Thursday, December 15, 2011

Current Affairs – 13th December

 
 

Sent to you by Bhargaw via Google Reader:

 
 

via Prep4Civils by Ram on 12/13/11

Join the debate on : The war in Afganisthan @ www.prep4civils.com/debates

  • Inaugurating a National conference of Jawahar Lal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh said that the Government is considering the establishment of a credit risk guarantee fund of 1000 crore rupees (with in the current year) to encourage banks to lend to the poor. Presently, Urban India generates two thirds of the GDP and its population is projected to increase from 377 million today to 600 million by 2031. He added that for harvesting the demographic opportunity of young India, it is important to focus on livelihood opportunities in Industry and Service Sectors and improving productivity in Agricultural Sector and urged to pay greater attention to the participatory approach for delivery of services and strongly advocated encouraging private public partnership. Citizen Charter for delivery of services could be instituted to ensure that public services and private sector services providers are indeed made accountable to citizens. Prime Minister also referred to several other challenges including sustainability concerns besides use of E-Governance to fast-track the development of cities across the country.
  • The government has so far approved 49 projects for establishing Cold-storage chain facilities in the country. Food Processing Industry Ministry has also facilitating creation of post harvest processing infrastructure with a view to reduce wastages of produce through its various schemes of financial assistance being implemented in this sector.
  • The Lok Sabha is now discussing a Bill to further amend the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, 1995 to replace an Ordinance promulgated by the President on 25th October, this year, that will bring transparency in cable TV operations. It will intend to reduce dependency on the Television Rating Points (TRP's) by the channels, entirely digitize cable TV operations across the country by 2014 and will curb the illegal activities of some unscrupulous operators.
  • The government has also set up a two-tier self-regulatory 13 member body to monitor television broadcast contents, and has proposed a broadcast regulatory Bill to deal with the situation. The bill will introduce digital system which will enable regulatory agencies to exercise supervision over illegal activities indulged in by some unscrupulous elements.
  • Odisha government has prepared a State Action Plan on Climate Change under eleven sectors including agriculture, water, coastal and disaster, energy, health and industry with a total budgetary provision of over 17,000 crores for five years in response to the request made the Environment and Forests Ministry.
  • India is the first country in the world to initiate steps as a pilot project in 21 states for screening of the entire population to detect cancer, cardio vascular diseases and stroke. Under the project, the Centre is providing equipment, human resource and facilities for Chemotherapy for 100 patients in each selected district.
  • The government is implementing a scheme to provide financial assistance for setting up of Integrated Re-Cycling facilities for e-waste on a public-private-partnership mode. E-waste management and handling rules notified this year will come into effect from May next year.
  • Government has decided to develop 35 tourist cities through Public Private Partnership (in phases) in the next five years to attract more tourists in the country. Tourism Ministry has appointed a National level consultant, which is in the process of identification of the four tourist circuits and two rural clusters in each State.
  • In Tunisia, Moncef Marzouki has been elected as the new President of the country. He will serve for a year until the constitution is re-written and new elections are held. Tunisia became the birth-place of the Arab Spring uprisings in January when protests forced Ben Ali, in power for more than 23 years, to flee to Saudi Arabia.
  • US President Obama has asked Iran to return a military drone (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) captured by Iranian forces by hacking into the plane's control systems earlier this month. Washington has maintained that the drone had probably malfunctioned. Meanwhile, Iran has said that it is in the final stages of unlocking the aircraft's software secrets and its next action will be to reverse-engineer the aircraft. Thus in the near future, they will be able to mass produce it. (lol)
  • The current OPEC President, Iran has called upon the member nations to roll back their oil output to Pre Libyan war levels since Libyan has already begun exporting the oil. While a day ahead of the crucial OPEC ministers meeting in Vienna, the member nations are trying to work out a consensus on the oil production targets. 12 member cartel of oil exporting nations (OPEC) fixes the output targets of oil every year.
  • The Indian rupee dropped 56 paise to a historic low of Rs 53.40 per dollar in early trade today. While the euro fell to its lowest level in two weeks amid renewed concerns on the region's sovereign debt crisis.
  • The United Nations Human Rights Commissioner Navi Pillay has told the U.N. Security Council that more than 5,000 people have been killed in the crackdown on protesters in Syria. Thus urged to UNSC for its timely action.
  • The Canadian government has introduced a ban on the wearing of veils while swearing the oath of citizenship.

