Tag Archive | Lok Sabha

Defence Bribery Affair Underscores Need For Appointing Lok Pal – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                               March 18, 2001

Defence Bribery Affair Underscores Need For Appointing Lok Pal

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

Indian Prime Minister Morarji Desai in New Del...

Morarji Desai who suggested in 1966 creating an ombudsman or Lok Pal became India’s first non-Congress Prime Minister 1977-79 (Photo: Wikipedia)

New Delhi (UNI) – The videotaped defence bribery affair has underscored a long-recognised need over which the authorities have vacillated while scandal after scandal has rocked the nation’s political life– appointing a Lok Pal, India’s much-heralded anti-corrupt ombudsman conceived 35 years ago but still nowhere in sight.

Last heard of, the Lok Pal bill was the subject of second thoughts: whether or not Members of Parliament be placed under its purview. This, notwithstanding the fact that a broad cross-section of MPs themselves has voiced support for that and several other measures aimed at promoting accountability.

The MPs’ support is reflected in responses already in to an appeal sent out some weeks ago by Lok Sevak Sangh, a Non-Governmental Organisation, and its sister NGO, Transparency-International India. Both groups have said they will embark on a Satyagraha if the Lok Pal bill is not introduced in this session of Parliament.

”If the bill is not introduced during the session ending on March 23 or if MPs are excluded from its jurisdiction, we shall resume the postponed Satyagraha on April 16, when Parliament reassembles after recess to continue the budget session,” LSS-TII Chairman Shambu Dutta Sharma told UNI.

The groups deferred Satyagraha last November after announcement of plans to introduce the bill during the winter session.

For decades, the authorities have let the grass grow under their feet while corruption has gone on unbridled– scam after scam bursting forth on the nation’s political stage, eroding public values, chipping away at public morale and cynicising public mind.

The concept of Lok Pal– inspired by Sweden’s Ombudsman– grew out of an interim report on the Problem of Redressal of Citizens Grievances submitted in 1966 by the Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Morarji Desai. The very thought of someone to whom an Indian citizen could turn with a complaint of corruption or administrative excesses against the mighty of the land was a whiff of fresh air.

Two years later, the Lok Pal and the Lokayuktas Bill, 1968 was introduced in the 4th Lok Sabha, when late Mrs Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister. It was considered by a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament and passed by the Lok Sabha in 1969. It was pending in the Rajya Sabha when the Lok Sabha was dissolved. The bill lapsed.

Over the years, with political and public life getting increasingly mired in scandalous goings-on and some governments at the Centre or in States even losing office over issues involving integrity– Bofors, Hawala, Fodder, Urea, Telecom, to name just a few controversies– the need for Lok Pal and other reforms has got more and more acute.

But resistance to the bill appears manifest in the fact that even after being tabled six more times– in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996 and 1998, the last time by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee– it has never again been put to vote.

English: People taking part in protests in sup...

Protesters demanding Lokpal (Photo: Wikipedia)

The concern was echoed by the Prime Minister while opening a conference of Lokayuktas or State Ombudsmen some weeks ago. As Mr Vajpayee put it, rampant corruption over the past few decades and the failure to catch and punish the corrupt has bred contempt for the law and led to widespread cynicism among the people, causing a decline in moral values in Indian society.

“Experience has shown that our efforts to strengthen probity in civil service and the polity cannot yield desired results without extending the norms of accountability to the judiciary. The inability of our judicial system to deliver speedy justice has itself become the source of much injustice. It has also eroded the credibility of our judiciary in the eyes of the public,” Mr Vajpayee told delegates.

Noting that corruption was detrimental to development, he announced that a Group of Ministers was putting together a new draft of the Lok pal Bill, which “will be introduced in Parliament soon.”

On his part, Mr Vajpayee volunteered to submit to its jurisdiction by vesting the Lok Pal ”with adequate powers to deal with charges of corruption against anyone, including the Prime Minister.”

Authorities acknowledge that even the implementation of Lokayuktas in states has not been satisfactory. Lokayuktas exist in barely 15 states and do not have uniform jurisdiction over Chief Ministers or Members of State Legislatures. Nor is the system entirely effective.

For instance, between 1986 and 2000, the Karnataka Lokayukta ordered investigation in 2,840 cases, of which 1,677 were charge-sheeted but only six percent cases ended in conviction. The bulk– 1,118– were pending trial.

Originally, the Lok Pal bill was to place under scrutiny the conduct of all public functionaries and political leaders, including the Prime Minister, the Members of the Cabinet, as well as all members of both Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha. It would have MPs and members of their immediate family declare personal assets each year they remain in office.

The bill was scheduled to be introduced for the eighth time in November 2000, but the move appears to have bogged down because of demands to leave MPs out of its sway.

