Specific Comments received from Public (Read All Comments 2047 comments)
465 commentsRishi Kumar. Says:
# A2615LB May 29th, 2011 at 8:23 am
Threatening a lokpal officer directly/indirectly will be deemed to prove corrupt intent.
This law should be explained to the accused, verbally, on every interaction with the accused.
Lokpal officer cannot use his position to settle personal disputes. If he misuses his position, he will be deemed corrupt. If a lokpal officer is investigating a case in which the accused had/has personal dispute with the officer, the officer/accused should declare the dispute at the starting of the case. The case can be passed over to a different officer.
Rishi Kumar. Says:
# A2612LB May 29th, 2011 at 7:19 am
If the investigating lokpal officer is directly/indirectly related to an accused, he should disclose his relationship to the accused and pass over the case to some other officer, without influencing him.
If the lokpal officer is found favoring an accused, he is deemed corrupt.
Rishi Kumar Says:
# A2607LB May 29th, 2011 at 6:55 am
Assault on a lokpal officer with an intent to jeopardize the investigation should carry a punishment of minimum 5 years in jail and a fine of 2 lakh rupees. If the fine is not paid, the punishment should be 6years imprisonment. It will also bar the person from running for an election or getting a government job.
Assault done (directly/indirectly) by an elected official/representative will lead to
1. Elected official is dismissed, re-election needs to be done.
2. Jail term of 15 years.
3. Fine of minimum 10 lakh rupee.
4. Can never contest any election. Cannot be appointed to a govt job. Cannot be part of political party.
Vijay Kapoor Says:
# A2577LB May 28th, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Failure to disclose / make public list of assets should be viewed as an act of corruption.
Lalhgehi Says:
# A2511LB May 27th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Re: [rtitimes] Some Suggestion for consideration by Lokpal Drafting Joint committee
I SUPPORT ANNA JI, AND BABA RAMDEV JI, ERASE CORRUPTION AND CORRUPT POLITICIANS FROM THE BLESSED SOIL OF BHARAT. Lal GehiFrom: Milap Choraria <milapchoraria@hotmail.com>To: vmoily@kar.nic.in; lokpalbillcomments@gmail.com; prashantbhush@gmail.com; parivartan_india@rediffmail.comCc: RTITIMES <rtitimes@freelists.org>;
rti-times-03@milapchoraria.com; rti-times-04@milapchoraria.com; rti-times-05@milapchoraria.com; rti-times-06@milapchoraria.com; rti-times-07@milapchoraria.com; morality-vs-realty@milapchoraria.com; rti-times-02@milapchoraria.comSent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 5:33 AMSubject: [rtitimes] Some Suggestion for consideration by Lokpal Drafting Joint committee
MILAP CHORARIA
B-5/52, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi-110085
Website: http://milapchoraria.tripod.com/msp / http://www.freelists.org/list/rtitimes
https://lists.riseup.net/www/arc/rti-times/ E-Mail: milap.choraria@yahoo.com
Dated: 26th May, 2011
To,
Respected All Members of Lokpal Bill Joint Drafting Committee,
Through : LAw Minister of India Mr. Veerappa Moily, Sri Prashant Bhusanji, and Sri Arvind Keejriwalji,
"MR. VEERAPPA MOILY" <vmoily@kar.nic.in>, lokpalbillcomments@gmail.com, prashant bhushan" <prashantbhush@gmail.com, "arvind arvind" parivartan_india@rediffmail.com,
Respected Sirs,
I may be allowed to submit following suggestions for the kind consideration by the Lokpal Bill Joint Drafting Committee:-
1. The person holding the office of the President, Prime Minister and Judges of Supreme Court and High Court should be accountable before the law thus within the ambit of the Lokpal Institution.
One of the basic fundamental principles of democracy is that everyone should be accountable before the law and system irrespective of his status or position. This principle is also applicable in USA, the most powerful democracy of the world. In fact only for this reason USA is powerful. We can cite the examples of Mr. Nixon and Mr. Bill Clinton.
Since the President, Prime Minister and Judges of Supreme Court and High Court are taking oath of the Constitution, it means they are accountable to adhere the proprietary and efficacy of the Constitution, and in case they do not adhere to the proprietary and efficacy of the Constitution, the citizen should have right to redress any grievances against them, by lodging a complaint before the Lokpal. If they are not covered within the ambit of accountability it means they are not accountable to Oath taken under the Constitution.
The definition of corruption should be defined in a clear language, without any ambiguity, so no one can misuse the Lokpal Institution for personal vendetta.
Whenever any complaint is lodges against any person holds office of the President, Prime Minister and Judges of Supreme Court and High Court, such complaint should be heard and investigated by and under the direct Supervision of Full Bench of Lokpal Institution.
Once prima-facie a case of corruption is made out by a complainant against any person holding the office of the President, Prime Minister and Judges of Supreme Court and High Court, same should be transferred to a High Court for trial, under the Criminal Procedure Code and or under Prevention of Corruption Act or under any other law, applicable in a particular matter.
2. The Members of the Lokpal Institution should be covered within the ambit of investigation by the Lokpal Institution.
Any complaint against any Member of the Lokpal Institution should be heard and investigated by and under direct Supervision of the Full Bench barring a member having under complaint.
3. With regard to any complaint against President, Prime Minister and Judges of Supreme Court and High Court or any Member of Lokpal, Full Bench means all the Members of the Lokpal Institution, except the respective member of the Lokpal Institution, against whom complaint is heard or investigated.