Source: UPSC _ UPDATES

Note: Keywords are in BOLD letters, UPSC may ask about it.


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Durban deal — now comes the far, far harder part

 
 

Sent to you by Bhargaw via Google Reader:

 
 

via Prep4Civils by Bharath Vaishnov on 12/14/11

This article discusses the aftermath of climate change summit at Durban

  • at Durban countries agreed to following
    1. to arrive at a legally binding agreement for both developed and developing nations by 2015
    2. the agreement must come into force by 2020
  • the time to arrive at an agreement is short while issues to be resolved are complex

Issues

  • getting an agreement that all countries sign up to will be intensely complicated.
  • Any new agreement will come down to targets
  • By 2015, the world's people will demand greater action as the evidence of future damage becomes clear
    • If energy bills continue to rise as they have, people will eventually start to manage their demand much more efficiently than now
  • a temperature rise of 2 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels is estimated to be the limit beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic and irreversible
  • Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculates that emissions must peak by 2020 at the latest and fall rapidly thereafter
  • Carbon output must be roughly halved by mid-century, compared with 1990.
  • increasing evidence shows that human activity is harming the climate and a clearer picture of what the consequences will be is emerging
  • historic emissions is another contentious issues
    1. industrialized countries started burning fossil fuels earlier and so bear responsibility for most of the CO2 already in the atmosphere
    2. However countries that  have invested heavily in renewable in recent years will all want credit for these actions
  • Countries with large forests provide a valuable service in absorbing carbon, while others' have less opportunity to use low-carbon power
  • India's stand
    1. India insisted that equity — taking into account developing countries' economic capabilities, large populations still to be lifted out of poverty, and low responsibility for historic emissions — must be the foundation of the negotiations.
  • However vast quantities of carbon being poured into the atmosphere have made historic emissions less relevant
  • US on other hand has insisted that there are other means to tackle climate change than emission cuts
    1. such as black carbon and HFCs, both of which have warming effects
  • Funding problem
    1. Developing countries have been promised $100 billion a year by 2020 in order to help them move to a green economy and cope with the effects of climate change
    2. However how funds would be made available has not been finalized yet
  • For years, the question of whether countries needed to sign a legally binding international treaty or could simply make national commitments that could later be changed has been one of the most contentious issues.
  • At Durban, those arguing for a legally binding outcome won

 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

Sunday, December 11, 2011

AN INTRODUCTION OF THE LOKPAL BILL, 2011

 
 

Sent to you by Bhargaw via Google Reader:

 
 

via India Current Affairs by India Current Affairs on 12/10/11


INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Lokpal Bill, 2011 was introduced* in the Lok Sabha on 4th August, 2011. It was referred§§ by the Hon'ble Chairman, Rajya Sabha to the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on the 8th August, 2011 for examination and report.

1.2 The Bill (Annexure-A) seeks to provide for the establishment of the institution of Lokpal to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereon.

1.3. The Statement of Objects and Reasons, appended to the Bill reads as under:- "The need to have a strong and effective institution of Lokpal has been felt for quite sometime. The Administrative Reforms Commission , in its interim report on the 'problems of Redressal of Citizens' Grievances submitted in 1966, inter alia  recommended the setting up of an institution of Lokpal at the Centre in this regard.

To give effect to this recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, eight Bills on Lokpal were introduced in the Lok Sabha in the past, namely in the years 1968, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2001. However, these Bills had lapsed consequent upon the dissolution of the respective Lok Sabha except in the case of 1985 Bill which was withdrawn after its introduction.

A need has been felt to constitute a mechanism for dealing with complaints on corruption against public functionaries in high places. In this regard, the Central Government constituted a Joint Drafting Committee (JDC) on 8th April, 2011 to draft a Lokpal Bill.

Based on the deliberation and having regard to the need for establishing a strong and effective institution of Lokpal to inqjuire into allegation of corruption against certain public functionaries, it has been decided to enact a stand alone legislation, inter alia to provide for the following matters, namely :-

(i) to establish an Institution of Lokpal with a Chairperson and eight Members of which fifty per cent shall be Judicial Members;

(ii) to set up Lokpal's own Investigation Wing and Prosecution Wing with such officers and employees a felt by it to be necessary;

