BiharWatch

मेधा पाटकर टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया पटना कर्मियों के समर्थन में

2012-01-28T05:41:00.000-08:00

आज टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया के प्रिंटिंग प्रेस की बंदी के कारण हटाये गए ४४ कर्मचारी उस वक़्त हैरान रह गए जब पटना के फ्रेज़र रोड स्थित उनके धरनास्थल पर नर्मदा बचाओ आन्दोलन की नेत्री और टीम अन्ना की महत्वपूर्ण सदस्य और भारत में
अहिंसक जन - आंदोलनों की पहचान सी बन चुकी मशहूर शख्शियत बन चुकी मेधा पाटकर उनके धरना-स्थल पर अपने जनांदोलन के अन्य साथियों के साथ अचानक पहुँच गई.

मालूम हो कि लोकशक्ति अभियान की अपनी बिहार यात्रा के क्रम में वे बिहार में अररिया, फारबिसगंज, कोसी क्षेत्र से होती हुई मुजफ्फरपुर के मरवन में जहां के लोगों ने अपनी लड़ाई के बल पर बालमुकुन्द कम्पनी के एस्बेस्टस कारखाने को
हटाने और भगाने में सफलता प्राप्त की और कांटी थर्मल पॉवर स्टेशन के आस पास के लोगों ने पुलिस और प्रशासन के साथ दो-दो हाथ किये सहित गोपालगंज और सिवान की यात्रा और सभाओं के बाद आज पटना में उनको शहरी गरीबों की एक महत्ती सभा को संबोधीत करना था. इसी क्रम में फ्रेज़र रोड के रास्ते से गुजरते हुए उन्होंने जब धरना स्थल पर टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया के नौकरी से हटाये गए कर्मियों को देखा तो वहां उनकी और उनकी टीम के अन्य साथियों की गाड़ियाँ हठात रुक गई.

मेधा पाटकर को वैसे तो पहले से ही इस धरने की पुरी जानकारी टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया निउज्पेपर एम्प्लाइज यूनियन के अध्यक्ष, बिहार श्रमजीवी पत्रकार यूनियन के महा-सचिव और भारतीय पत्रकार परिषद् के सदस्य,अरुण कुमार और यूनियन
के सचिव लाल रत्नाकर के माध्यम से थी मगर इस यात्रा के कार्यक्रम में उनका यहाँ धरने पर आना पूर्व-निर्धारित नहीं था.

नर्मदा नेत्री ने बताया कि शायद मीडिया में खबरों के नहीं छपने या विपरीत ख़बरें छपने की आशंका की वजह से ऐसा नहीं
किया गया हो मगर जब वे यहाँ से गुजर रही थीं तो उन्होंने निश्चय किया कि चाहे जो भी हो उन्हें धरना-स्थल पर रुकना ही है और पीड़ित मजदूर साथियों से बात करने और उनको संबोधीत करने के बाद ही आगे बढ़ना है. और इस तरह वे वहां धरने पर पहूँच गई.

मजदूरों से बातचीत के क्रम में जब उन्हें यह पता चला कि मनीसाना वेज बोर्ड के अनुसार पत्रकार और गैर पत्रकार कर्मियों के संघर्ष के क्रम में इलाज के अभाव में दो मजदूरों आनंद राम और यूनियन के अस्सिस्टेंट सेक्रेट्री दिनेश कुमार सिंह की मौत हो चुकी है, प्रेस की बंदी के बाद बेरोजगारी के तनाव से एक मजदूर साथी चंदू पागल होने के कगार पर है, कईयों के परिजनों का इलाज नहीं हो पा रहा है, बच्चों की पढाई बंद हो गई है, बेटियों की शादी रुकी पड़ी है और उनमे से कुछ की जिनकी शादियाँ ठीक हो भी गई हैं उनकी शादी में पैसे का अभाव आड़े आ रहा है यह जानकर मेधा पाटकर भावुक हो उठीं.

मेधा को प्रेस कौंसिल ऑफ़ इंडिया के सदस्य, साथी अरुण कुमार ने पूरे मामले की जानकारी दी और सभी मजदूर साथियों से परिचय कराया.एक-एक मजदूर से मेधा ने उनका दुःख दर्द सुना और बाद में उनको संबोधित भी किया.

अपने संबोधन में मेधा पाटकर ने मजदूरों को उनके धैर्य, साहस और अपने जुझारूपन के ज़ज्बे को बनाये रखने के लिए शाबाशी देते हुए अपने साथियों और अपने आन्दोलन की ओर से हर संभव समर्थन देने का आश्वासन भी दिया और बताया कि पहले से भी उनकी ओर से इस आन्दोलन को उनकी ओर से नैतिक और कानूनी सहायता के रूप में समर्थन मिल रहा है और आगे भी यह समर्थन और सहयोग जारी रहेगा.

मेधा के इस समर्थन से अभिभूत धरनार्थी मजदूर अपने बैनर के साथ मेधा के समर्थन में शहरी गरीबों की सभा में भी अपनी शिरकत की.

Medha Patkar criticises Bihar govt for creating displacement

2012-01-27T18:45:00.000-08:00

Patna, Jan 27 (PTI) Narmada Bachao Andolan leader and social activist Medha Patekar today hit out at Nitish Kumar government in Bihar accusing it of increasing displacement in the name of development. "Displacement of people is increasing in the name of development in Bihar", Patekar alleged when she was stopped at Hartali Chowk while leading a delegation to meet Chief Minister Nitish Kumar.

She also castigated the NDA government in the state for its alleged faulty and discriminatory Bihar Slums Development Policy 2011 and accused the government of "overlooking" the displacement of the poor in urban areas. Patkar alleged that though she wanted to raise these issues during her meeting with the chief minister, she was denied an appointment on the plea that Kumar was preoccupied.

"I also wanted to raise the issues of exploitation, and atrocities taking place in Bihar during the meeting", she said. She alleged that the state government was "soft-pedalling" the issues like breach of embankment of Kosi river in 1998 causing unprecedented floods and Forbesganj police firing.

Patekar demanded that the state government take steps to speed up the inquiry into the twin issues. The social activist was addressing a crowd near Hartali Chowk after the delegation was stopped from meeting the chief minister.

January 27, 2012

Medha Patkar speaks on Development, Democracy and People's Movement in Patna

2012-01-26T18:51:00.000-08:00

Medha Patkar spoke on "Development, Democracy and People's Movement" at A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna. The other eminent speakers included Arvind Sinha, senior Communist leader, Prof. D M Diwakar, Alok Dhanwa, D N Gautam, Prof. N. K Choudhary and others.

Patkar criticized Nitish Kumar for not coming forward for dialogue. "It is my belief that Congress and socialists always try to avoid dialogue." Earlier, the entire gathering at the public meeting at Kargil chowk walked towards Chief Minister's residence but were stopped at Hartali chowk. Nitish Kumar got a message sent that he is not well. A delegation met S Siddharth, Secretary to the Chief Minister.

मैं बाबा नागार्जुन को खोज रहा हूँ...एक कविता

2012-01-26T10:38:00.000-08:00

मुझे अजीब लगता है
ये सुनकर
कि पांच सितारा होटलों में हो रहा है
दुनिया भर के साहित्यकारों का सम्मलेन
क्या आप को भी अजीब नहीं लगता
कि साहित्यकार लिखने के बल पर
पी रहे हैं मिनरल वाटर
डकार रहे विदेशी शराब
कि जिनके कथा या उपन्यास पात्र
मीलों दूर से ढोकर ला रहे पानी
या गटर के पास बिछावन लगाकर
बिता रहे ज़िन्दगी के पल-छिन

टी वी पर दिखलाई जा रही तस्वीरें
कार्यक्रम में शामिल साहित्यकारों की
खाए-पिए अघाए साहित्यकारों की तस्वीरें
आधुनिक वेश-भूषा में खूबसूरत साहित्यकारों के बीच
मैं बाबा नागार्जुन को खोज रहा हूँ
मैं मुंशी प्रेमचंद को खोज रहा हूँ
मैं त्रिलोचन को खोज रहा हूँ
और साहित्यकारों के बारे में
अपने सीमित ज्ञान को
कोस रहा हूँ.........

अनवर सुहैल

बिहार में मेधा पाटकर, मुख्यमंत्री से मुलाक़ात की भी संभावना

2012-01-26T03:43:00.000-08:00

२७ जनवरी को ४ बजे ए एन सिन्हा इंस्टिट्यूट, पटना मे ‘विकास, लोकतंत्र, जनांदोलन’ पर मेधा पाटकर का वक्तव्य. इससे पहले ११ बजे कारगिल चौक, पटना मे आम सभा का आयोजन.
उत्तर प्रदेश और आंध्र प्रदेश के दो चरणों के बाद लोकशक्ति अभियान का कार्यक्रम बिहार में जारी है. इसकी शुरुवात २३ जनवरी को टाउन हाल, अररिया में मनरेगा के मजदूरों का संघ के मुद्दे पर आम सभा से हुआ. आदिवासिओं के ज़मीनों का हस्तांतरण के ऊपर आम सभा इस्तान पब्लिक हॉल, इसलामपुर में, भजनपुर, फारबिसगंज में फारबिसगंज में हुए गोलीकांड के ऊपर आम सभा २४ जनवरी को हुआ.

२५ जनवरी को बीरपुर, सुपौल में कोसी बाढ़ के ऊपर आम सभा, काटी थर्मल पॉवर पलांट, मुज्ज़फ्फरपुर के मुद्दे पर आम सभा, मढ़वन, चैनपुर बिसुनपुर में एस्बेस्टोस फैक्ट्री के मुद्दे पर आम सभा और सीनेट हॉल, मुजफ्फरपुर में सभा हुआ.

