this concept originated in 1809 with the official inauguration of the institution of ombudsman in Sweden. This concept developed at the time of world war -2 . in 1961, Great Britain adopted the institution of the ombudsman by the Whyatt report 1961. In India, the former law minister Ashok Kumar sen became the first Indian to propose the concept of constitutional ombudsman in parliament in the early 1960s. In 2011, this bill was finally passed.

 In 2016, the Lokpal Act was amended. This amendment enabled the leader of the single largest opposition party in Lok Sabha to become a member of the selection committee in the absence of a recognized leader of the opposition. Section 44 was also amended, in this section 30 days, the period was replaced with the declaration of their assets and liabilities in the form and manner as prescribed by the government.

The committee consisted of 8 members; former chief justice of India, the former judge of the supreme court, a person who must possess special knowledge and minimum experience of 25 years in matters related to anti-corruption, public administration, vigilance, finance including insurance and banking and law and management.

The maximum number of members must not exceed eight members. The term of Lokpal chairman and the member can hold the office for 5 years or till the time person   70years old.  These members are pointed by the president and the selection committee. The selection committee consists of the Prime Minister, Speaker of Lok Sabha, the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha, Chief Justice of India, or any judge nominated by the chief justice of India and one eminent jurist.


Comments

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

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

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