(iii) the category of public functionaries against whom allegation of corruption are to be inquired into, namely :-

a. a Prime Minister, after he has demitted office;
b. a Minister of the Union;
c. a Member of Parliament;
* Published in Gazette of India (Extraordinary) Part-II Section 2 dated 4th August,, 2011.
Rajya Sabha Parliamentary Bulletin Part-II (No.1937) dated 9th August, 2011.
1
d. any Group "A" officer or equivalent;
e. a Chairperson or member or officer equivalent to Group "A" in any body, Board, corporation, authority, company, society, trust, autonomous body established by an Act of Parliament or wholly or partly financed or controlled by the Central Government;

f. any director, manager, secretary or other officer of a society or association of persons or trust wholly or partly financed or aided by the Government or in receipt of any donations from the public and whose annual income exceeds such amount as the Central Government may be notification specify but the organizations created for religious purposes and receiving public donations would be outside the purview of the Lokpal.

(iv) To provide for a mechanism to ensure that no sanction or approval under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, will be required in cases here prosecution is proposed by the Lokpal.

(v) to confer on the Lokpal the power of search and seizures and certain powers of a Civil Court;

(vi) To empower the Lokpal or any investigation officer authorized by it in this behalf to attach property which, prima facie, has been acquired by corrupt means;

(vii) To lay down a period of limitation of seven years from the date of commission of alleged offence for filing the complaints before the Lokpal;

(viii) To confer powers of police upon Lokpal which the police officers have in connection with investigation;

(ix) To charge the expenses of Lokpal on the Consolidated Fund of India;

(x) to utilize services of officers of Central or State Government with the consent of the State Government for the purpose of conducting inquiry;

(xi) To recommend transfer or suspension of public servants connected with allegation of corruption;

(xii) To constitute sufficient number of Special Courts as may be recommended by the Lokpal to hear and decide the cases arising out of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 under the proposed enactment;

(xiii) To make every public servant to declare his assets and liabilities, and in case of default or furnishing misleading information, to presume that the public servant has acquired such assets by corrupt means;

(xiv) To provide for prosecution of persons who make false or frivolous or vexatious complaints.

The notes on clauses explain in detail the various provisions contained in the Bill. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."

1.4. In slight deviation from the normal procedure followed by Standing Committees for examination of Bills, there was a detailed discussion on the statement of the Minister of Finance on the issues relating to the setting up of the Lokpal in both the Houses of Parliament on the 27th August, 2011. These proceedings were also transmitted to the Committee. The Rajya Sabha Secretariat communication dated the 30th August, 2011 in this behalf addressed to the Chairman, Standing Committee, reads as follows:-

"I am directed to inform you that the Chairman, Rajya Sabha, has desired that the proceedings of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha dated the 27th August, 2011 pertaining to the discussion on the statement made by the Minister of Finance on issues relating to setting up of Lok Pal may be transmitted to the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law & Justice for its perusal while formulating its recommendations on the Lok Pal Bill,. 2011. Accordingly, a copy each of the relevant proceedings of the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha is enclosed for your kind perusal."

1.5. The discussion in the two Houses of Parliament was in the backdrop of divergent views in the Joint Drafting Committee constituted by the Government for preparing a draft on the Lokpal Bill. The Committee consisted of five nominees of the Civil Society (led by Shri Anna Hazare) and five nominees of the Government. Initiating discussion in both the Houses, Hon'ble Finance Minister gave a background of the matter leading to holding of discussion in Parliament on the setting up of Lokpal. He enumerated the following six major areas of divergent views in the Joint Drafting Committee:-

i. Should one single Act be provided for both the Lokpal in the Centre and Lokayukt in the State? Would the State Governments be willing to accept a draft provision for the Lokayukt on the same lines as that of the Lokpal?

ii. Should the Prime Minister be brought within the purview of the Lokpal? If the answer is in affirmative, should there be a qualified inclusion?

iii. Should Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts be brought within the purview of the Lokpal?

iv. Should the conduct of Members of Parliament inside Parliament, their right to speak and right to vote in the House, be brought within the purview of the Lokpal? Presently such actions of the Members of Parliament are covered by article 105(2) of the Constitution?

v. Whether Articles 311 and 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution notwithstanding members of a civil service of the Union or an All India Service or a Civil Service of a State or a person holding a civil post under the Union or State, be subject to enquiry and disciplinary action including dismissal and removal by the Lokpal and Lokayukta, as the case may be?

vi. What should be the definition of the Lokpal, and should it itself exercise quasijudicial powers also or delegate these powers to its subordinate officers?"

