Anna Hazare has said that the Lokpal Bill should include in its purview the council of ministers and judiciary, including higher judiciary and regulatory authorities. The parliamentary standing committee on personal, public grievances, law and justice to which the proposed legislation for the anti-corruption ombudsman has been referred. In the Bill it has also recommended substantial reduction in the two year imprisonment clause for frivolous complaints. Among the debative issues of the proposed Lokpal Bill are the two year imprisonment clause for frivolous complaints and inclusion of the Prime Minister and the judiciary in its ambit. While the committee does not have much opposition against penalizing/ malafide complaints, it is certainly opposed to the quantum of punishment prescribed in the Bill. It will not only be a major deterrent for the prospective whistlebowlers, but also increase the possibility of misusing this provision. The committee therefore recommends that the penalty provided in clause 16 should be substantially reduced. The clause in question deals with two years imprisonment. The committee has also prescribed caution in pronouncing a complaint as frivolous/malafide,taking into account the intention of the complainant and not the outcome of the enquiry. On the inclusion of the ministers and judiciary in the ambit of the Bill, the committee took note of the submission that public servants were the instruments, rather than the doers and that the Bill looks only the public servants and ignores the main culprits.
The other diverse issues of the Bill is the exemption of defence/intelligence forces saying that DoPT's reasoning behind doing so doing was no cogent. The report says that since the Bill is ultimately aimed at tackling corruption, the committee does not find any logic reason behind such exemption. In June, the government had decided to grant RTI exemption to CBI.
The committee also took the view that if the facts mentioned in an anonymous complaint revelaed a prima facie case, then it should not be rejected merely for want of the complainant's identity, going on to say that if the identity is not revealed, that only made the protection of the complainant easier.
News Reported by AR
No comments:
Post a Comment