An argument advanced for excluding MPs from its ambit is that Lok Pal should only mind the affairs of those wielding government and ministerial office who take decisions affecting citizens and therefore have the potential to abuse it for personal gain.

But activists for MPs’ inclusion point out that legislators exercise enormous influence in shaping laws, policy and decisions which is fundamentally important and has potential for abuse.

“MPs are also empowered to take decisions such as spending constituency development funds,” the LSS-TII spokesman said. “A few MPs have been known to accept bribes and misuse government property and ever increasing facilities and perquisites for personal benefit.”

A well known example is the acquittal of four Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs who allegedly voted for the Narasimha Rao government in return for monetary consideration. The magic words that got them off were written into Article 105 of the Indian Constitution: “no member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof… ”

The episode has occasioned calls to change such provisions. Law Commission Chairman Justice B P Jeevan Reddy recently sought to kick off a public debate by suggesting that bribe-taking legislators should be liable for prosecution. He suggested including a new clause requiring that “nothing… should bar the prosecution of a Member of Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act etc, if they take money for voting in Parliament”.

Another argument advanced by those seeking to exclude MPs from Lok Pal’s purview has been that MPs are accountable to Parliamentary Ethics Committees, and do not need additional supervision.

But in its appeal to MPs, the LSS-TII pointed out that even bipartisan ethics committees in the United States “have not really been effective in controlling the wrongful conduct of the Senators and Representatives there. It is not likely to do better in India. It will be a case of you scratch my back and I will scratch yours.”

The letter pointed out that “the argument that the MPs would not like their conduct to be adjudicated by any outside agency, is untenable… Nobody should seek to be a judge in his own cause.”

It cited the Rajya Sabha Ethics committee’s quietness when the national press and the Chief Election Commissioner in the last biennial election raised grievous doubts about some Rajya Sabha candidates trying to bribe the MLAs.

“So far as Lok Sabha Ethics Committee is concerned its Chairman and (former) Prime Minister Chandra Shekhar is facing proceeding re(garding) his large Bhondsi campus in a public interest petition filed by advocate Dr (B L) Wadhera.”

“We request that the Lok Pal legislation should not be delayed further on any ground whatsoever,” the LSS-TII said, adding that “thirty-three years are enough for our political leadership to put in place an effective Lok Pal.”

Appointing Lok Pal is one of seven measures the LSS has been stressing to further the cause of probity in public life. The others include enacting laws giving citizens access to information, plugging loopholes to discourage defections, requiring declaration of political parties’ assets and accounts audit, debarring corrupt and criminal citizens from contesting elections, speedy trial of erring politicians and forfeiture of illegally acquired property, most of which have been under legislative consideration for years, even decades.

The MPs who have stepped forward cutting across the party lines to support the measures include Leader of the Opposition in Rajya Sabha, Dr Manmohan Singh, and leading attorney and Congress leader, Kapil Sibal, as well as ruling Bharatiya Janata Party veterans such as B P Singhal, Kailash Joshi and Vijay Kumar Malhotra.

They also include Debabrata Biswas of All India Forward Bloc, Nagendranath Ojha of Communist party of India, Sunil Khan and Subodh Roy of Communist party of India (Marxist), Chandra Vijay Singh of Akhil Bharatiya Lok Tantrik Congress, Tarlochan Singh Tur of Shiromani Akali Dal, Ananda Mohan Biswas of Trinamool, Prof M Sankaralingam of Dravida Munnetra Kazhgaham, Peter Alphonse of Tamil Manila Congress, Ashok Mohol of Nationalist Congress Party, Arun Kumar and Mahendra Baitha of Janata Dal United, Prabhat Kumar Samantaray of Biju Janata Dal, Prof A Lakshmisagar of Janata Dal, Dr S Venugopal of Telugu Desam Party, Ram Prasad Singh of Rashtriya Janada Dal, Ravi Prakash Verma of Samajwadi Janata Party and S D Shariq of National Conference.

Independent Member S Roy Choudhary and nominated Members writer K S Duggal, journalist Kuldip Nayar and jurist Fali S Nariman, all noted in their respective fields, have also voiced their support.

One party from which no response has been received so far is Jharkhand Mukti Morcha.

UNI MJ DSB DS0945

Related articles

UPA Govt Seized Of Law Commission’s 25-Year-Old Idea ! – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                August 18, 2011 

English: Ashoke Kumar Sen at the United Nation...

Ashoke Kumar Sen, former Law and Justice Minister, to whom the Law Commission of India submitted its Report No. 116 on Formation of an All India Judicial Service on November 27, 1986 (Photo: Wikipedia)

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – Twenty-five years after experts suggested an All India Judicial Service to draw the best talent to judiciary, the United Progressive Alliance government is seized of the matter, Parliament was informed today.

The government is seized of the matter of creation of an All India Judicial Service under Article 312 of the Constitution, Law and Justice Minister Salman Khurshid said in a written reply in the Lok Sabha.