1.6. Apart from other issues, the following three issues were discussed in both the Houses:-

i. Whether the jurisdiction of the Lokpal should cover all employees of the Central Government?

ii. Whether it will be applicable through the institution of the Lokayukt in all States?

iii. Whether the Lokpal should have the power to punish all those who violate the 'grievance redressal mechanism' to be put in place?

1.7. During the discussion in Parliament, Members demonstrated serious commitment to evolve an effective mechanism to deal with the menace of corruption. The discussion covered several related issues as well, besides the three specific issues referred to above. Members discussed the need to bring all classes of bureaucracy within the fold of the Lokpal while expressing apprehensions about the overburdening of the institution. Similarly, Members were concerned about preservation of the federal spirit of our Constitution. The issue of bringing the grievance redressal mechanism under the Lokpal or having a separate law for this purpose was also discussed.

(A gist of the debate in both the Houses is placed as Annexure B).

1.8. In his reply to the debate, the Minister of Finance concluded in both the Houses in these words:-

" This House agrees in principle on the Citizens Charter, Lower Bureaucracy to be brought under Lokpal through appropriate mechanism and Establishment of Lok Ayuktas in the States. I will request you to transmit the proceedings to the Department-related Standing Committee for its perusal while formulating its recommendations for a Lokpal Bill."

1.9. The deliberations in the two Houses of Parliament gave guidance to the Committee in the accomplishment of the task assigned to it. The Committee, however, also had before it vast inputs on the subject from various sources. Recommending an appropriate legislative architecture for the purpose was a complex task for the Committee as it was to propose a solution which harmonized and married the concerns of constitutional validity, operational efficacy and consensus amongst the diverse views reflected in the Committee's deliberations. The Members of the Committee, however, have put in their best possible efforts to deal with the essence of the opinions expressed by the House collectively. The diverse pool of knowledge of the Members, opinions of eminent experts and the suggestions received from a comprehensive and diverse cross-section of society helped the Committee to formulate solutions taking into account the aspects of functional feasibility and constitutional validity in addition to political consensus.
1.10. In order to have a broader view on the Bill, the Committee decided to invite views/suggestions on the issue from desirous individuals/organizations. Accordingly, a press release was issued inviting views/suggestions. In response to the press release published in major English and Hindi dailies all over India on the 20th August, 2011,
a number of representations/ memoranda were received. The Committee received approximately 10,000 responses from different sections of society.
1.11. The Committee also forwarded 216 select memoranda from out of the ones received from the individuals/organizations to the Department of Personnel and Training for their comments thereon. A list of such memoranda along with the gist of views/ suggestions contained therein and the comments of the Department of Personnel and Training thereon is placed at Annexure- C.

SCR Lokpal Bill 2011.pdf   (pdf 1171K )  Download  


 
 

Things you can do from here:

 
 

The Concept of Lokpal : Evolution and Parliamentary History

 
 

Sent to you by Bhargaw via Google Reader:

 
 

via India Current Affairs by India Current Affairs on 12/10/11

THE CONCEPT OF LOKPAL : EVOLUTION AND PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY

3.1. There can be no denial of the fact that corruption has always remained a significant and highly relevant issue to be dealt with in our country. This stands corroborated from the findings of various international bodies like the World Bank, Transparency International and other organizations, which have consistently rated India quite low on this facet. Concerns have repeatedly arisen, in and out of Parliament, for putting in place appropriate mechanisms to curb corruption. But the Lokpal concept has had an interesting and chequered history in India.

3.2. The initial years following independence witnessed legislators conveying the people's concerns to the Government over the issue of corruption through raising of questions and debates in Parliament. At that time, the scope of the debates was contextually confined to seeking information from the Government about its anti-corruption measures and to discussions regarding the formation of anti-corruption committees/agencies and vigilance bodies to put a check on corruption, but it clearly reflected the seriousness on the issue of corruption in the minds of Members. Acknowledging the need for a thorough consideration of the issue, the Government set-up a Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri K. Santhanam to review the existing instruments for checking corruption in Central Government. The Committee inter alia recommended the creation of an apex body for exercising superintendence and control over the vigilance administration. In pursuance of the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee, the Government established the Central Vigilance Commission through a Resolution on 11.02.1964. The Commission was concerned with alleged bureaucratic corruption and did not cover alleged ministerial corruption or grievances of citizens against maladministration. While laying the report on the creation of the CVC on the table of the House, the then Deputy Home Minister1, interestingly, recognized that the Commission would be overburdened if the responsibility to redress the citizens' grievances against corruption were to be placed

1 Statement made by the then Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Home Affairs, Smt. Maragatham Chandrasekhar in the Rajya Sabha on 16th December, 1963, Rajya Sabha Debates, Vol. XLV, No. 21, P.3572. upon it and the Commission might, as a result, be less effective in dealing with the core problem of corruption.