गोपाल गंज में आम सभा, पंजवार कॉलेज, रघुनाथपुर के पास, सीवान में शहीद चंद्रशेखर के प्रतिमा का माल्यार्पण, बाबु ब्रज किशोर प्रसाद के मूर्ति का अनावरण एवं लोकतंत्र दिवस के अवसर पर झंडोतोलन २६ जनवरी को और पटना मे रात्री मे आगमन.

बिहार अभियान में मेधा पाटकर, राजेंद्र रवि, मधुरेश, सुनीता, आशु, अमर मिश्रा, राकेश रफ़ीक, जे पी सिंह और नागेश त्रिपाठी, रोशन लाल अग्रवाल, प्रसाद बागवे और अन्य जगह के सामजिक कार्यकर्ता साथी भी साथ है. मेधा और उनके साथियों ने बंगाल के रास्ते बिहार मे प्रवेश किया. नंदीग्राम डायरी के लेखक पुष्पराज पूरी यात्रा और बिहार के गैर जिम्मेदार मीडिया तबके के रवैये के साक्षी रहे. संविधान में निहित अधिकारों, कर्तव्यों और जनता का प्राकृतिक संसाधनों के ऊपर संरक्षण के लिए किया गया हर यात्रा अगर सत्तालोलुप नहीं हो तो वैसे ही स्वतः स्फूर्त जन सैलाब सजीव हो उठता है जैसा इस निस्वार्थ भाव से किये गए यात्रा के दौरान हुआ. इन सब के बीच राजधानी मे मुख्यमंत्री से मुलाक़ात की संभावना के कयास लगते रहे.

इस दौर मे जब संसद मे नुमाइन्दगी करते अधिकतर लोग जनता के प्रति वफादार नहीं रहे, इन यात्राओ का महत्व दूरगामी है. ये ऐसे नहीं जैसे जैसे मंच पर नकली व स्वार्थी और कंपनियों की दलाली य वकालत करते नेता और उनसे डरी सहमी-सी वोट बैंक बनी जनता कोशो दूर बैठ उन्हें बर्दाश्त भर कर लेती है. यह अच्छा ही है कि इस दौर मे सब कुछ रिकॉर्ड हो रहा है. नेताओ और फर्जी और बिकाऊ पत्रकारों का कुछ ही दिनों मे असलियत का खुलासा हो जायेगा. कम्पनियों के पालतू की तरह परवरिश को खुद्दारी की रोजी रोटी तो नहीं ही कहा जा सकता. ऐसे मे जब हर तरफ पतन हो रहा है भाषा के स्तर पर इसका असर दिख रहा है तो ज्यादा कठोर शब्द इस्तेमाल करने से भी क्या हासिल होगा. या तो मोटी होती त्वचा पर इसका असर ही न होगा या त्वचा मे इतनी चिकनाइ आ गयी होगी की अर्थ ही फिसल जाए. यात्रा प्रासंगिक है और मात्र बौधिक विलास न होकर एक कदम ताल है जो जड़ता को तोड़ता है और बर्फीली होती जा रही संवेदनशीलता पर चोट करने की दिशा मे दूरदर्शी प्रतीत होता है, अगर नहीं है तो उसे होना चाहिए.

प्रेतलीला का वक्‍त हो चला है: अरुंधती रॉय

2012-01-25T23:18:00.000-08:00

प्रेतलीला का वक्‍त हो चला है: अरुंधती रॉय

अरुंधती रॉय
ये मकान है या घर? नए हिंदुस्‍तान का कोई तीर्थ है या फिर प्रेतों के रहने का गोदाम? मुंबई के आल्‍टामाउंट रोड पर जब से एंटिला बना है, अपने भीतर एक रहस्‍य और खतरे को छुपाए लगातार ये सवाल छोड़े हुए है। इसके आने के बाद से चीज़ें काफी कुछ बदल गई हैं यहां। मुझे यहां लाने वाला दोस्‍त कहता है, 'ये लो, आ गया। हमारे नए बादशाह को सलाम करो।'

एंटिला भारत के सबसे अमीर आदमी मुकेश अंबानी का घर है। मैं इसके बारे में पढ़ा करती थी कि ये अब तक का सबसे महंगा घर है, जिसमें 27 माले हैं, तीन हेलीपैड, नौ लिफ्ट, झूलते हुए बागीचे, बॉलरूम, वेदर रूम, जिम, छह फ्लोर की पार्किंग और 600 नौकर। लेकिन खड़े बागीचे की कल्‍पना तो मैंने कभी की ही नहीं थी- घास की एक विशाल दीवार जो धातु के विशालकाय जाल में अंटी हुई है। उसके कुछ हिस्‍सों में घास सूखी थी और तिनके नीचे गिरने से पहले ही एक आयताकार जाली में फंस जा रहे थे। कोई गंदगी नहीं। यहां ''ट्रिकल डाउन'' काम नहीं करता। हम वहां से निकलने लगे, तो मेरी नज़र पास की एक इमारत पर लटके बोर्ड पर पड़ी, उस पर लिखा था, ''बैंक ऑफ इंडिया''।

हां, यहां ''ट्रिकल डाउन'' तो बेकार है, लेकिन ''गश अप'' कारगर है। पेले जाओ। यही वजह है कि सवा अरब के देश में सबसे अमीर सौ लोगों का देश के एक-चौथाई सकल घरेलू उत्‍पाद पर कब्‍ज़ा है।

हिंदुस्‍तान में हमारे जैसे 30 करोड़ लोग, जो आर्थिक सुधारों से उपजे मध्‍यवर्ग यानी बाजार की पैदाइश हैं, उन ढाई लाख किसानों की प्रेतात्‍माओं के साथ रहते हैं, जिन्‍होंने कर्ज के बोझ तले अपनी जान दे दी। हमारे साथ चिपटे हैं उन 80 करोड़ लोगों के प्रेत, जिन्‍हें बेदखल कर डाला गया, जिनका सब कुछ छीन लिया गया, जो रोज़ाना 25 रुपए से भी कम पर जि़ंदा हैं ताकि हमारे लिए रास्‍ते बनाए जा सकें।

अकेले अंबानी की अपनी औकात 20 अरब डॉलर से भी ज्‍यादा की है। सैंतालीस अरब डॉलर की बाजार पूंजी वाली रिलायंस इंडस्‍ट्रीज़ लिमिटेड में उनकी मालिकाना हिस्‍सेदारी है। इसके अलावा दुनिया भर में इस कंपनी के कारोबारी हित फैले हैं। आरआईएल के पास इनफोटेल नाम की कंपनी का 95 फीसदी हिस्‍सा भी है, जिसने कुछ हफ्ते पहले ही एक मीडिया समूह में बड़ी हिस्‍सेदारी खरीदी थी। ये मीडिया समूह समाचार और मनोरंजन चैनल चलाता है। 4जी ब्रॉडबैंड का लाइसेंस अकेले इनफोटेल के पास है। इसके अलावा आरआईएल के पास अपनी एक क्रिकेट टीम भी है।

आरआईएल उन मुट्ठी भर कंपनियों में से एक है जो इस देश को चलाती हैं। इनमें कुछ खानदानी कारोबारी हैं। इसके अलावा दूसरी कंपनियों में टाटा, जिंदल, वेदांता, मित्‍तल, इनफोसिस, एस्‍सार और दूसरी वाली रिलायंस (एडीएजी) है जिसके मालिक मुकेश के भाई अनिल हैं। इन कंपनियों के बीच आगे बढ़ने की होड़ अब यूरोप, मध्‍य एशिया, अफ्रीका और लातिन अमेरिका तक फैल चुकी है।

मसलन, टाटा की अस्‍सी देशों में सौ से ज्‍यादा कंपनियां हैं। भारत में निजी क्षेत्र की बिजली कंपनियों में टाटा सबसे बड़ी है।

''गश अप'' का मंत्र किसी कारोबारी को दूसरे क्षेत्र के कारोबार में मालिकाना लेने से नहीं रोकता है, लिहाज़ा आपके पास जितना ज्‍यादा है, आप उतना ही ज्‍यादा और कमा सकते हैं। इस सिलसिले में हालांकि एक के बाद एक इतने दर्दनाक घपले-घोटाले सामने आए हैं जिनसे साफ हुआ है कि कॉरपोरेशन किस तरह नेताओं को, जजों को, नौकरशाहों और यहां तक कि मीडिया घरानों को खरीद लेते हैं, इस लोकतंत्र को खोखला कर देते हैं। बस, कुछ रवायतें बची रह जाती हैं। बॉक्‍साइट, आइरन ओर, तेल, गैस के बड़े-बड़े भंडार जिनकी कीमत खरबों डॉलर में है, कौडि़यों के मोल इन निगमों को बेच दिए गए हैं। ऐसा लगता है कि हाथ घुमाकर मुक्‍त बाज़ार का कान पकड़ने की शर्म तक नहीं बरती गई। भ्रष्‍ट नेताओं और निगमों के गिरोह ने इन भंडारों और इनके वास्‍तविक बाज़ार मूल्‍य को इतना कम कर के आंका कि जनता की अरबों की गाढ़ी कमाई इनकी जेब डकार गई है।

इससे जो असंतोष उपजा है, उससे निपटने के लिए इन निगमों ने अपने शातिर तरीके ईजाद किए हैं। अपने मुनाफे का एक छटांक वे अस्‍पतालों, शिक्षण संस्‍थानों और ट्रस्‍टों को चलाने में खर्च कर देते हैं। ये संस्‍थान बदले में एनजीओ, अकादमिकों, पत्रकारों, कलाकारों, फिल्‍मकारों, साहित्यिक आयोजनों और यहां तक कि विरोध प्रदर्शनों व आंदोलनों को फंडिंग करते हैं। ये दरअसल धर्मार्थ कार्य के बहाने समाज में राय कायम करने वाली ताकतों को अपने प्रभाव में लेने की कवायद है। इन्‍होंने रोज़मर्रा के हालात में इस तरह घुसपैठ बना ली है, सहज से सहज चीज़ों पर ऐसे कब्‍ज़ा कर लिया है कि इन्‍हें चुनौती देना दरअसल खुद ''यथार्थ'' को चुनौती देने जैसा अजीबोगरीब (या कहें रूमानी) लगता है। इसके बाद तो इनका रास्‍ता बेहद आसान हो जाता है, कह सकते हैं कि इनके अलावा कोई चारा ही नहीं रह जाता।

मसलन, देश के दो सबसे बड़े चैरिटेबल ट्रस्‍ट टाटा चलाता है (उसने पांच करोड़ डॉलर हारवर्ड बिज़नेस स्‍कूल को दान में दिया)। माइनिंग, मेटल और बिजली के क्षेत्र में बड़ी हिस्‍सेदारी रखने वाला जिंदल समूह जिंदल ग्‍लोबल लॉ स्‍कूल चलाता है। जल्‍दी ही ये समूह जिंदल स्‍कूल ऑफ गवर्नमेंट एंड पब्लिक पॉलिसी भी खोलेगा। सॉफ्टवेयर कंपनी इनफोसिस के मुनाफे से बना न्‍यू इंडिया फाउंडेशन सामाजिक विज्ञानियों को पुरस्‍कार और वजीफे देता है। अब ऐसा लगता है कि मार्क्‍स का क्रांतिकारी सर्वहारा पूंजीवाद की कब्र नहीं खोदेगा, बल्कि खुद पूंजीवाद के पगलाए महंत इस काम को करेंगे, जिन्‍होंने एक विचारधारा को आस्‍था में तब्‍दील कर डाला है। ऐसा लगता है कि उन्‍हें सच्‍चाई दिखाई ही नहीं देती, सही गलत में अंतर करने की ताकत ही नहीं रह गई। मसलन, क्‍लाइमेट चेंज को ही लें, कितना सीधा सा विज्ञान है कि पूंजीवाद (चीन वाली वेरायटी भी) इस धरती को नष्‍ट कर रहा है। उन्‍हें ये बात समझ ही नहीं आती। ''ट्रिकल डाउन'' तो बेकार हो ही चुका था। अब ''गश अप'' की बारी है। ये संकट में है।

मुंबई के गहराते काले आकाश पर जब सांध्‍य तारा उग रहा होता है, तभी एंटिला के भुतहे दरवाज़े पर लिनेन की करारी शर्ट में लकदक खड़खड़ाते वॉकी-टॉकी थामे दरबान नज़र आते हैं। आंखें चौंधियाने वाली बत्तियां भभक उठती हैं। शायद, प्रेतलीला का वक्‍त हो चला है।

(साभार: फाइनेंशियल टाइम्‍स)
(अनुवाद: अभिषेक श्रीवास्‍तव)

प्रेस - आमंत्रण: आधार पर संसदीय समिति की रिपोर्ट व जनसँख्या रजिस्टर परियोजना का अर्थ

2012-01-08T20:05:00.000-08:00

प्रेस - आमंत्रण
गोलमेज़ परिचर्चा
विषय: आधार पर संसदीय समिति की रिपोर्ट व जनसँख्या रजिस्टर परियोजना का अर्थ

दिनांक: १० जनवरी, २०१२, समय: १० बजे - ४ बजे तक
स्थान: ए न सिन्हा इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ़ सोशल स्टडीज़, पटना
आयोजक:
ए न सिन्हा इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ़ सोशल स्टडीज़, पटना, इंसाफ, सिटिज़न्स फोरम फॉर सिविल लिबर्टीस

Press Invite

Round Table

on

Report of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Finance & Its Meaning for Aadhaar (UID) project & National Population Register (NPR) for Multipurpose National Identity Cards (MNIC)

Date: January 10, 2012, Time: 10.30 am -4.00 pm

Venue: A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna

Organized by

A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Patna Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), New Delhi, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL), New Delhi

Invitation for a Round Table in Patna on Aadhaar/UID/NPR/MNIC & Parliamentary Report

2012-01-06T10:25:00.000-08:00

Invitation for a Round Table in Patna on Aadhaar/UID/NPR/MNIC & Parliamentary Report on January 10, 2012

Dear Madam/Sir,

We know that Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) on Finance on National Identification Authority of India (NIDAI) Bill, 2011 has questioned the legality and constitutionality of Government of India to introduce Unique Identification (UID) Number based on biometric data without legislative mandate.

As a follow up of the Round Table on Unique Identification (UID) Number & Bihar Govt's role on 3rd January, 2011, National Seminar on Idea of Unique Identitification (UID) Number Project on February 21, 2011 at AN Sinha Institute of Social Studies (ANISS), Patna and the PSC report, a Round Table is planned on PSC Report and its Meaning for Unique Identification (UID) Number & Union Home Ministry's National Population Register (NPR) for Multipurpose National Identity Cards (MNIC) on January 10 , 2012.

In the aftermath of this report of the PSC the ongoing collection of biometric data and the objection of some state governments without the passage of proposed Right to Privacy Bill, there is a need to rigorously examine its ramifications for the present and future generations of Bihar.

Many imminent intellectuals from cross section of the society had expressed their concerns towards its implications costing liberty of citizens and sovereignty of the country. The same has been vindicated by the PSC report.

In order to deliberate on these issues a "Round Table on PSC Report and its Meaning for Unique Identification (UID) Number & National Population Register (NPR) for Multipurpose National Identity Cards (MNIC)" is being organised jointly by A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies, Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF) and Citizen Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) on January 10 , 2012 from 10.30 am -4.00 pm.

Imminent scholars, leaders, experts and activists have been invited to participate in deliberations.

In view of your expertise and imminent concerns, we take this opportunity to invite you to participate in deliberations to reach an objective understanding on this subject, to make this Round Table successful and to adopt a resolution. Tentative programme is given below for your perusal.

warm regards
Gopal Krishna
on behalf of
Citizen Forum for Civil Liberties, New Delhi
A N Sinha Institute of Social Studies (ANSISS), Patna
Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), New Delhi

Mere Worrying About Water Crisis Not Enough

2012-01-02T06:28:00.001-08:00

From Bimaru to booming?

2011-12-29T06:40:00.000-08:00

All may not be hunky-dory in Bihar, but its CM and people deserve full marks for trying
Aditi Phadnis / New Delhi

All may not be hunky-dory in Bihar, but its CM and people deserve full marks for trying

A recent visit to Patna reinforced this impression: it is the most happening city in India. True, it is still dirty and unplanned. Traffic pretty much does as it likes. There is no sense of civic responsibility or ownership.

All this is exasperating because Patna is where you can reach out and touch change. A Miss Bihar contest is to be held in early 2012, revived since 2008. Before that, the last one was held in the 1970s. There were one or two in between but they lost credibility when the Miss Bihar title-holder turned out to be from Allahabad, and (oh no!) married! In 2008, the contest sank without a trace after some contestants alleged that the competition was rigged, stormed the stage, seized the microphone and started shouting slogans, alleging that the organisers had taken bribes to manipulate results.

Now the city is organising a marathon on 19 February, 2012. The organisers are a set of non-resident Biharis, one of whom has taken a three-month sabbatical from investment banking and is camping in Patna to make the arrangement. “The marathon would unleash a human energy that will send potent vibrations to the entire world about the arrival of Bihar and Biharis on unlimited growth path (sic). It will invite all to become stakeholders in the making of history in Bihar,” he says. The idea came to them, he says, because all great cities in the world have a marathon. So why not Patna?

Why not indeed?
It is not just Patna that appears to be prospering. Earlier this month, a young farmer in Nalanda, Sumant (no last name), set a new world record in paddy production. Sumant managed to grow 224 quintals of paddy per hectare beating the world record held by Chinese farm scientist Yuan Longping. He and four of his farmer friends used the System of Rice Intensification, a new technique that uses less water and seed than traditional methods but provides greater yields. All of them got fantastic yields.

But there are others who say all this doesn’t mean much. Bihar continues to have the lowest per capita power consumption in the country. It has an installed capacity of 600 Mw but the functional capacity is just 200 Mw. The Barh superthermal power station is coming up on Bihar land, but the state will get only 10 per cent of the power generated. Shortage of not just power but land is turning initially enthusiastic industry away from investment. Two major cycle plants were to come up in Bihar. They’ve shelved their plans. A cement company had announced it was setting up shop. It has gone back. An asbestos company looking to set up a plant found it could get no land. A major distillery and brewery acquisition brought foreign direct investment to Bihar earlier this year. But not much has been heard of it since.

There appears to be a revival of other disturbing trends. Kidnapping for ransom, everyone thought, had gone away. It has returned. Children are being kidnapped and one of them was killed when, putting their faith in the police, the parents refused to pay a ransom. Two traders have been looted in the last two weeks in the heart of Patna: the sum involved was Rs 18 lakh and Rs 45 lakh each. All this indicates organised crime and a contempt of law enforcement. Bihar’s road construction contracts were one way of getting criminal gangs, who enjoyed the patronage and protection of political personalities, off the roads. But now they’re back. Corruption at lower levels – the so-called C and D class employees – is rampant. A colleague recently lost a mobile phone. A policeman demanded Rs 200 to register a complaint. His argument: “you’ve lost a phone that cost Rs 10,000 — and you can’t pay Rs 200 to file a complaint?”

The biggest crisis Bihar is going to see is in agriculture. The last monsoon was good and it has been a bumper harvest of paddy. However, the state government’s procurement system is leaky and inefficient. The state has no milling capacity worth the name.

Planning Commission Advisor N C Saxena has charged that the Nitish Kumar government had failed to utilise a major chunk of funds provided for the centrally-sponsored schemes, depriving the state of subsidy to the tune of Rs 10,000 crore to Rs 12,000 crore. “The reason is that there is no proper administrative system in Bihar that can maintain control over expenditure and transparency in implementation of these schemes,” he alleged. For example, Saxena said, under the National Rural Health Mission Bihar’s share stood at Rs 1,300 crore but the state received Rs 780 crore, while states like Tamil Nadu and West Bengal fully utilised the subsidy for Mid-Day Meals.

Ok, Bihar isn’t going to become a Tamil Nadu overnight. But the state has to be given full marks for trying. And as much as Chief Minister Nitish Kumar and his team, it is the Biharis who deserve support. All of India will be yelling “Go, Bihar, Go” in February.

http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/aditi-phadnis-from-bimaru-to-booming/459510/

Protest Against Team Anna's High handed campaign

2011-12-29T05:44:00.000-08:00

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: डा वी एन शर्मा
Date: Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:30 AM
Subject:Protest Dharna at Azad Maidan: Against Team Anna's High handed campaign
To: bharat-chintan
डा वी एन शर्मा / Dr.V.N.Sharma
Cell No.9431102680,
Member, Secretariat, All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE),
Working Committee Member, Jan Sansad &
Chairman, Jharkhand Vigyan Manch
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: anilsadgopal
Date: 2011/12/28
Subject: [PMARC] Protest Dharna at Azad Maidan: Against Team Anna's High handed campaign
To: Dalits Media Watch
Cc: ram puniyani, ramesh patnaik, Madhu Prasad, G Haragopal, Mohit Pandey, Vikas Gupta

Dear Dr. Ram Puniyani,

Through you, I wish to congratulate the entire team that took the courageous and timely initiative in organising the Dharna to oppose “Anna Hazare’s highhanded demands for the Janlokpal above the people and the parliament”. Had I been in Mumbai at the time, I would have definitely been in the Dharna. You are absolutely right in diagnosing the Anna movement as an “assault on democracy and pluralism”. Indeed, there is much more to it than what meets the eye. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, there is definitely a design of steadily destroying the credibility of various democratic structures and provisions as provided in the Constitution. Nothing else would have pleased the global capital more!

The unprecedented financial and media support from India Inc calls for an in-depth examination of the political agenda of Team Anna. Long standing grassroots movements sustained over decades in India could never receive media attention anywhere close to what Anna Hazare'a movement managed to get within a period of few months. The flow of finance from international funding agencies and their NGOs in the country is not something that can be ignored any longer. Ford Foundation and such other agencies, American capital’s Think Tanks in particular, have long been known to have been responsible for their anti-democratic interventions in Latin America. Times magazine’s plans to put Anna on its front cover is yet another reason for investigating the socio-political character of Team Anna’s politics. Unfortunately, I have not had the time to undertake a comprehensive analysis of all these aspects.

None of this, however, detracts attention from the corrupt and anti-people political class and its collusion with the India Inc and global capital in eating into democratic and social fabric of the country. But that calls for a political engagement that is entirely different from what Team Anna is pursuing.

I am willing to grant that there might be one or two members of Team Anna who are there without realizing the inherent dangers but then neither naïveté nor immaturity may be cited as grounds for justifying or rationalizing anti-democratic politics.

Pl do let me know of your future plans for making the public aware of the dangers of Anna Hazare’s politics and send me the report, if any, of the Dharna.

In solidarity,

- Anil Sadgopal

--- On Sat, 24/12/11, prashantbhush wrote:
From: prashantbhush
Subject: [PMARC] Protest Dharna at Azad Maidan: Against Team Anna's High handed campaign
To: "Dalits Media Watch"
Date: Saturday, 24 December, 2011, 5:01 PM

Dear Puniani ji,
I am surprised that you are participating in this Dharna.
Warmly,
Prashant
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "ram.puniyani"
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2011 11:41:45 +0000 (GMT)
To: Dalits Media Watch
ReplyTo: "Dalits Media Watch"
Subject: [PMARC] Protest Dharna at Azad Maidan: Against Team Anna's High handed campaign
-Dharna to oppose Anna Hazare’s Highhanded demands for the Janlokpal above the people and the parliament.

The Anna Movement has taken a very authoritarian touch. It is trying to dictate terms to the highest democratic organization of the country, the Parliament. The attempt to impose a parallel oligarchic structure on the Nation is fraught with dangers and is a deliberate attempt to undermine the democratic ethos of the country. To protest against this Anna assault on democracy and pluralism of the country, a Dharna has been organized as under.

On 22,23, and 24 December
Venue Azad Maidan- 11 Am Onwards
By Save Democracy: Save India

National Campaign for Equal Opportunities, All India Secular Forum, Indians for Justice and many other organizations are participating.

On 24th December Kumar Ketkar, Adv. Zuber Azmi, Sunil Kadam, Dr. Vivek Korde, Mr. Farid and Ram Puniyani will speak amongst others. (Around 2.30 PM onwards)

Please join in large numbers to call the Team Anna bluff that THEY represent the nation and that they are ABOVE parliament

--

Lokpal Legislation Debate Require Calmer Consideration

Rajindar Sachar

The debate in Parliament on the proposed Lokpal legislation has unfortunately touched a low nadir; instead of discussing the legislation in a sober atmosphere and with conscious effort to arrive at as much consensus as possible, the parties instead indulged in mutual attacks.

Governments furtive slip in of various quotas including the minorities was a deliberate ploy with on eye on U.P. Elections, notwithstanding the doubt on legality of it expressed by former Supreme Court Judges and jurists. Could even any one imagine that the selection committee of Prime Minister, leader of opposition, irrespective of their party affiliation and non political Chief Justice of India that they would not include as members from the amongst Muslims, and women, when any number of them are available on their own merit. Why this non issue was loud mouthed unless it is a device to stall the Lokpal legislation. Let us not forget that these Mulayam / Lallu groups were the ones who sabotaged women Reservation bill by wantonly insisting a sub quota in Women Reservation Bill thus embarrassing Sonia Gandhi and Sushma Swaraj who had earlier without any embarrassment embraced and congratulated each other at their victory in Lok Sabha, but had to beat a retreat in Rajya Sabha

The suggestion that if there are any allegations against the Prime Minister they would be decoratively pigeon holded and brought out after he had remitted office (which may be even 5 years later) does not make any sense, Are we living in a democracy or under a kingship who was supposed to be a representative of Divine. Recently a sitting Prime Minister of Italy who was forced to resign on corruption charge proved against him by a court magistrate.

Similarly Chirac, Prime minister of France has been sentenced to 7 years and the President of Israel being sent to jail on the grounds of moral impropriety.

The most contentions matter of C.B.I. remains unresolved. His appointment should be by a joint committee consisting of Lokpal and the standing committee of Parliament. Give C.B.I. director a fixed tenure for say five or 10 years. He should have full administrative control over the staff of C.B.I. and earmarked funds from the consolidated fund. There would be no interference with his day to day from the Central Government or Lokpal. However Lokpal would be entitled to ask or and receive reports from him at regular intervals and also authorized to convey its decisions on such matters. He shall not be removed from service except in the manner and on like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court – the same manner of removal applies to the removal of Chief Election Commissioner.

I for one would not limit the choice necessarily to a police official and it could even be from outside the service. If it is decided to have a Chief Vigilance Commissioner, the same conditions and procedure will apply as applicable to Director of C.B.I.

Surprisingly not withstanding bitter wrangling on other aspects all members of the Parliament are unanimously agreeing to keep themselves immune from the ambit of Lokpal or even Directors C.B.I. for their corrupt actions and bribery if it is done inside the Parliament. To me this is scandalous and unacceptable.

In their defence Members of parliament invoke Article 105 of the Constitution, and the widely criticized majority judgment of (3 against 2) on in Narsimma Rao case (1999) (I believe the matter is referred to a larger bench).

The minority Judgment however warned that this interpretation could lead to charter for corruption so as to elevate Members of Parliament as “super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility”. It would indeed be ironic if a claim for immunity from prosecution founded on the need to ensure the independence of Members of parliament in exercising their right to speak or cast their vote in Parliament, could be put forward by a Member who has bartered away his independence by agreeing to speak or vote in a particular manner in lieu of illegal gratification that has been paid or promised. By claiming the immunity such a Member would only be seeking a licence to indulge in such corrupt conduct. In other countries such a conduct of MPs is treated as criminal, since 1875 in Australia.

To invoke Article 253 of the constitution for enacting Lok Ayukat is of doubtful legality and imperishable in our federal set up. Surely no state can resist the public sentiment built for Lok Ayukat.

The matter of Lokpal is too important and needs to be discussed more seriously and not under pressure of forth coming elections in Punjab and especially of U.P. Also the panicky reaction of Central government to Anna Hazare threat of fast compounded by the opposition wanting to cash on it when they went to Anna Hazare sit in to cooze upto him. Their puerile excuse that they wanted to explain their point of view is unacceptable Political Parties hold their own meetings to explain their position to the public. We go to Jantar Mantar to show our solidarity with the victims of forced displacement, and the illegal actions of the government on the deprived poor. The parties do not go to the sit in of a person they are now wanting to deride and ridicule. Of course I agree that Anna Hazare has full rights to muster support and arouse masses and exercise his democratic rights – and to put pressure on the government and even the parliament, to pass a particular law because the ultimate sovereign are the people. But there is a caveat that this discussion requires a calmer atmosphere. Could the parties unanimously agree to adjourn the discussions to be after the pressure of U.P. Elections is over with a pledge to pass the legislation as first item when it begins the next session.

As a measure of his genuine concern for strong Lokpal Anna Hazare, on his part, one hopes would reciprocate by not going on fast. He can rest assured that peoples determination to have a strong Lokpal is not so weak, as to let government avoid its solemn pledge to pass the bill in the next session of the parliament – if the government further prevaricates it most know that consequences could be monumental and no government can remain in permanent confrontation with its real masters, the people of India.

DATED: 28/12/2011
New Delhi.

पटना में मजीठिया लागु करो को लेकर डाक बंगला चौराहा और टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया दफ्तर के सामने रोषपूर्ण प्रदर्शन

2011-12-28T07:15:00.000-08:00

लाल रत्नाकर
पटना : आज मजीठिया वेज बोर्ड की अनुशंषाओं को लागू करने के लिए देशव्यापी अभियान के तहत सूबे-बिहार की राजधानी पटना में दी टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया निउज्पेपर एम्प्लोयीस यूनियन पटना और पी.टी.आई. कर्मचारी यूनियन पटना के संयुक्त अभियान में शहर के मशहूर डाक बंगला चौक पर जोशो-खरोश के साथ नारेबाजी के साथ एक घंटे तक कार्यक्रम चलाने के बाद प्रदर्शानकारी पत्रकार और गैर पत्रकार कर्मियों का शानदार जुलुस के रूप में शहर के मुख्य मार्ग फ्रेजर रोड से गुजरते हुए टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया पटना के दफ्तर के सामने पहुंचा.टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया एम्प्लोयीस यूनियन के सचिव लाल रत्नाकर, मनीष कुमार, अशोक कुमार, सदानंद,फुलेश्वर झा, राकेश सिंह,तारकेश्वर सिंह अदि के नेतृत्व में यह जुलूस जब टाइम्स के पटना दफ्तर के सामने पहुंचा मानो प्रदर्शनकारियो में नई उर्जा का संचार सा हो गया और जुलुस के नारों की आवाज़ तेज से तेजतर होती गई.

यहाँ आकर जुलूस के स्वर कुछ और कटु से हो गए. मालूम हो कि पिछले १६ जुलाई २०११ को यहाँ टाइम्स प्रबंधन ने अपना कुम्हरार स्थित प्रिंटिंग प्रेस बंद कर दिया और वहां काम कर रहे ४४ कर्मियों को उस स्थिति में नौकरी से बाहर का रास्ता दिखला दिया जब कि उनका मजीठिया वेतन बोर्ड के बकाये का विवाद सुप्रीम कोर्ट में चल रहा था. दीवानी और फौजदारी दोनों ही किस्म के मामले सुप्रीम कोर्ट में न्याय निर्णय की प्रतीक्षा में निलंबित परे थे. फौजदारी मामले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट की बेंच ने ५ जनवरी २०११ को उस तारीख में जो स्थिति वहां थी वह यथास्थति बनाये रखने का स्टेटस को का आदेश पारित किया हुआ था. और उस दिन से ही वहां हटाये गए मजदूरों का शांतिपूर्ण धरना जारी है. वैसे भी आइ. डी.एक्ट के तहत विवाद के चालू रहने की स्थिति में कर्मियों के वोर्किंग कंडीसन में परिवर्तन कानून के खिलाफ बताया गया है. यहाँ टाइम्स प्रबंधन ने प्रिंटिंग प्रेस ही बंद कर दी.

टाइम्स यूनियन की ओर से मनीसाना से जुड़े फौजदारी मुक़दमे में दखल देते हुए प्रबंधन की इस गैर क़ानूनी हरकत की सूचना सुप्रीम कोर्ट बेंच को दी है. यूनियन के अध्यक्ष अरुण कुमार जो बिहार श्रमजीवी पत्रकार यूनियन पटना के महासचिव हैं और प्रेस काउन्सिल ऑफ़ इंडिया के सदस्य भी हैं ने इस हरकत की सूचना सुप्रीम कोर्ट को दी है. मालूम हो कि इस बीच टाइम्स यूनियन पटना के सह सचिव दिनेश कुमार सिंह की मौत धरना के दरम्यान इलाज के बिना हो गई. मनीसाना वेतन बकाये की विवाद की स्थति के दरम्यान इलाज के बिना आनंद राम,शुकुल राम और दिनेश कुमार सिंह की इलाज के बिना मौत हो गई, यूनियन की लड़ाई को कमजोर करने की नीयत से चार कर्मियों रामनाथ सिंह, संजीव सरकार, सिंघेस्वर राम को नौकरी से निकाल बाहर कर दिया गया.गैर पत्रकार कर्मियों के अधिकांश के बेटे-बेटियों की पढाई लिखी छूट गई, शादियाँ रुक गई या बाधित हुई. ऐसी स्थिति में वहां के कर्मियों में गुस्सा अस्वाभाविक नहीं है.

कर्मियों ने वहां मजीठिया लागू करो, कर्मचारी विरोधी हरकतों से बाज आओ, सुप्रीम कोर्ट की अवमानना बंद करो, कानून से अपने कॉर्पोरेट सिटिज़न की ताकत ज्यादा है समझने की मानसिकता से बहार आओ जैसे नारे लगाये. सूत्र बताते हैं कि पत्रकारों और गैर पत्रकार कर्मियों के गुस्से को देखते हुए प्रबंधन के अधिकांश सदस्य दूसरे और तीसरे तल्ले पर भाग खड़े हुए. मगर प्रदर्शनकारियों ने स्वयम को संयम नहीं खोने दिया और दफ्तर के सामने नारे लगाते रहे. यह भी गौर तलब है कि यह प्रदर्शन टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया यूनियन के अध्यक्ष अरुण कुमार की अनुपस्थिति में हुआ और पूरी तरह अनुशाषित रहा. यह यूनियन की प्रौढ़ता की निशानी है.

Bhojpuri speaking Purvanchal state to comprise of 22 districts?

2011-12-28T02:02:00.001-08:00

Ahead of seven phase election that will commence from February 4, 2012, Uttar Pradesh Assembly has passed a resolution to split the state into four states-Purvanchal, Bundelkhand, Awadh Pradesh and Paschim Pradesh. She had proposed to carve Purvanchal in 2007. Bhojpuri speaking Purvanchal will comprise of 22 eastern districts adjoining Bhojpuri speaking districts of Bihar. At some stage both these regions will have to merged. The oting for the assembly election will conclude on February 28, 2012.

Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar has supported Mayawati's stand to carve out four new states from UP saying, "We are, in principle, in favour of formation of smaller states...We have been a votary of smaller states for fostering a new era of development."

Voting in Purvanchal is likely to be supportive of Mayawati because of her support for the creation of a new state.

Purvanchal is a geographic region of north-central India, which comprises the eastern end of Uttar Pradesh state. It is bounded by Nepal to the north, Bihar state to the east, Bagelkhand region of Madhya Pradesh state to the south, the Awadh region of Uttar Pradesh to the west. Purvanchal comprises three divisions – Awadhi region in the west, Bhojpuri region in the east and the Baghelkhand region in the south.

Indian freedom fighter Mangal Pandey was born in Purvanchal's Nagwa village in Ballia on 19 July 1827 and was executed on 8th April 1857 at Barrackpore, Kolkata. He was a sepoy (soldier) in the 34th Regiment of the Bengala Native Infantry (BNI) of the English East India Company.

The area of Purvanchal state gave four Prime Ministers to India - Jawaharlal Nehru, Lal Bahadur Shastri, VP Singh and Chandra Shekhar. The land is favourable for agriculture but lack of resources has kept the area backward for years.

Its population is 7.653 crore. Its per capita income is Rs 9,288.12. It will provide 32 Lok Sabha seats and 150 assembly seats.

The names of districts are as under:
Ghazipur, Azamgarh, Mau, Ballia, Gorakhpur, Deoria, Kushinagar, Maharajganj, Basti, Sant Kabir Nagar, Siddharth Nagar, Allahabad, Kaushambi, Fatehpur, Pratapgarh, Sant Ravidas Nagar-Bhadohi, Mirzapur, Sonbhadra, Varanasi, Jaunpur, Chandauli

Purvanchal area is represented by 23 Members of Parliament to the lower house of Indian Parliament, and 117 legislators in the 403 member Uttar Pradesh state assebly or Vidhan Sabha.

Menwhile, the Congress-led UPA government has returned the proposal to split UP into four parts saying that it has been "poorly drafted". This has thrown the ball back into the court of UP chief minister. UP assembly had passed a resolution on state's division on November 21.

The Union home ministry has raised eight questions over the state government proposal including the economic feasibility of the entire exercise. It has asked about the boundaries of the four proposed states, districts, capitals, district-wise population and area, number of IAS officers in each state, how existing administrative units will be divided and what will be the revenue sharing criterion between the states.

Home ministry has asked how the state's huge debt burden will be divided. According to CAG report, the state government has spent around 97% of the funds raised though borrowings towards the payment of its debts, which are exceeding over Rs 1,80,000 crore. Reports also suggested that UP's public debt is likely to touch Rs 2,04,000 crore in 2011-12 against Rs 1,80,000 in 2010-11.

Sources in the UP government has said home ministry letter is part of bureaucratic interaction, "It's not the case of ministry of home affairs (MHA) rejecting the proposal, rather the correspondence is requesting some added clarifications on the state division proposal and that would be provided within due course".

The "UP reorganisation proposal' is being opposed by most of UP's opposition parties although it is meant for better administration and development. Mayawati cited the example of Telangana and accused the Congress of fooling people demanding separate statehood. BJP has been saying that the division of the state should be done through the State Organisation Commission. Rashtriya Lok Dal which had supported division of UP has joined the UPA government.

UP's 11 crore voters to vote for 403 seats

2011-12-27T23:39:00.000-08:00

Schedule for the General Elections to the Legislative Assemblies of Goa, Manipur, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand

The terms of the Legislative Assemblies of Goa, Manipur, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand will expire as follows:

Goa 14.06.2012
Manipur 15.03.2012
Punjab 14.03.2012
Uttar Pradesh 20.05.2012
Uttarakhand 12.03.2012

As per the established practice, the Election Commission holds the General Elections to the Legislative Assemblies of the States whose terms expire around the same time, together. By virtue of its powers, duties and functions under Article 324 read with Article 172(1) of the Constitution of India, Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Commission is required to hold elections to constitute the new Legislative Assemblies in
the s a i d States of Goa, Manipur, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand before expiry of their present terms.

ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCIES
The total number of Assembly Constituencies in the States of Goa, Manipur, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand and the seats reserved for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, as determined by the Delimitation of Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies Order, 2008, are as under:

State Total No. of ACs Reserved for SC Reserved for ST

Goa 40 1 -
Manipur 60 1 19
Punjab 117 34 -
Uttar Pradesh 403 85 -
Uttarakhand 70 13 2

ELECTORAL ROLLS
The electoral rolls of all the existing Assembly Constituencies in the States
of Goa, Manipur, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand are being revised, with
reference to 01.01.2012 as the qualifying date, and shall be finally published on
02.01.2012. As per the draft publication of electoral rolls, the number of electors
in these States were as follows:-

State Total No. of Electors as per draft publication

Goa 1011673
Manipur 1677270
Punjab 17433408
Uttar Pradesh 111916689
Uttarakhand 5740148

PHOTO ELECTORAL ROLLS

Photo electoral rolls will be used during the forthcoming general elections.
Photo percentages in Photo electoral rolls of these States are as follows:

Goa 100
Manipur 97.29
Punjab 99.50
Uttar Pradesh 98
Uttarakhand 99.6

Identification of Voters and Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC)

Identification of the voters at the polling booth at the time of poll shall be
mandatory. Electors who have been provided with EPIC shall be identified
through EPIC only.

As mentioned above, presently, the EPIC coverage in the poll going States is:
Goa 98.06
Manipur 87.2
Punjab 99.66
Uttar Pradesh 98.5
Uttarakhand 99.8

All the residual electors are advised to obtain their Electoral Photo Identity
Cards from the Electoral Registration Officers of their Assembly Constituency
In order to ensure that no voter is deprived of his/her franchise, if his/her
name figures in the Electoral Rolls, separate instructions will be issued to allow
additional documents for identification of voters, if needed.

UID का सच

2011-12-26T03:20:00.000-08:00

दिसम्बर १३ को वित्त की संसदीय समिति की जो रिपोर्ट संसद के दोनों सदनों में पेश की गयी उसने ये जगजाहिर कर दिया की भारत सरकार की शारीरिक हस्ताक्षर या जैवमापन (बायोमेट्रिक्स) आधारित विशिष्ट पहचान अंक (यू.आई.डी./आधार परियोजना) असंसदीय, गैरकानूनी, दिशाहीन और अस्पष्ट है और राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा और नागरिक अधिकारों के लिए खतरनाक है। बायोमेट्रिक पहचान तकनीक और ख़ुफ़िया तकनीक के बीच के रिश्तो की पड़ताल अभी बाकी है.

यह संसदीय रिपोर्ट कहती है की सरकार ने विश्व अनुभव की अनदेखी की है. इस बात पर ध्यान नहीं दिया गया की मौजूदा पहचान प्रणाली को कारगर कैसे बनाया जाए. हैरानी की बात है की जल्दबाजी में ऐसी कोई तुलनात्मक अध्ययन भी नहीं की गयी जिससे यह पता चलता की मौजूदा पहचान प्रणाली कितनी सस्ती है और आधार और जनसँख्या रजिस्टर जैसी योजनाये कितनी खर्चीली है. आजतक किसी को यह नहीं पता है की आधार और जनसँख्या रजिस्टर पर कुल अनुमानित खर्च कितना होगा.

सरकार यह दावा कर रही थी कि यह परियोजना को देशवासियों और नागरिको को सामाजिक सुविधा उपलब्ध कराने की परियोजना है. अब यह पता चला है की इस योजना के पैरोकार गाड़ियो और जानवरों पर भी ऐसी ही योजना लागु करने की सिफारिश कर चुके है, ये बाते परत दर परत सामने आ रही है. यह परियोजना १४ विकासशील देशो में फ्रांस, दक्षिण कोरिया और संयुक्त राष्ट्र अमेरिका की कंपनियों और विश्व बैंक के एक पहल के जरिये लागु किया जा रहा है. दक्षिण एशिया में यह पाकिस्तान में लागु हो चुका है और नेपाल और बंगलादेश में लागु किया जा रहा है.
संसदीय समिति ने कानुनविदों, शिक्षाविदो और मानवाधिकार कार्यकर्ताओ की इस बात को माना है की यह देशवासियों के निजी जीवन पर एक तरह का हमला है जिसे नागरिक स्वतंत्रता और मानवाधिकार के हनन के रूप में ही समझा जा सकता है. समिति ने अपनी रिपोर्ट में ब्रिटेन सरकार द्वारा ऐसे ही पहचानपत्र कानून 2006 को समाप्त करने के फैसले का भी जिक्र किया है जिसका उद्धरण देश के न्यायाधिशो ने दिया था.

भारत में इस बात पर कम ध्यान दिया गया है कि कैसे विराट स्तर पर सूचनाओं को संगठित करने की धारणा चुपचाप सामाजिक नियंत्रण, युद्ध के उपकरण और जातीय समूहों को निशाना बनाने और प्रताड़ित करने के हथियार के रूप में विकसित हुई है। भारत के निर्धनतम लोगों तक पहुंचने में 12 अंकों वाला आधार कार्ड सहायक होने का दावा करने वाले इस विशिष्ट पहचान परियोजना का विश्व इतिहास के सन्दर्भ में नहीं देखा गया।

खासतौर पर जर्मनी और आमतौर पर यूरोप के अनुभवों को नजरअंदाज करके, निशानदेही को सही मानकर वित्तमंत्री ने 2010-2011 का बजट संसद में पेश करते हुए फर्माया कि यू.आई.डी. परियोजना वित्तीय योजनाओं को समावेशी बनाने और सरकारी सहायता (सब्सिडी) जरूरतमंदों तक ही पहुंचाने के लिए उनकी निशानदेही करने का मजबूत मंच प्रदान करेगी। जबकि यह बात दिन के उजाले की तरह साफ है कि निशानदेही के यही औज़ार किसी खास धर्मो, जातियों, क्षेत्रों, जातीयताओं या आर्थिक रूप से असंतुष्ट तबकों के खिलाफ भी इस्तेमाल में लाए जा सकता हैं। भारत में राजनीतिक कारणों से समाज के कुछ तबकों का अपवर्जन लक्ष्य करके उन तबकों के जनसंहार का कारण बना- 1947 में, 1984 में और सन् 2002 में। अगर एक समग्र अध्ययन कराया जाए तो उससे साफ हो जाएगा कि किस तरह संवेदनशील निजी जानकारियां और आंकड़े जिन्हें सुरक्षित रखा जाना चाहिए था, वे हमारे देश में दंगाइयों और जनसंहार रचाने वालों को आसानी से उपलब्ध थे।

भारत सरकार भविष्य की कोई गारंटी नहीं दे सकती। अगर नाजियों जैसा कोई दल सत्तारूढ़ होता है तो क्या गारंटी है कि यू.आई.डी. के आंकड़े उसे प्राप्त नहीं होंगे और वह बदले की भावना से उनका इस्तेमाल नागरिकों के किसी खास तबके के खिलाफ नहीं करेगा? योजना योग की यू.आई.डी. और गृह मंत्रालय की राष्ट्रीय जनसंख्या रजिस्टर वही सब कुछ दोहराने का मंच है जो जर्मनी, रूमानिया, यूरोप और अन्य जगहों पर हुआ जहां वह जनगणना से लेकर नाजियों को यहूदियों की सूची प्रदान करने का माध्यम बना। यू.आई.डी. का नागरिकता से कोई संबंध नहीं था, वह महज निशानदेही का साधन है। दरअसल यह जनवरी 1933 से जनवरी 2011 तक के ख़ुफ़िया निशानदेही के प्रयासों का सफरनामा है।
इस पृष्ठभूमि में, ब्रिटेन की साझा सरकार द्वारा विवादास्पद राष्ट्रीय पहचानपत्र योजना को समाप्त करने का निर्णय वैसे ही स्वागत योग्य है जैसे अपनी संसदीय समिति की अनुसंसा ताकि नागरिकों की निजी जिंदगियों में हस्तक्षेप से उनकी सुरक्षा हो सके। पहचानपत्र कानून 2006 और स्कूलों में बच्चों की उंगलियों के निशान लिए जाने की प्रथा का खात्मा करने के साथ-साथ ब्रिटेन सरकार अपना राष्ट्रीय पहचानपत्र रजिस्टर बंद कर देगी। वह की सरकार ने घोषणा की है की अगले कदम में (बायोमेट्रिक) जैवसांख्यिकीय पासपोर्ट, सम्पर्क-बिन्दुओं पर इकट्ठा किये जाने वाले आंकड़ों तथा इंटरनेट और ई-मेल के रिकार्ड का भंडारण खत्म किया जाएगा।

पिछले साल 18 मई की प्रेस विज्ञप्ति में भारत सरकार ने बताया था कि कैबिनेट कमेटी ने भारतीय विशिष्ट पहचान प्राधिकरण द्वारा निवासियों के जनसांख्यिकीय और बायोमेट्रिक आंकड़ों को इकट्ठा करने की जो पद्धति सुझाई गई है, उसे सिद्धांततः स्वीकार कर लिया है। इसमें चेहरे, नेत्रगोलक (पारितारिका) की तस्वीर लेने और सभी दस उंगलियों के निशान लेने का प्रावधान है। इसमें 5 से 15 आयुवर्ग के बच्चों के नेत्रगोलक के आंकड़े इकट्ठा करना शामिल है। इन्हीं मानकों और प्रक्रियाओं को जनगणना के लिए रजिस्ट्रार जनरल आफ इंडिया और यू.आई.डी. व्यवस्था के अन्य रजिस्ट्रारों को भी अपनाना पड़ेगा। संसदीय समिति ने सरकार के इस कदम को असैधानिक और कार्यपालिका के अधिकार से बाहर पाया.
भारत की आधार परियोजना की ही तरह ब्रिटेन में भी इसका कभी कोई उद्देश्य बताया जाता था, कभी कोई। इस परियोजना को गरीबों के नाम पर थोपा जा रहा था. कहा जा रहा था कि पहचान का मसला राशन कार्ड, ड्राइविंग लाइसेंस, पासपोर्ट, बैंक खाता, मोबाइल कनेक्शन आदि लेने में अवरोध उत्पन्न करता है। पहचान अंक पत्र गरीब नागरिकों को शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य और वित्तीय सेवाओं सहित अनेक संसाधन प्राप्त करने योग्य बनाएगा। ब्रिटेन की बदनाम हो चुकी परियोजना के पदचिन्हों पर चलते हुए यह भी कहा जा रहा था कि पहचान अंकपत्र से बच्चों को स्कूल में दाखिले में मदद मिलेगी। ब्रिटेन सरकार के हाल के निर्णय के बाद कहीं भारत में भी इस परियोजना को तिलांजलि न दे देनी पड़े, इस बात की आशंका के चलते अब सरकार के द्वारा कहा जा रहा था यह वैकल्पिक है अनिवार्य नहीं जबकि हकीकत कुछ और ही थी।
योजना मंत्रालय की आधार यानि यू.आई.डी. योजना से गृह मंत्रालय का राष्ट्रीय जनसंख्या रजिस्टर (एन.पी.आर.) परियोजना शुरू से ही जुडा हुआ था जिसका खुलासा प्रधानमन्त्री द्वारा दिसम्बर ४, २००६ को गठित शक्ति प्राप्त मंत्रिसमूह की घोषणा से होता है जिसकी तरफ कम ध्यान दिया गया है. । यह पहली बार है कि जनसंख्या रजिस्टर बनाई जा रही है। इसके जरिए रजिस्ट्रार जनरल आफ इंडिया जो की सेन्सस कमिश्नर भी है देशवासियों के आंकड़ों का भंडार तैयार करेंगे। यह समझ जरुरी है कि जनगणना और राष्ट्रीय जनसंख्या रजिस्टर अलग-अलग चीजें हैं। जनगणना जनसंख्या, साक्षरता, शिखा, आवास और घरेलू सुविधाओं, आर्थिक गतिविधि, शहरीकरण, प्रजनन दर, मृत्युदर, भाषा, धर्म और प्रवासन आदि के संबंध में बुनियादी आंकड़ों का सबसे बड़ा स्रोत है जिसके आधार पर केंद्र व राज्य सरकारें योजनाएं बनती हैं और नीतियों का क्रियान्वयन करती हैं, जबकि राष्ट्रीय जनसंख्या रजिस्टर देशवासियों और नागरिकों के पहचान संबंधी आंकड़ों का समग्र भंडार तैयार करने का काम करेगा। इसके तहत व्यक्ति का नाम, उसके माता, पिता, पति/पत्नी का नाम, लिंग, जन्मस्थान और तारीख, वर्तमान वैवाहिक स्थिति, शिक्षा, राष्टीयता, पेशा, वर्तमान और स्थायी निवास का पता जैसी तमाम सूचनाओं का संग्रह किया जाएगा। इस आंकड़ा-भंडार में 15 साल की उम्र से उपर सभी व्यक्तियों की तस्वीरें और उनकी उंगलियों के निशान भी रखे जाएंगे।

राष्ट्रीय जनसंख्या रजिस्टर के आंकड़ो-भंडार को अंतिम रूप देने के बाद, अगला कार्यभार होगा हर नागरिक को विशिष्ट पहचान पत्र प्रदान करना। प्रस्तावित यह था कि पहचानपत्र एक तरह का स्मार्ट-कार्ड होगा जिसके उपर आधार पहचान अंक के साथ व्यक्ति का नाम, उसके माता, पिता, पति/पत्नी का नाम, लिंग, जन्मस्थान और तारीख, फोटो आदि बुनियादी जानकारियां छपी होंगी। सम्पूर्ण विवरण का भंडारण चिप में होगा।
ब्रिटेन की ही तरह यहां भी 1.2 अरब लोगों को विशिष्ट पहचान अंक देने की कवायद को रोके जाने की जरूरत thi, क्योंकि मानवाधिकार उलंघन की दृष्टि से इसके खतरे कल्पनातीत है इसे संसदीय समिति ने समझा है । बिना संसदीय सहमती के 13वें वित्त आयोग ने प्रति व्यक्ति 100 रूपए और प्रति परिवार 400-500 रूपए गरीब परिवारों को विशिष्ट पहचान अंक के लिए आवेदन करने हेतु प्रोत्साहन के बतौर दिए जाने का प्रावधान किया था। यह गरीबों को एक किस्म की रिश्वत ही है। इस उद्देश्य के लिए आयोग ने राज्य सरकारों को 2989.10 करोड़ की राशि मुहैया कराने की संस्तुति की है।
सवाल यह है की सरकार ने नागरिकों के अंगुलियों के निशान, नेत्रगोलक की छवि जैसे जैवमापक आंकड़ों का संग्रह करने के बारे में विधानसभाओं और संसद की मंजूरी क्यों नहीं ली और इस बात को क्यों नज़र अंदाज़ किया की ऐसी ही परियोजना को ब्रिटेन में समाप्त कर दिया गया है किया है.?
प्राधिकरण की ही जैवमापन मानक समिति (बायोमेट्रिक्स स्टैंडर्डस कमिटि) यह खुलासा किया कि जैवमापन सेवाओं के निष्पादन के समय सरकारी विभागों और वाणिज्यिक संस्थाओं द्वारा प्रामाणिकता स्थापित करने के लिए किया जाएगा। यहां वाणिज्यिक संस्थाओं को परिभाषित नहीं किया गया। जैवमापन मानक समिति जैवमापन में अमेरिका और यूरोप के पिछले अनुभवों का भी हवाला दिया और कहा कि जैवमापक आंकड़े राष्ट्रीय निधि हैं और उन्हें उनके मौलिक रूप में संरक्षित किया जाना चाहिए। समिति नागरिकों के आंकड़ाकोष को राष्ट्रीय निधि बताती है। यह निधि कब कंपनियों की निधि बन जाएगी कहा नहीं जा सकता.

संसदीय समिति ने यह समझा की ऐसी योजनाये सरकार आम नागरिक समाज के खिलाफ हथियार के रूप में इस्तेमाल हो सकते है. समिति इसे संसद के विशेषाधिकार का हनन का मामला मानती है कि विधेयक के पारित हुए बिना ही ३ करोड़ ७३ लाख यूनिक आइडेन्टटी नंबर/आधार संख्या बना लिए.
विशिष्ट पहचान अंक और राष्ट्रीय जनसंख्या रजिस्टर सरकार द्वारा नागरिकों पर नजर रखने के उपकरण हैं। ये परियोजनाएं न तो अपनी संरचना में और न ही अमल में निर्दोष हैं। विशिष्ट पहचान अंक प्राधिकरण के कार्य योजना प्रपत्र में कहा गया है कि विशिष्ट पहचान अंक सिर्फ पहचान की गारंटी है, अधिकारों, सेवाओं या हकदारी की गारंटी नहीं। आगे यह भी कहा गया है कि यह पहचान की भी गारंटी नहीं है, बल्कि पहचान नियत करने में सहयोगी है।

एक गहरे अर्थ में यशवंत सिन्हा की अध्यक्षता वाली संसद की स्थायी समिति विशिष्ट पहचान अंक जैसे ख़ुफ़िया उपकरणों द्वारा नागरिकों पर सतत नजर रखने और उनके जैवमापक रिकार्ड तैयार करने पर आधारित तकनीकी शासन की पुरजोर मुखालफत करने वाले व्यक्तियों, जनसंगठनों, जन आंदोलनों, संस्थाओं के अभियान का समर्थन करती है. समिति यह अनुसंसा करती है की संसद बायोमेट्रिक डाटा को इकठ्ठा करने के कृत्य की जांच करे. जनसंगठनों की मांग है की सी.ए.जी. विशिष्ट पहचान अंक प्राधिकरण की कारगुजारियों की जांच करे और इसके और जनसँख्या रजिस्टर द्वारा किये जा रहे कारनामो को तत्काल रोका जाये. देशवासियों के पास अपनी संप्रभुता को बचाने के लिए आधार अंक योजना और जनसँख्या रजिस्टर का बहिष्कार ही एक मात्र रास्ता है.

गौरतलब है की कैदी पहचान कानून, १९२० के तहत किसी भी कैदी के उंगलियों के निशान को सिर्फ मजिसट्रेट की अनुमति से लिया जाता है और उनकी रिहाई पर उंगलियों के निशान के रिकॉर्ड को नष्ट करना होता है. कैदियों के ऊपर होनेवाले जुल्म की अनदेखी की यह सजा की अब हर देशवासी को उंगलियों के निशान देने होंगे और कैदियों के मामले में तो उनके रिहाई के वक्त नष्ट करने का प्रावधान रहा है, इन योजनाओं के द्वारा देशवासियों के पूरे शारीरिक हस्ताक्षर का रिकॉर्ड रखा जा रहा है. यह एक ऐसे निजाम के कदमताल की गूंज है जो नागरिको को कैदी सरीखा मानता है. बायोमेट्रिक डाटाबेस आधारित राजसत्ता का आगाज हो रहा है बावजूद इसके जानकारी के अभाव में कुछ व्यस्त देशवासियों को बायोमेट्रिक तकनीक वाली कंपनियों के प्रति प्रचार माध्यम द्वारा तैयार आस्था चौकानेवाली है. मगर लाजवाब बात तो यह है की उन कर्मचारियों से यह आशा कैसे की जा सकती है की वो बायोमेट्रिक निशानदेही की मुखालफत करेंगे जो अपने दफ्तरों में बायोमेट्रिक हस्ताक्षर करके अन्दर जाते है. ऐसे में संसदीय समिति की सिफारिशों में एक उम्मीद की किरण दिखती है. कुछ राज्यों ने भी केंद्र सरकार को ऐसी परियोजनायो के संबध में आगाह किया है. संसद और राज्य की विधान सभाओ को संसदीय समिति के सिफारिशों को सरकार से अमल में लाने के लिए तत्काल निर्णय लेने होंगे.