He was answering Bharatiya Janata Party member from Rajasthan Arjun Ram Meghwal and Indian National Congress member from Haryana Shruti Choudhry who drew attention to a Law Commission recommendation made in 1986.

The two Members wanted to know whether the government intends to introduce the said Service, the timeframe set for its introduction, and, if not, the reasons therefor.

In his reply, Khurshid acknowledged the Commission findings that such a service would also serve as a powerful unifying influence and counteract growing regional tendencies.

He said the process of creating it requires a Resolution to be passed by the Rajya Sabha enabling Parliament to enact necessary laws.

He did not say when that and any subsequent requirements might be carried out.

In reply to another question, Khurshid said the government has examined various options — including National Judicial Commission– to address the issues concerning appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.

However, no specific proposal has been finalised, the Minister said.

Over the past many years, selection for appointment of Supreme Court and High Court Judges has been made by a Judges collegium but questions have arisen owing to complaints over conduct and persistent vacancies.

The Rajya Sabha, for instance, took an unprecedented step this afternoon to approve an impeachment motion against Calcutta High Court Judge Soumitra Sen who is accused of having misappropriated funds while he was a lawyer before his elevation.

The motion will next be considered in the Lok Sabha, and, if approved, go to the President, the appointing authority, for the Judge’s removal from office.

The last Parliament was close to impeaching a Judge was in the 1990s when it considered corruption allegations against former Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice V Ramaswami defended by then senior advocate Kapil Sibal.

The move in the Lok Sabha fell through then with Indian National Congress members abstaining, an instance cited ever since by critics as proof that impeachment was not a sound way to ensure accountability.

Khurshid was answering Meghwal and Communist Party of India (Marxist) member from Kerala M B Rajesh and INC member from Lakshadweep Hamdullah Sayeed on steps to improve judical service quality and standards.

The Members asked if the government proposed to introduce a constitutional code of conduct for Judges and a mechanism for periodical assessment of Judges performance.

Khurshid said the UPA government introduced a Bill in the Lok Sabha in December 2010 to ensure accountability and transparency in the higher judiciary.

The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 incorporates a mechanism for enquiring into complaints against Supreme Court and High Court Judges and makes way for Judges to declare their assets and liabilities, besides setting standards for them to follow, he said.

The Minister gave no timeframe as to its enactment.

UNI MJ GH 0032

Workers – Not To Be Toyed With ! – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                            December 01, ‎2011

Labour law concerns the inequality of bargaini...

Labour law concerns the inequality of bargaining power between employers and workers (Photo: Wikipedia)

Workers – Not To Be Toyed With !

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

New Delhi (UNI) – A retiring High Court Chief Justice is paid a High Court Judge’s pension. The mistake is rectified– but not before a 15 year court battle.

An Indian Institute of Technology professor invokes his Right to Information– to know why his gratuity is withheld.

After a Japanese executive kicks a worker and tosses the turban of another one, 3,000 employees at a Gurgaon plant form a union– prompting dismissals. Protest brings brutal thrashing from Haryana police in full view of news cameras.

Fired en masse, 362 union-led newspaper employees spend 20 months in Delhi High Court without relief– only to start afresh before a labour tribunal.

Tens of thousands of farmers persuaded to borrow for modern tools, chemicals and seed incur a crop of debt they cannot cope with– and end their lives.

Hired on merit, a scheduled tribe teacher harassed at work goes to the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court– her battle and hounding cut short by her death in the premature delivery of a stillborn.

Those are some glimpses of what India’s so-called strong labour laws are doing for– and to– some of its officially counted 400 million workforce Prime Minister Manmohan Singh calls ‘toiling masses’.

Labour and Employment Ministry officials say India has 154 labour laws to ensure welfare of roughly 30 million organised workers and 370 million unorganised workers, including some 250 million farmers and farm hands.

Set up 36 years ago to research labour issues, V V Giri National Labour Institute has yet to produce a comprehensive study of workplace disputes, their causes and outcomes– that might have shown the way to reform.

As in instances cited at the outset, those guilty of making life miserable for some of India’s workmen and women seldom suffer personal consequences under the law.

That, experts acknowledge, defeats right there a key purpose of any legal system– to deter crime by instilling the fear of law in potential offenders.

“Where we fail is in punishing our crooks or offenders,” says former Calcutta High Court Chief Justice D S Tewatia, stressing the urgency of reforms to remedy the situation.

Knowing, for instance, that the worst consequence of denying employees’ wages is having to pay after 10 or 15 years, employers may take such recourse capriciously at the slightest pretext or even without any.

Quite unlike elsewhere in the civilised world, employers in India do not face jail or hefty punitive damages that may make them behave.

In the United States, for instance, former Enron chief executive Jeffrey Skilling was given more than 24 years in prison for fraud and conspiracy involving more than US40 billion dollars debt, thousands of lost livelihoods and duped clients.

