Amended Lokpal Bill tabled in Rajya Sabha

December 13, 2013

Lokpal_BillNew Delhi, Dec 13: The amended Lokpal, which delinks the setting up of Lokayuktas in the states and transfers the powers of sanction of prosecution against public servant to the ombudsman, was brought for consideration in Rajya Sabha today amid din.

Tabling the amended bill, Minister of State for Personnel V Narayanasamy sought the cooperation of the House in its passage.

However, the bill could not be taken up for consideration as the House was not in order with members from SP and TDP shouting slogans in the Well against price rise and bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh respectively.

Members from BJP, Trinamool Congress and others complained that nothing was audible in the din and the House should first be brought in order.

Ravishankar Prasad (BJP) urged Deputy Chairman P J Kurien to restore normalcy in the House as it was an important issue, while Derek O'Brien was seen gesturing that he was unable to hear anything.

As the din continued, the discussion on the bill could not take place as the Chair adjourned the House till 2.30 PM.

On January 31 this year, the government had amended the controversial Lokpal Bill, delinking it from the setting up of Lokayuktas in the states and transferring powers of sanction of prosecution against public servant to the ombudsman.

The Union Cabinet had accepted 14 of the 16 recommendations made by the Rajya Sabha Select Committee, which was set up in May last year amid sharp differences among political parties because of which the legislation remained stuck in the Upper House since December 2011.

The bill has been hanging in balance since then. After getting a nod from the Upper House, the bill with amendments will go back for fresh approval to Lok Sabha where it has already been passed.

The government, however, did not accept a recommendation wherein an accused public servant would get no chance to present his view before preliminary inquiry is initiated.

It also did not accept the recommendation that transfer of CBI officers assigned by Lokpal to investigate a case cannot be transferred without the approval of the anti-graft watchdog, saying it will affect the smooth functioning of CBI.

BJP demanded that the government should drop the two amendments on which there is disagreement. Government is opposed to the amendment which states that the Lokpal should be consulted before a CBI officer probing a case is transferred.

While the Opposition maintains this will check undue interference of the government, the government insists it has the right to post and transfer officials.

The other amendment on which there is no agreement between the government and Opposition is on search and seizure of an official's property. Government maintains he should be given show cause notice first when a charge of disproportionate assets is made against him while the Opposition says it will take away the element of suddenness and surprise and alert the person.

Among the recommendations accepted by the government is the one about delinking Lokayukta from the Lokpal Bill, an issue which was one of the most controversial provisions with several parties contending that it amounts to the central government encroaching upon the rights of the states.

The select committee had recommended that the state governments will have to set up Lokayuktas within one year of enactment of Lokpal.

The bill will have the provision of appointment of CBI Director by a three-member collegium comprising the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha and the Chief Justice of India.

The government accepted the recommendation of the committee that the power to grant sanction for prosecution of public servants could be shifted to Lokpal in place of the government.

It also agreed with the recommendation that Lokpal may be required to seek comments of the competent authority and the public servant before taking such a decision.

The Rajya Sabha panel had recommended exclusion of bodies and institutions receiving donations from the public from the purview of Lokpal.

Since bodies receiving donations from the public were also covered in the original Lokpal Bill, the government has not accepted the recommendation.

But the government had at the same time decided to exempt only bodies or authorities established under a central or state act providing for administration of public, religious or charitable trusts registered under Societies Registration Act.

The panel had recommended that seeking of comments from public servant during preliminary enquiry should not be mandatory.

But the government felt that providing an opportunity to public servant and to the government at that stage would help clear doubts in several cases and would substantially reduce the number of cases going for regular investigation.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
February 7,2020

Jammu & Kashmir, Feb 7: Former Jammu and Kashmir chief ministers Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah, besides two political stalwarts from NC and its arch-rival PDP were booked under the stringent Public Safety Act (PSA) by the administration on Thursday, officials said.

A magistrate accompanied by police served the order to Mufti at the bungalow where she has been detained, the officials said.

Abdullah was also booked under the PSA, they said.

National Conference general secretary and former minister Ali Mohammed Sagar, who wields a support base in downtown city, was served with a PSA notice public order by the authorities.

Similarly, senior PDP leader Sartaj Madani was booked under the PSA. Madani is the maternal uncle of former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti.

Both Sagar and Madani were detained in the aftermath of August 5 crackdown by the Centre on politicians following abrogation of special status of the erstwhile state, besides its bifurcation into two union territories.

Their six-month preventive custody was ending on Thursday.

Earlier, the officials had said that former NC legislator Bashir Ahmed Veeri was also booked under the PSA but later it turned out that he had been released.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 23,2020

Expressing concern over the ban imposed on TikTok by the government of India, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly called the development in the south Asian country “worrisome”.

TikTok was amongst the 59 Chinese apps that were banned in India but why it hogs the maximum limelight because TikTok had the second-largest user base in India with over 200 million users.

As per The Verge writer Casey Newton, Zuckerberg was worried about TikTok’s India ban. Although it soon cashed into the opportunity and released a TikTok clone “Reels”, the government’s reason behind banning the app in India wasn’t received well by Mark Zuckerberg. 

He had said that if India can ban a platform with over 200 million users in India without citing concrete reasons, it can also ban Facebook if something goes amiss on the security and privacy front.

Why Mark finds it particularly worrisome because Facebook is already involved in a lot tussle with the governments across the world involving national security concerns. 

“Facebook already faces fights around the world from governments on both the left and the right related to issues that fit under the broad umbrella of national security: election interference, influence campaigns, hate speech, and even just plain-old democratic speech. Zuckerberg knows that the leap from banning TikTok on national security grounds to banning Facebook on national security grounds is more of a short hop,” the report by Casey read.

Facebook till now has not faced any kind of issue in India but considering the debacle with the other governments, it is not entirely wrong to worry about its future in India if any national security issue arises. Back in 2016, Facebook’s Free Basics service, which means a free but restricted internet service, was banned in India by the telecom regulators. 

The TRAI had said that the Free Basic services were banned in India because it violated the principles of net neutrality. With Free Basics services, Facebook had planned to bring more unconnected users online. But since 2016, there has been no major tussle between the Indian government and Zuckerberg due to national security issues.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
March 25,2020

New Delhi, Mar 25: The government is likely to agree an economic stimulus package of more than Rs 1.5 lakh crore ($19.6 billion) to fight a downturn in the country that is currently locked down to stem the spread of coronavirus, two sources familiar with the matter told news agency.
The government has not yet finalised the package and discussions are ongoing between Prime Minister Narendra Modi's office, the finance ministry, and Reserve Bank of India (RBI), said both the sources, who asked not to be named as the matter was still under discussion.

One of the sources, a senior government official, said the stimulus plan could be as large as Rs 2.3 lakh crore, but final numbers were still in discussion.

The package could be announced by the end of the week, both sources added.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.