3.3. While the country had been grappling with the problem of corruption at different levels including at the level of Parliament, there emerged globally, and especially in the Scandinavian countries, the concept of Ombudsman to tackle corruption and/or to redress public grievances. A proposal in this regard was first initiated in the Lok Sabha on April 3, 1963 by the Late Dr. LM Singhvi, MP2. While replying to it, the then Law Minister observed that though the institution seemed full of possibilities, since it involved a matter of policy, it was for the Prime Minister to decide in that regard3. Dr. LM Singhvi then personally communicated this idea to the then Prime Minister, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru who in turn, with some initial hesitation, acknowledged that it was a valuable idea which could be incorporated in our institutional framework. On 3rd November, 1963, Hon'ble Prime Minister made a statement in respect of the possibilities of this institution and said that the system of Ombudsman fascinated him as the Ombudsman had an overall authority to deal with the charges of corruption, even against the Prime Minister, and commanded the respect and confidence of all4. Resolutions, in this behalf in April 1964 and April 1965 were again brought in the Lower House and on both occasions, during the course of discussions, the House witnessed near unanimous agreement about the viability, utility and desirability of such an institution5. However, in his resolution, the Member of Parliament (Dr. L.M. Singhvi) did not elaborate upon the functions/ powers of the institution, but instead asked for the appointment of a Committee of Members of Parliament who would consider all the complex factors relating to this institution and would come forward with an acceptable and consensual solution. While making a statement in the House on 23rd April, 1965, Dr. L.M. Singhvi elucidated the rationale of the institution as:

4 His initial hesitation to this idea was probably due to the Scandinavian origin of the nomenclature of the institution. In a lighter vein, he happened to ask Dr. L.M. Singhvi "To what zoo does this animal belong" and asked Shri Singhvi to indigenize the nomenclature of the institution. Dr. L.M. Singhvi then coined the term Lokpal / Lokayukta to modify the institution of Ombudsman to the Indian context (as related by Dr. L.M. Singhvi to the Chairman of this Committee). Also referred to by Mr. Arun Jaitley M.P. during the Parliament Debate on 27th August 2011. He started the debate in the Upper House thus:-"Now, 'Ombudsman' was a Scandinavian concept and, coincidentally, on 3rd April, 1963, then an Independent young Member of the Lok Sabha, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, in the course of his participation in a debate for having an Ombudsman in India, attempted to find out what the Indian equivalent could be, and this word 'Lokpal' was added to our vocabulary, the Hindi vocabulary, by Dr. L.M. Singhvi who translated this word."

5 Lok Sabha Debates dated 23rd April, 1965 P. 10839 – 40. "…..an institution such as the Ombudsman must be brought into existence in our country. It is for the sake of securing justice and for cleansing the public life of the augean stable of corruption, real and imaginary, that such an institution must be brought into existence. It is in order to protect those in public life and those in administration itself that such an institution must be brought into existence. It is to provide an alternative to the cold and protracted formality of procedure in course of law that such an institution should be brought into existence. There is every conceivable reason today which impels to the consideration that such an institution is now overdue in our country….6"

3.3A. The word Lokpal etymologically, means the "protector of the people". Adopting the famous Lincolnian phrase, it can also be seen as a protection/protector "of the people, by the people, for the people". The word 'Ombudsman', on the other hand, is rooted in the Old Norse language, essentially meaning "representative", i.e. an official charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens. Roman Law has also had a similar counterpart viz. the "tribunition role "of a person/institution, whose role was to intercede in the political process on behalf of common citizens and in Roman times was fulfilled by elected officials.

3.4. These efforts set the stage for evolving an institution like Ombudsman in India and consequently, the idea of Lokpal surfaced in the national legislative agenda. Later, the Government appointed an Administrative Reforms Commission which in its recommendation suggested a scheme of appointing Lokpal at Centre and Lokayuktas in each State7.