4. Property of the Private Parties, responsible for any damage to public properties/exchequer/revenue through any corrupt practices should be seized.
5. That according to Website of in the Lokpal Drafting Joint committee Meeting of 23rd May, 2011 an issue â
K.K.NARAIN Says:
# A2496LB May 27th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
DearSir,
I give below Three suggestions which may please be seriously considered:
1. Bribe taking should be made an offence and not bribe giving by amending the Rules.
Today a person is compelled to give bribe otherwise his genuine work is not done, but he cannot speak out for the fear that he will be legally punished for giving bribe. If rules are amended he can shout at top of his voice that so and so took bribe from him in order to do his work.
2. The Medicine manufacturers and Distributers finance foreign visits of the Doctors, sometimes with family, in the name of Seminars. There are instances when Dr. has gone to different countries two or three times in a year. The Doctor returns the courtesy by prescribing medicines of the manufacturer/distributor. They make up the expenditure incurred on financing visit of the Dr. by charging Rs. 50 per tablet whose manufacturing cost is only few paise. Thus the patients all over the country are being cheated specially by the Medical companies. Please introduce some check in the proposed Bill.
3. Every Govt. employee is assessed confidentially once a year. Similarly file for each political leader whether of Party in Power or in Opposition and those Officers and Employees who are in public dealing should be opened. A separate Cell should every year secretly investigate their assets and behavior and feed the information to the Lokpal for action against the culprits.
Thanks.
K.K.NARAIN
J Srinivasan Says:
# A2469LB May 27th, 2011 at 10:30 am
Amend Article 311 with Lokpal Bill
To: 27th May 2011 The Lokpal Bill PanelBangalore Public Consultation Respected Members of the Panel, I understand that our public consultation is on the Lokpal Bill itself and not on corruption. However, I read in the papers that one of the points that has already been agreed upon in the last meeting of the panel is to “do away with” the need of “sanction for prosecution” by the Lokpal. The very act of doing so indicates that this “sanction” is an impediment that has often ensured the guilty cannot be prosecuted. As far as I know, the original authority for this lies in Article 311 of the Constitution of India and is an aspect in IPC/CPC that inherits this. In the process of this exception being sought to be done away with for the Lokpal, the question arises WHY is it left in the statute at all in its current form? I ask this question as it is the tool that enables the “system” to offer protection to the bureaucrat who is willing to commit acts of omission and commission at the behest of the superiors who are ultimately the elected politicians in top jobs. Amending Art 311 itself while passing the Lokpal Bill will remove this in-built protection inherited from the British who had it to serve their own purpose. The amendment sought is to let the jurisdictional court decide if there is a prima facie case for investigation and / or prosecution. If bureaucrats at the lowest levels know they could be hauled to court by Aam Admi, it will, in itself, place limits on his obduracy and acts of omission & commission directly benefitting the Aam Admi. Below is the extract of Article 311 for ready reference. Thanking you,With kind regards,J. Srinivasan+91 9880020366Bangalore. The article 311 acts as a safeguard to civil servants. It reads as under: (1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. (2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges: Provided that where, it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply — (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. (3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final."The procedure laid down in Article 311 is intended to assure, first, a measure of security of tenure to Government servants, who are covered by the Article and secondly to provide certain safeguards against arbitrary dismissal or removal of a Government servant or reduction to a lower rank. These provisions are enforceable in a court of law. Where there is an infringement of Article 311, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority are void ab-initio and in the eye of law "no more than a piece of waste paper" and the Government servant will be deemed to have continued in service or in the case of reduction in rank, in his previous post throughout. Article 311 is of the nature of a proviso to Article 310. The exercise of pleasure by the President under Article 310 is thus controlled and regulated by the provisions of Article 311 Ø It is suggested that in the course of the introduction of the Jan Lokpal Bill, that Article 311 itself be amended such that the right to ‘sanction to prosecute’ by a superior of the bureaucrat be transferred to the courts who may, after a primafacie review of the suit, accord or deny permission to prosecute. These judgments would also be liable to be appealed as any court verdict. Thus as in the 2G scam, we wouldn’t have waited 3 years before the culprits are brought to book. Ø The IPC/CPC is subordinate to the Constitution & should also be amended. By: J Srinivasan, js.bangalore@gmail.com +91 9880020366 Regards,J Srinivasan+91 9880020366 The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. - Marcel Proust
Joe Says:
# A2437LB May 27th, 2011 at 3:35 am
Sir
Lokpal should have administrative superintendence over lokayuktas as high court have on lower courts.
Thanks.
Karan Says:
# A2406LB May 26th, 2011 at 8:22 pm
i believe enforcement directorate(ED), CBI's anti corruption body should come under lokpal instead of under government. Otherwise the lokpal should also have powers on enforcement directorate and CBI's anticorruption body. If both the institutions come under only government not not also lokpal, there may be conflict of interest i.e. investigations ordered by the government may hinder the investigations of lokpal and viceversa.
Page 20 of 47 « previous 1 2 ...17 18 19 2021 22 23 ...46 47 next »
Rishi Kumar. Says:
# A2616LB May 29th, 2011 at 8:27 am
Investigation into the corruption of a senior officer of lokpal should be done by seven member bench of supreme court, not a single judge bench. (A single judge bench can use the case to settle personal issues with lokpal, just to avoid this scenario)