Before sentencing, an outraged Enron employee of 17 years, Kevin Hyatt, had asked the judge to ‘send a message’ to other corporate executives by giving Skilling the maximum sentence.

About labour legislation in India, a Western expert observes with an almost audible smirk, ”these laws are of little broad significance. They have long been circumvented in practice in most areas of the economy.”

Such laws as Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923, Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970, Industrial Disputes Act 1947, Factories Act 1948 and Minimum Wages Act 1948 provide imprisonment for violators.

But strangely the option to invoke those provisions is controlled by government officials.

Headquarters of the International Labour Organ...

International Labour Organisation – Presiding (United Nations Photo)

For any harassment they inflict on employees, employers cannot be prosecuted on those counts without express sanction of labour inspectors or commissioners.

Here are some examples:

— Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923 section 18A(2): No prosecution under this section shall be instituted except by or with the previous sanction of a Commissioner.

— Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Section 34(1): No Court shall take cognisance of any offence punishable under this Act or of the abetment of any such offence, save on complaint made by or under the authority of the appropriate government.

How that works out on the ground was indicated when Lok Sabha Members Sunil Khan, Basudeb Acharia, Amitava Nandy and Gurudas Das Gupta drew attention to labour law violations some years ago.

The Labour Ministry gave data on the violations handled in 2003-04 and 2004-05 by the Central Industrial Relations Machinery headed by the Chief Labour Commissioner.

Of 9,826 and 9,538 disputes received under the IDA, for instance, 3,533 and 3,583 were settled while ”FOC– failure of conciliation–reports (were) submitted” in 4,276 and 2,743 disputes respectively.

The Ministry gave no account of how many violators, if any, went to jail.

“The Ministry and its machinery should be protecting labour– not employers,” was how Acharia, a Communist Marxist MP from Bankura, West Bengal, put it.

Asked then if he knew of any case in which an industrialist has had to go behind bars for breaking labour laws, Acharia said, “not one.”

As it is, given poverty and unemployment on one hand and the state of law and courts obtaining on the other, employees find themselves between a rock and a hard place.

The reverse appears to hold for affluent industrialists. Matters are filed in courts where they take years before it is time for appeals and more years.

How workmen or women survive without wages or relief may be hard to grasp for authorities not familiar with such hardship.

Thus it is that workers lose jobs while employers keep running industries and establishments– unmindful of consequences not in evidence. There is little to deter employers’ misconduct.

A published source says even West Bengal, the left bastion, saw 274 lockouts in 2000, more than half– 143– declared to reduce workforce on “the pretext of loss of economic viability.”

Short of sound laws and implementation, half measures abound.

The Institute of Company Secretaries of India proposed some time ago requiring independent professional assurance from practising company secretaries on labour law compliance.

But critics stress the importance of sound labour laws and effective enforcement.

Experts point out how professional auditors have for decades approved accounts without raising an eyebrow– while Swiss numbered accounts of Indians have grown.

Given such facts or data, it may appear natural that workers representatives agitate to rectify things.

Strangely, it is employers’ associations which have been demanding greater facility to hire and fire employees, a Labour Ministry statement noted some time ago.

“The employers have been vehemently pressing for labour reforms on the plea that these are necessary for making Indian industry globally competitive and for attracting more of foreign direct investment.

“The existing laws, it is contended by employers, slow down growth and job creation. They say that under the existing labour laws the churning of new skills is slower; companies lose cost cutting flexibility and ability to bounce out of recession quickly.

“The employers further contend that Labour Market will become more flexible with the amendments; more workers can be hired legitimately and can ask for better benefits including better work conditions, safety standards, welfare measures and health benefits,” the statement said.

Some of these arguments are backed by such institutions as the World Bank.

But critics ask how governments reconcile promises to workers of more jobs with bigger pay packets and better work conditions with promises held out to foreign investors of abundant cheap and skilled labour.

English: Official Portrait released by the Off...

Labour & Employment Minister Mallikarjun Kharge (Photo: Wikipedia)

At a conference in New Delhi, WB experts spoke of better work contracts.

Asked who will fix a contract if an employer breaks it, the experts promptly replied: the Courts.

Asked if it was fair for employees to have to go through years of litigation for wages of their work, the experts conceded the incongruity of the situation and spoke of judicial reforms.

They argued that reforms would follow in the legal system as pressure builds up. But that, critics say, is like putting the cart before the horse, especially considering some recent trends in labour-related adjudication and judicial orders.

On the other hand, experts say it is important to note that the associations seeking to change the rules are made up of industrialists who are themselves often subsidised by taxpayers in any number of ways.

Apart from receiving concessions in tax and costs of land and other public resources, many have been notorious in building up lakhs of crores of rupees of India’s Non Performing Assets– a euphemism for unrepaid loans.

Unlike tens of thousands of debt-ridden farmers who end their life unable to face the ignominy, no one appears to have heard of NPA defaulters making such choices.

Experts agree that the government must strike a balance. Citizens must not only be proclaimed to be equal, they must also be treated as equals. Just as workers must work, so must employers manage properly and pay wages.

Any failures or abuses, including manipulation of unions, must lead to consequences, they say.

Laws and fora must be put in place or firmed up to deliver justice in time– not at leisure, experts say.

UNI MJ TBA RP 1454

Related articles

Whither Reform ? Time To Audit Law-making ? – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                                        February 19, 2006

Whither Reform ? Time To Audit Law-making ?

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India

English: Parliament building in New Delhi (San...

Where Laws Are Made – Sansad Bhavan or Parliament Building (Photo: Wikipedia)

New Delhi (UNI) – Pendency went up 25 per cent – to 30 million cases – as authorities spent 2005 computerising courts, equipping judges with laptops, promoting arbitration and legal literacy and planning nyayalayas across rural India– all the while deferring reforms mostly to 2006. Maybe !

The year had begun with a call in the presence of a senior Supreme Court judge to curtail lawyers’ fees and sieve out those who do not conform to the expectations of a noble calling.
About same time, President A P J Abdul Kalam was questioning a bid to transfer a high court chief justice whose concern over judicious conduct had 25 brother judges attempting a ‘strike.’
And Law and Justice Minister Hans Raj Bhardwaj was announcing moves to strengthen the Judge’s Inquiry Act and a Bill to appoint a Lokpal to ensure accountability in executive, legislature and judiciary– the three key branches of governance.
Those events marked the very first week of 2005.
If such straws in the wind– and a new left-backed United Progressive Alliance at helm– produced hopes of real reforms in delivery of justice and rule of law blowing in soon– the wait did not end with the year.
The Right To Information Act, 2005 which came into force on October 12– cited by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh among key achievements– is seen by experts as a valuable tool to expose corruption.
Legal redress or remedy which include compensating victims and punishing culprits is another matter.
Media ‘stings’ which showed some Members of Parliament virtually vending the privilege of raising questions in the House or spending on development were a rude reminder that accountability was not really round the corner.
Their expulsions notwithstanding, the ‘exposed’ MPs are knocking on the doors of courts for justice.
It refreshes memories of one of the most controversial Supreme Court judgements that the Indian Constitution gives MPs taking bribes an immunity from prosecution ”if they have actually spoken or voted in the House pursuant to the bribe taken by them.”
That judgement allowed the acquittal of four Jharkhand Mukti Morcha MPs who had voted for the Narasimha Rao Government 12 years ago in return for bribes.
Then Law Commission Chairman B P Jeevan Reddy suggested making bribe-taking legislators liable for prosecution.
”Nothing… should bar the prosecution of a Member of Parliament under the Prevention of Corruption Act… if they take money for voting in Parliament.”
Asked about it eleven years later at a news conference in January 2005, the Law Minister acknowledged that steps were yet to be taken to preclude such interpretation– as, indeed, they yet are.
Lokpal to check corruption in public offices itself was conceived four decades ago but is still nowhere in sight. Tired of waiting, activists have announced a People’s Lokpal.
Efforts on Lokpal or to strengthen the law to discipline errant senior judges remain under way.
By proclaiming 2005 as the Year of Excellence in Judiciary and pronouncing the institution ‘clean’– close on the heels of allegedly scandalous behaviour involving some senior judges– then Chief Justice of India Ramesh Chandra Lahoti helped underscore accountability as well as transparency.
Bhardwaj insists that any disciplinary action against senior judges be taken only by their peers and to that end the Judges’ Inquiry Act 1968 needs strengthening.
The Act provides to impeach an errant judge– a step rendered ineffective due to partisan politics the only time it was invoked against Supreme Court Judge V Ramaswamy who had been dubbed ”guilty of wilful and gross misuses of office…”
Authorities have no other way to effectively discipline senior Judges. An in-house mechanism has been adopted in absence of any legislative provisions. But experts say such a mechanism suffers from opacity and uncertainty.
Three years ago, within hours of taking office as CJI, Justice Gopal Ballav Pattanaik stressed in a television interview more powers to tackle corruption in judiciary.
Just a week before, his predecessor, Justice Bhupinder Nath Kirpal had called for ”robust safeguards” to minimise fears of corruption and incompetence in a judiciary appointing itself.
He said, ”the members of the judiciary are also Indian citizens who come from the same aggregate as those in the legislature and the administration, and therefore, there are also instances where corruption and incompetence have also pervaded the judicial establishment that cannot be denied.”
In December 2001, then CJI, Justice Sam Piroj Bharucha told a lawyers’ group in Kerala that ”more than 80 per cent of the Judges in this country, across the board, are honest and incorruptible.
”It is that smaller percentage that brings the entire judiciary into disrepute. To make it known that the judiciary does not tolerate corruption in its ranks, it is requisite that corrupt Judges should be investigated and dismissed from service.”
In December 1989, on the eve of retiring as CJI, Justice E S Venkataramaiah told an interviewer that ”judiciary in India has deteriorated in standards because some of the judges are willing to be influenced by lavish parties and whisky bottles.”
However, concern and disquiet voiced over the years has yet to produce a remedy.
The Law Minister suggests ‘formalising’ the in-house mechanism– leaving the task of ensuring accountability still with judges but making clear provisions for punitive measures such as suspension or resignation of errant judges.
With that in mind, India’s Central and State Law Ministers met at Simla in June 2005 and decided to set up a National Judicial Council to ensure judicial accountability.
Such measures may not find favour with some judges.
On the other hand, legislators and the executive– not to mention the judiciary– owe the citizens a transparent and accountable system of justice.
In a broader context, accountability was emphasised by Justice Yogesh Kumar Sabharwal seven months before he became the 36th CJI.
Speaking at the launch of a legal literacy mission by Prime Minister Singh, Justice Sabharwal said, ”We need to set examples of accountability in our governance.”
Three months ago, the Law Commission received a reference on the Judges’ Inquiry Act. This month, the Commission submitted to the Law Minister ”a comprehensive study” on ”the procedure for removal of the judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.”
As it is, on one hand, judges cannot be disciplined unless their peers so choose– on the other they cannot be criticised without risking six months in jail under the court’s contempt power.
A long-awaited reform has been to allow truth as a defence against the contempt power which ends up silencing, at least discouraging, even fair, healthy and well-meaning criticism.
Last February, a Bill to ”further liberalise the scope to permit a defence of justification by truth on satisfaction as to bona fides of the plea and it being in public interest” was introduced in the Lok Sabha.
Just two days before the year ended did the Manmohan Singh Cabinet approve a ”proposal to proceed further in Parliament (on) the Contempt of Courts (Amendment) Bill 2004.”
An even more basic issue is judges’ strength. Not only it is known to be lower in India than elsewhere, it is further undermined by many vacancies and possible quality issues. Delayed judicial appointments contribute to delayed justice, even though authorities know years before vacancies arise and can set up a pool from which judges are assigned without delay.
So far as making lawyers accountable to litigants is concerned, the Advocate’s Act remains where it was.
Apart from complaints of incompetence, inefficiency and indifference, ethical issues are a major concern in the legal profession.
Lawyers who should look out for clients’ interests, are at times known to mislead them– treating cases as milch cows prolonged through adjournments for years– or even colluding with clients’ opponents.
Victims can complain to statutory Bar Councils. But the Councils are not always prompt in responding, nor can they help litigants recover any losses caused due to members’ misconduct.
One practical remedy might be for courts to keep for litigants’ reference a lawyers’ roster along with any record of complaints of misconduct against each– whether resolved or pending.
As it is, the authorities have not even dusted Law Commission findings since protesting lawyers clashed with police on Parliament Street a few years ago.
Here is an undergraduate textbook extract on the reality of Equality Before Law in actual practice during the erstwhile British rule:
”The principle of equality before law was violated when laws became complicated and beyond the grasp of uneducated poor masses.
They had to engage lawyers who charged excessive fees and preferred to work for the rich. In addition, the prevalence of corruption in the administrative machinery and the police worked against the rights of the masses.”
More than 57 years after the British quit India, the call to simplify the language of laws of the land was given by Prime Minister Singh at the launch of the country’s first nationwide legal literacy mission in March 2005.
”The complex legal language of our statutes acts as a hurdle to legal literacy… compounded by the intricacies of legal language in judicial pronouncements,” Dr Singh told law professionals.
”An attempt should be made to simplify the language of the law so that any one who reads judgements and laws can easily understand their true meaning.”
In November, the cold-blooded killing of Indian Oil Corporation officer Manjunath Shanmugam, who blew the whistle on corrupt petrol outlets, underscored once again the crying need in India for law to protect whistleblowers– insiders who expose corrupt or abusive organisations or employers.
Such laws have existed in and served other advanced societies for decades.
In India, a study was made by the Law Commission and a Draft Bill put together and placed in Parliament more than three years ago.
It was before the MPs when National Highway Authority officer Satyendra Dubey lost his life in November 2003, not to mention when Shanmugam lost his– two years later.
As it is, critics say, officials who appear to find protection in Indian jurisprudence are the sort who acquiesce in or connive at violations.
In case after case– whether petrol pump distribution scam, St Kitts affair, Hawala scam, Bofors scandal or many more– bureaucrat after bureaucrat and politician after politician has found acquittal or escape.
It is dramatically exemplified in manifestations of justice that hit consumers of New Delhi’s municipal and housing services this winter.
Law abiding citizens hailed the drive ordered by the Delhi High Court, urging impartiality and wondering whether– and why– law spared pre-2000 violations or officials on whose watch violations took shape.
Published accounts say three-fourths– perhaps more– of the Capital’s 36,00,000 buildings are illegal. Yet municipal authorities have taken note of only 200,000 of them and acted against barely a thousand.
The ongoing drive targets a mere 18,299 cases detected since 2000.
The court also has ordered the city to ”fix responsibility” and initiate major penalty against engineers and officials ”who allowed or took no notice” of such constructions.
If punitive action has been taken, it has not been made public.
Critics say city bulldozers have been ‘discrete,’ steering wide clear of homes of India’s bigwigs or affluent– entire unauthorised neighbourhoods or localities !
Critics advocate punishing officials who let violations occur and such agencies as the Delhi Development Authority whose policies or actions– why lottery ? for instance– have encouraged and stoked speculation in housing.
They say it all reflects the state of rule of law in India.
Here are some more reflections of it:
— Hundreds of thousands of undertrials have been in custody– many for years, even longer than their convictions might have required them to spend in jail. Why legal attention remains denied is not clear given huge sums spent year after year on legal aid for needy. Former Law Minister Jana Krishnamurthi saw it as a serious flaw that must not be allowed.
— An Indian Society of International Law inaugurated in August 1959 by India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru might have been a guiding force, helping inform and shape public opinion on global law. In 2005, it was sued by its Treasurer over violations of domestic norms.
— The Bar Council of India disclosed two years ago that 131 high court judges– one in four– across India have kin practising in the same court– an arrangement or coincidence forbidden under the law for fear of promoting unfairness in justice. The Council campaigned for transfer of 131 HC judges– in vain.
— But 2005 saw a High Court Chief Justice transferred twice in seven months, each time reportedly on brother judges’ complaints. In February, Justice B K Roy was transferred to Gauhati HC after he had asked some Punjab and Haryana HC judges why they took complimentary membership of an exclusive club, and in September, to the Sikkim HC, after he tried to improve access to justice in the Northeast by assigning Judges to benches in states neighbouring Assam.
— Despite scam after sordid scam sapping public interest, legislators have neither enacted Lokpal nor discarded it as a bad idea unfit for Indian society in the 40 years since it was recommended by the Administrative Reforms Commission set up under Morarji Desai in 1966.
— In November 1996, the Supreme Court found that former Petroleum Minister Satish Sharma favoured 15 petrol pump allottees and fined him Rs 50,00,000. Another Bench overruled this in August 1999. Two years later, an expert group led by Justice Reddy reviewed both orders and said it was ”absolutely essential” and ”urgent” to enact a law making public servants liable– with exemplary damages– for loss caused to the State by their mala fide actions. Last April, the Central Bureau of Investigation explained its failure to file chargesheet in the 15 cases citing a government decision ”not to grant sanction” to prosecute Sharma.
— In 30 years, the Lalit Narain Mishra murder case has been transferred to nine judges, and of seven accused, the statement of only two recorded. A Parliamentary report dubs it ”a classic case” which ”epitomises the lethargic pace at which the Indian legal system operates.”
”We must realise,” Justice Sabharwal said in his Law Day speech in November ”that the end of law must be justice. Law and justice cannot afford to remain distant neighbours. There must be harmony between law and justice.
”We must, in all seriousness, ask ourselves… how far we have been able to fulfil the mission of law to deliver justice and to what extent we have succeeded in using law as a vehicle for ensuring social justice to the large masses of people in the country.”
Experts concede that not just justice, legislation– the process of enacting laws of the land– also suffers from delays.
They say the terribly slow pace of legislating reforms is as constricting and agonising to the society as delay in adjudication is to an individual victim.
In India, the process also suffers from near absence of public participation in so-called public debate– often confined to hearing select speakers in one forum or another with hardly any audience input.
Those are just some of the serious questions that need to be faced. ”It is also perhaps a most ignored aspect of public interest issues by Indian research and scholarship,” a Delhi University Law teacher acknowledges.
Experts concede what is needed is a thorough but quick audit or study of legislative function– to see how it can be made effective in dealing with the needs of transparency, accountability and law in the society.
UNI MJ PK GC1148

Jailing Corrupt Politician, Officer Or Judge ! – By Mukesh Jhangiani

                                                                                                   April 9, 2011

English: Hon. Anna Hazare in Nanded , Maharastra .

Anna Hazare (Photo: Wikipedia)

Jailing Corrupt Politician, Officer Or Judge !

By Mukesh Jhangiani
United News of India
New Delhi (UNI) – With a 72-year-old fasting for five days, the government today announced a panel to draft within 83 days a Bill for Lok Pal– 45 years after it was conceived to regulate Indian governance.

Anna Hazare broke his fast amid euphoria at authorities yielding on an issue government after government has dodged for decades without discarding the idea outright.

The announcement listed ten members, five each representing the United Progressive Alliance government and the activists, with Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee as chairman and former Law Minister Shanti Bhushan, as co-chairman.
”The Joint Drafting Committee shall complete its work latest by 30th June, 2011,” the announcement by the Law and Justice Ministry said.
The members include Home Minister P Chidambaram, Law and Justice Minister M Veerappa Moily, Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal and Water Resources and Minority Minister Salman Khursheed on one hand, and septuagenarian Hazare, Justice N Santosh Hedge, advocate Prashant Bhushan and activist Arvind Kejriwal on the other.
Dr Moily has been named convenor.
Experts hailed the development but were cautious about expectations.
”What we have witnessed over the past week is anger, real anger of people, reflecting injustices that have been building and must be redressed and the guilty punished,” said former Delhi High Court Chief Justice A P Shah. ”This anger must be properly channelised for national and public good.”
A document titled Salient Features of Jan Lok Pal Bill circulated by activists who pitched their camp at Jantar Mantar on Tuesday spelt out some of the ideas they brought to root out corrupt.
— Creating an institution called Lok Pal at the centre and Lokayukta in each State so ”completely transparent” that any complaint against even its own members is investigated and a guilty ”officer dismissed within two months;”
— ”Like Supreme Court and Election Commission, they will be completely independent of the governments” so that ”no minister or bureaucrat will be able to influence their investigations;”
— Giving Lok Pal complete powers and machinery to independently investigate and prosecute any officer, judge or politician;
— Recovering any public exchequer or government loss caused by a corrupt act from the perpetrator at the time of conviction;
— Imposing financial penalty on officers guilty of not doing ”any work” of a citizen in prescribed time and giving it to complainant as compensation;
— Ensuring cases against corrupt do not linger– giving a year for investgation and another year for trial– so that ”corrupt politician, officer or judge is sent to jail within two years;”
— Lok Pal members to be selected by citizens, besides judges and constitutional authorities– not politicians– through ”a completely transparent and participatory process” to preclude induction of corrupt or weak individuals;
— Merging anti-corruption agencies– vigilance commissioners and anti-corrupt investigators– into Lok Pal;
— Requiring Lok Pal to provide protection to those victimized for raising their voice against corruption.
Activists say citizens denied ration or voter cards or passports could turn to a Lok Pal as could those having difficulty lodging complaints with police, for instance.
Anyone with complaints about, say, the quality of roads or abuse of public parks or other works could also request investigation into possible corruption by elected  or other officials. ”The guilty will go to jail within two years.”
Although Lok Pal, as a political ombudsman was conceived 45 years ago, it is still nowhere around.
”We have been misled completely,” Gandhian Satyagraha Brigade spokesman Shambhu Dutta Sharma, who, too, has been campaigning for a Lok Pal said of government failure to pass a law. ”We cannot trust any longer.”
The concept of Lok Pal– inspired by Sweden’s ombudsman– grew out of an interim report on redressal of citizens’ grievances submitted in 1966 by the Administrative Reforms Commission headed by Morarji Desai.
Two years later, the Lok Pal and the Lok Ayuktas Bill, 1968 was introduced in the 4th Lok Sabha, when late Mrs Indira Gandhi was Prime Minister.
It was considered by a joint committee of the two Houses of Parliament and passed by the Lok Sabha in 1969. It was pending in the Rajya Sabha when the Lok Sabha was dissolved. The bill lapsed.
Resistance to the bill appears manifest in the fact that even after being tabled seven more times– in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2001– it has never again been put to vote.
While authorities did not enact a Lok Pal they certainly did not reject it– possibly because doing so might have placed on them the onus to find a substitute.
Indeed, in 2007, a second Administrative Reforms Commission recommended appointing a national ombudsman called Rashtriya Lok Ayukta instead of Lok Pal.
Critics say corruption in public life has been sinking lower and lower, compounded by a virtually unaccountable governance.
Agencies or institutions once created in public interest appear to have become part of the problem instead of being instrumental in finding solutions.
The past year or so has seen unprecedented– in sheer size– allegations of financial irregularities levelled at the UPA government.
Public mind has been disillusioned by one scam after another whether it is 2G– underselling mobile phone licences at public cost notionally estimated at Rs 1.75 lakh crores– or Rs 70,000 crore extravagance in organising Commonwealth games.
”Hopefully,” Justice Shah said, ”there will be a proper bill. But at the same time before any Bill is put to vote there must be a thorough public debate about it in which citizens not just experts or authoritative figures should be heard on their opinions, questions, concerns and suggestions. No doubt we need a strong Lok Pal, but we also need a strong executive, legislature and judiciary.”
For rule of law to find a sound footing in India, the nation must attend to a lot more legislative reform, experts acknowledge.
UNI MJ SK 2308