3.5. Thereafter, to give effect to the recommendations of the First Administrative Reforms Commission, eight Bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha from time to time. However, all these Bills lapsed consequent upon the dissolution of the respective Lok Sabhas, except in the case of the 1985 Bill which was subsequently withdrawn after its introduction. A close analysis of the Bills reflects that there have been varying approaches and shifting foci in scope and jurisdiction in all these proposed legislations. The first two Bills viz. of 1968 and of 1971 sought to cover the entire universe of bureaucrats, Ministers, public sector undertakings, Government controlled societies for acts and omissions relating to corruption, abuse of position, improper motives and mal-administration. The 1971 Bill, however, sought to exclude the Prime 6 Lok Sabha Debates dated 23rd April, 1965, P. 10844. It is ironic that something described as "overdue" in 1965 by the MP is being enacted in 2011!

7 Problems of Redress of Citizen and Grievances, Interim Report of the First Administrative Reforms Commission, 1966.

Minister from its coverage. The 1977 Bill broadly retained the same coverage except that corruption was subsequently sought to be defined in terms of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Additionally, the 1977 Bill did not cover maladministration as a separate category, as also the definition of "public man" against whom complaints could be filed did not include bureaucrats in general. Thus, while the first two Bills sought to cover grievance redressal in respect of maladministration in addition to corruption, the 1977 version did not seek to cover the former and restricted itself to abuse of office and corruption by Ministers and Members of Parliament. The 1977 Bill covered the Council of Ministers without specific exclusion of the Prime Minister.

The 1985 Bill was purely focused on corruption as defined in IPC and POCA and neither sought to subsume mal-administration or mis-conduct generally nor bureaucrats within its ambit. Moreover, the 1985 Bill impliedly included the Prime Minister since it referred to the office of a Minister in its definition of "public functionary".

The 1989 Bill restricted itself only to corruption, but corruption only as specified in the POCA and did not mention IPC. It specifically sought to include the Prime Minister, both former and incumbent.

Lastly, the last three versions of the Bill in 1996, 1998 and 2001, all largely;
(a) focused only on corruption;
(b) defined corruption only in terms of POCA;
(c) defined "public functionaries" to include Prime Minister, Ministers and MPs;
(d) did not include bureaucrats within their ambit.

3.6. The Lokpal Bill, 2011 enables the Lokpal to inquire into allegations made in a complaint against a 'public servant'. With the coining of this new term, the current Lokpal Bill, as proposed and as sent to this Committee, is distinct from the previous Bills mainly on the following counts:-

• Its jurisdiction is comparatively wider as it has widened the scope of 'public servant' by including the bureaucracy as also institutions and associations, wholly or partly financed or controlled by the Central Government or those who are in receipt of public money.

• It provides for separate investigation and prosecution wings of Lokpal
• It makes the declaration of assets by all 'public servants' mandatory and failure to do so liable to the presumption that such assets have been acquired by corrupt means.
• It is far more detailed and more inclusive then earlier versions, with a large number of principal and ancillary provisions not found in earlier versions.

3.7. It is thus clear that the concept of the institution of Lokpal has undergone vital and important changes over time keeping in view the changing socio-economic conditions and varying nature, level and pervasiveness of corruption in society.

3.8. Though the institution of Lokpal is yet to become a reality at the Central level, similar institutions of Lokayuktas have in fact been setup and are functioning for many years in several States. In some of the States, the institution of Lokayuktas was set up as early as in 1970s, the first being Maharashtra in 1972. Thereafter, State enactments were enacted in the years 1981 (M.P.), 1983 (Andhra Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh), 1984 (Karnataka), 1985 (Assam), 1986 (Gujarat), 1995 (Delhi), 1999 (Kerala), 2001 (Jharkhand), 2002 (Chhatisgarh) and 2003 (Haryana). At present, Lokayuktas are in place in 17 States and one Union Territory. However, due to the difference in structure, scope and jurisdiction, the effectiveness of the State Lokayuktas vary from State to State. It is noteworthy that some States like Gujarat, Karnataka, Bihar, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh have made provisions in their respective State Lokayuktas Act for suo motu investigation by the Lokpal. In the State Lokayukta Acts of some States, the Lokayukta has been given the power for prosecution and also power to ensure compliance of its recommendations. However, there is a significant difference in the nature of provisions of State Acts and in powers from State to State. Approximately nine States in India have no Lokayukta at present. Of the States which have an enactment, four States have no actual appointee in place for periods varying from two months to eight years.

SCR LOKPAL BILL 2011 FULL TEXT FROM HERE. . .


 
 

Things you can do from here: