Lokpal Bill Public Consultation

Ravi Kumar .B Says:
# A2759LB May 31st, 2011 at 6:31 pm

We (the common man) have been harassed in private companies and the employees are not given respect as they deserve. So many employees have committed suicide attributing to increased stress levels and humiliation by Floor managers, Team leaders, CEOs etc. The employees are forced to work extrahours against Govt. rules without providing proper wages and hikes. The employees are given respect when the employee belongs to particular caste and supported by the same caste employed in that particular private companies for example: Malayalam, Tamil, Hindi etc. Only for these people's gets hikes and wages are more.

Harassment is also made in private educational institutions (Schools and Colleges) by asking heavy donations; due to which common man is not able to provide good education to their children and this leads to poverty, poor being poorer and poorest.

I request “Private companies CEOs; the president, chancellors, vice chancellors of private and Govt instutitions” should be brought under Lokpal.

The Lokayuktha of state should monitor, investigate all the trails with regards to corruption in the above mentioned areas, and the corrupt should be punished.

I somewhere feel that Educational institutions heads in the State all are involved in these type of corruptions and making lot of black money by squeezing comman man’s blood by demanding heavy donations.

Hope Lokpal bill will bring an end to this.

RK BHAYANA Says:
# A2758LB May 31st, 2011 at 6:00 pm

KINDLY DON'T GIVE UP. PLEASE BE DETERMINED AND DON'T ACCEPT NOT COVERAGE OF PM, JUDICIARY AND MP.WE ARE IN SUPPORT.

S.p.singh (Retired Income Tax Inspector), Says:
# A2755LB May 31st, 2011 at 4:49 pm

ऐसा लगता है कि प्रस्तुत लोक पाल बिल को ड्राफ्ट करने में बहुत मेहनत कि गई है और जैसा की ड्राफ्ट बिल में लोकपाल के संरक्षण की बात की गई है
27. Protection-
(1) No suit, prosecution, or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Chairperson or
members or against any officer, employee, agency or person referred to in Section 14(4) in respect of
anything which is in good faith done while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duties under this Act.
(2) No proceedings of the Lokpal shall be held to be bad for want of form and except on the ground of
jurisdiction, no proceedings or decision of the Lokpal shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed
or called in question in any court of ordinary Civil Jurisdiction.
इस बिल को ड्राफ्ट करने वाले प्रबुद्ध सज्जनों से एक सवाल यह है की उपरोक्त संरक्षण की बात भारत में लागू आज तक के सभी कानूनों एवं अधिकारों को निष्पादित करने वाले सभी अधिकरियों को यह संरक्षण प्राप्त है आपके प्रस्तावित विधेयक में यह बात कहीं नहीं है की इन सब बातो के होते हुए भी लोकपाल कुछ कार्यवाही करने में सक्षम होगा इसलिए इस और ध्यान देना जरूरी है नहीं तो लोकपाल बेचारा कानूनी दावँ-पेंच में फंस कर रह जायगा ?

दूसरी बात यह कि कमसे कम लोकपाल के पद पर आसीन होने वाला व्यक्ति अविवाहित/या संतान रहित होना चाहिए नहीं तो जो बीमारी समाज में लगी हुई है और जिसके मिटाने के लिए यह सब किया जा रहा है उस भाई भतीजा वाद को कोई रोक शकता है ?

तीसरी बात - क्या किसी व्यक्ति जिसके खिलाफ लोकपाल कार्यवाही कर रहा है उसको अपने डिफेन्स में वकील लाने अनुमति होगी

Sanjay Says:
# A2754LB May 31st, 2011 at 4:18 pm

in lokpal bil ,it must included ,Police department of states shoulbe under Lokpal or it is removed from under ministry.
As it is under ministry ,local leders impress, presurrise ploce to act accordingly and it influence the police proceeding
SO I suggest Police Department should be independant

S K Rungta Jaipur Says:
# A2752LB May 31st, 2011 at 2:47 pm

Either Prime Minister or Chief Justice of India can be excluded from the Lokpal Bill rest of every body and every where people like MP, MLA, Ministers, IAS, IRS, IPS, IFS, IJS, and other Govt officers may be senior or Junior every body should be under Lokpal

Pankaj Sachdeva Says:
# A2751LB May 31st, 2011 at 2:37 pm

I have marked changes in section 18. The key change is : The public authority shall either comply with with (by default if no response) .. If no response then public authority will be held responsible for further harm/damage if lokpal’s recommendation not complied with.
You can view the changes in REVIEW PANE of the word document attached.

Rahul Pardeshi Says:
# A2749LB May 31st, 2011 at 2:01 pm

Dear Concerned,

I would like to give my suggestions that in Lokpal bill prime ministers, judiciary should be also in the purview of lokpal bill. if the CBI has the right to investigate Prime Minister why should lokpal. If independent agency investigates PM than it will be more transparent than any other agency investigating which is ultimately under the control of govt.

Also all CBI, CVC and departmental vigilance should merge with lokpal because there should integrated inquiry so that time, energy and money of the govt. is not wasted and there is no point in having multiple agency for the same case let's be more professional than like just babus.

Anil Kumar Vasu Says:
# A2745LB May 31st, 2011 at 11:39 am

In the last 63 years of civilian rule, everthing that has been left to the legislative & executive have failed in providing clean governance. The only ray of hope for Citizen of India has been the judiciary. Since the judiciary is an independent body it has been able to deliver to a certain extent. Anything can go wrong when power is cencentrated within a group of individuals. Let the Judiciary be left independent of the Lokpal provisions. In case tomorrow someone wants to compain againts a panel member of the Lokpal, then there is nothing like an independent Judiciary

B G Prabhakumar Says:
# A2730LB May 31st, 2011 at 8:49 am

Respected members of the committee,
I am a retired class-I officer of Govt. of Karnataka. Please permit me to put forth certain suggestions to the Bill being drafted. These suggestions are given out the harassment meted out to me and my two other colleagues towards the fag end of our career under the provisions of Karnataka Lokayukta Act by the then Lokayukta of Karnataka at the instance of my colleagues who were out to prevent me from occupying the post of the head of the department . It happened in the year 2003. As such, reference to Lokayukta in my suggestions below do not refer to Hon’ble Justice Mr Santosh Hegde.
It would be useful if Karnataka High Court decision ( Justice N. Kumar ) Prof Hegde vs Karnataka Lokayukta is taken note while drafting the provisions.
For each suggestion, I have narrated in bracket what happened in our case.

Sl No Suggestion Explanation.
1 All complaints must be entertained only after due affidavit and accused person be given an opportunity to offer remarks.
In my case there was no complaint as required under KLA Act. But after recording the evidence of witnesses my departmental colleagues who were determined to sabotage my prospect, affidavit was taken from a person who was not an aggrieved person by the Lokayukta to satisfy the law.
2 If suo moto investigation powers. If suo moto investigation powers are conferred it must be ensured that principles of natural justice is ensured in the matter of follow up action to prevent undue harassment.
3 The Lokpal or the Authority vested with power to investigate should not prejudge the allegations and go to press or media unless the investigation is completed. Otherwise, the Lokpal will be prejudiced in the matter of investigation and forced to hold the accused person guilty to save his face.

In our case, the Lokayukta went to the press/media as soon as the recording of evidence was commenced and the media was pursuing the progress. The result was a prejudiced one sided investigation and a prejudicial report to substantiate the committed initial media briefing.

4 Protection from interested witnesses In our case, the entire report of the Lokayukta was based on the deposition of three on my departmental colleagues who had their own agenda. As subsequent event proved, my junior who was one of the three witnesses deposed before Lokayukta superseded me in the matter of promotion on account of lokayukta enquiry pending against me and he was promoted. This is clear case as to how even well meaning the then Lokayukta’s office was misused by vested interest. .

5 The procedure of investigation to be defined incorporating
the principles of natural justice. Section 9 of Karnataka Lokayukta Act empowers Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta to evolve their own procedure of investigation. Karnataka High Court has held ( Prof Hegde vs Karnataka Lokayukta ) that the proceedings before Lokayukta ia quasi-judicial proceedings and hence principles of natural justice ( opportunity to cross examine the witnesses ) must be followed. In our case the witnesses were not allowed to be cross examined
6 The report must be a speaking report in that the evidence as well as the plea / issues brought in the cross examination must be discussed while arriving at the decision in our case such analysis is made . Only a passing reference that the replies given by us is not tenable is made in the report.

7 If the departmental enquiry is suggested after the investigation, the Enquiry Officer must someone who is not sub-ordinate to Lokapal in our case the lokayukta in his report sought to hold the enquiry himself and the Govt. acceded to the same. Needless to mention that the outcome of such an enquiry.

8 Judicial proceedings are expensive and long drawn process . Please evolve a speedy disposal procedure.
In our case we had to approach High Court of Karnataka. The single judge order is our favour but the Govt. and the Lokayukta have preferred appeal. As a result, our pension benefits that we rightfully deserved are held up. It is now more than 7 years. Now we have to defend the case and needless to state that defending the case in the High Court is expensive and ultimately, the pension benefits would be as good as denied.

Shubhanan Bakre Says:
# A2711LB May 31st, 2011 at 1:55 am

There should be provision in the bill to also protect immediate family of the whistleblowers from physical or professional harm. Case in point is the Ruchika case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruchika_Girhotra_Case) where family members were pressurized and harassed by the guilty party.
From the current draft it is not clear if this provision is present.