गोपाल कृष्ण

गोपाल कृष्ण, लेखक जाने-माने सामजिक कार्यकर्ता एवं "ToxicsWatch Alliance " के संयोजक हैं..
Source:http://hastakshep.com/2011/12/adhar.jsp

Press Conference on the explosive report of the Standing Committee on the Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number & National Population Register

2011-12-21T02:39:00.000-08:00

Press Invite
Press Conference on the explosive report of the Standing Committee on the Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number and National Population Register (NPR)

Venue: Press Club, 1, Raisina Road, New Delhi

Time: 12 to 3 PM

Date: 22nd December, 2011

Speakers:

Justice A P Shah, former Chief Justice,Delhi and Madras High Court

Mr Raj Mathur, Free Software, OpenStandard and Privacy Activist

Prof. (Dr) Mohan Rao, Centre for Social Medicine & Community Health, JNU

Ms Kalyani Menon-Sen, Independent Researcher on Urban issues

Mr Chittaranjan Singh, General Secretary, INSAF

Mr Bezwada Wilson, Convenor, Safai Karmachari Andolan (SKA)
Mr Anil Chaudhury, Director, PEACE

Dr Usha Ramanathan, noted Jurist

Mr Gopal Krishna, Member, Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL)

The report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee(PSC) on Finance has dealt a fatal blow to the UID project. In terming the project "directionless" and "conceptualised with no clarity of purpose", the Standing Committee report resonates with concerns that have been raised in civil society since the inception of the project. The PSC report endorses the issues raised in the Statement of Concern of Eminent Citizens that was released in New Delhi on September 28,2010 at the press conference in the Press Club.
Confidentiality of data, errors in enrolment, the linking up of data bases, the risks of outsourcing, duplication of enrolment and of costs have led the Standing Committee to the conclusion that this is a project that was carried on in haste and entirely lawless. Collection of biometrics, in both the UID project and the NPR, has been found to be illegal in both the UID project and the NPR.

This delegitimises the MoUs and contracts entered into by the UIDAI with multiple registrars including state governments and banks. The project has been asked to be taken back to the drawing board.

For Details:Ramesh, Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), Phone: +91-11-2651781,

Fax: +91-11-26517814, Mb: 9818089660

मुंबई छोड़ दी मैने

2011-12-17T20:49:00.000-08:00

डेढ़ दशक पहले की बात है. वह कोई 95-96 का समय था. पूर्वी उत्तर प्रदेश के जंघई जंक्शन से इलाहाबाद और इटारसी होते हुए एक किशोर मुंबई पहुंचा था. कैसे पहुंचा यह जाने बिना क्यों पहुंचा इसे समझना मुश्किल होगा. हम जिस इलाके में पैदा हुए वह स्वभाव से परजीवी इलाका है. इस परजीवी इलाके में कोई सौ साल पहले पिया लोग रंगून जाया करते थे. फिर कलकत्ता तक सिमट गये. इसके बाद हम जिस वक्त में बड़े हो रहे थे उस दौर में यहां के परजीवी मुंबई जाया करते थे. डेढ़ दशक बाद भी मुंबई जाने की इस रफ्तार में कोई कमी नहीं आई है लेकिन हम अपने जाने को अपनी उस नौजवान आंख से एक बार पीछे मुड़कर फिर देखना चाहते हैं जिसकी चर्चा जाने अनजाने राहुल गांधी ने कर दी है.

वह जो काशी एक्सप्रेस है वह न जाने कितने समय से बुढ़ाने, लात खाने और अपमान सहकर जीने की कला सिखाने के लिए दशकों से नौजवानों को मुंबई पहुंचाने का काम कर रही है. हमें भी उसी काशी में जगह मिली. घर से प्रस्थान करते हुए सिर्फ टिकट का पैसा मिला. इलाके के कर्मकाण्डीय और आडंबरयुक्त स्वभाव के कारण मां ने कुछ पैसे अलग से भी दिये थे. इसलिए नहीं कि उसका मैं अपनी जरूरतों के लिए कुछ इस्तेमाल कर सकूंगा, बल्कि इसलिए कि ऐसा करना शुभ माना जाता था. मां के दिये पैसे के साथ यह संदेश भी होता था कि इस पैसे को खर्च नहीं करना है बल्कि बचाकर रखना है क्योंकि यह पैथान (प्रस्थान) का पैसा है और इसे संभालकर रखने से इसमें और अधिक पैसा जुड़ता है. जाहिर है, मां चाहती थी कि बेटा दिये गये पैसे को हजारगुना करके वापस करे। इसीमें बेटे की भी सफलता है और मां की भी सार्थकता। हमारी रवानगी ऐसे हुई मानों हमें सीमा पर भेजा जा रहा है. घर से निकलते हुए हमें नहीं याद कि हमने अपने मां-बाप के चेहरे को गौर से देखा हो। लेकिन छिपते छिपाते उनके चेहरों पर जो नजर पड़ी तो आंखें ही दिखीं. उम्मीद की आंखे. उम्मीद की वे दो जोड़ा आंखें क्या आस लगाये हुए थीं, उस वक्त तो समझ में नहीं आया लेकिन अब समझ में आता है. इलाके की सामाजिक, आर्थिक और मानसिक दरिद्रता की दर्दनाक त्रयी में ऐसी आंखे किसी एक घर या परिवार में ही मौजूद नहीं हैं. समूचा पूर्वी उत्तर प्रदेश ऐसी ही दर्दनाक उम्मीदों का आशियाना है.

फिर भी मुंबई जाने और कुछ कर दिखाने की किशोर समझ इतनी प्रबल थी कि ट्रेन के चालू कम्पार्टमेन्ट की गंदगी, भीड़ और एक फिट की सीट पर चौबीस घण्टे गुजारते हुए भी पहुंचने पर यह कहना कि बड़े आराम से आ गये सब कुछ नया और अनोखा लग रहा था. इलाहाबाद के बाद रात कैसे बीती पता नहीं लेकिन आंख जहां से खुली वहां से पहाड़ों के गुजरने का नजारा दिख रहा था. दूर तक खाली मैदान के बाद दूर नजर आते विंध्य पर्वतमाला के पहाड़ बरबस आकर्षित कर रहे थे. जिस किशोर के लिए अभी तक जंघई स्टेशन से भों भों करके गुजरती ट्रेन ही आकर्षण हुआ करती थीं, वह आज खुद उस ट्रेन में सवार होकर सरपट सबको पीछे छोड़ता जा रहा था. बिजली का इंजन हमारे एजे से कई गुना ज्यादा तेज दौड़ रहा था. जितनी तेज ट्रेन दौड़ रही थी उससे भी ज्यादा तेज मन भाग रहा था. वह मन मुंबई के और करीब पहुंचता जा रहा था जहां जाना उसकी एकमात्र नियति थी. मानो उसके पैदा होने का उद्येश्य निश्चित था. उसे कुछ कक्षाओं की पढ़ाई करनी है और जैसे ही हाथ पैर में थोड़ी जान आयेगी उसे मुंबई के लिए रवाना कर दिया जाएगा. मानवीय श्रम शोषण की ऐसी त्रासदी और कहां होती है, उस जगह को अभी तक तो नहीं देख पाया हूं लेकिन इस इलाके में पूरी निष्ठा और लगन के साथ खुद ही इस शोषण को अंजाम दिया जाता है.

हम जिन लोगों के साथ मुंबई गये थे वे हमारे गांव के सफल आदमी थे. वे गांव आते थे तो उनके चेहरे का पीलापन और शरीर के साफ कपड़े दोनों ही मुंबईवासी होने की निशानी होते थे. उनके बच्चों से हम दोस्ती करते थे क्योंकि वे मुंबई से आते थे तो उम्मीद लेकर आते थे. उनके हाथों में कुछ ऐसे सामान हमेशा होते थे जो इस कर्मजले गांव के बच्चों को क्योंकर नसीब होते? यह तो उन बच्चों को नसीब होते हैं जिनके बाप मुंबई रहा करते थे. पंद्रह रूपये वाली घड़ी, बीस रूपये वाला चश्मा, साफ कपड़े, जेब में पांच दस रूपये के नोट और पंसारी की दुकान से बड़ी सहजता से बिस्कुट का पैकेट खरीद लेने का सामर्थ्य हम सबके सामने मानों जीवन का अगला लक्ष्य निर्धारित कर रहा था. इसलिए उनके साथ मुंबई जाने का "सौभाग्य" कोई कम बड़ी बात नहीं थी. पठार, पहाड़ और गुफाओं को पार करते हुए हमारे नथुनों में जैसे ही फैक्ट्रियों का धुंआ घुसने लगा मैं समझ गया हम मुंबई के करीब आ गये हैं. करीब चौबीस घंटे के सफर के बाद एक बार धुंधलाती शाम को बाहर फैक्ट्रियों की ढेर सारी रोशनी ऐसी दीवाली दिखा रही थी जैसी इस जीवन में कल्पना भी नहीं की जा सकती थी. इसलिए अब पहली बार लगा कि हम बड़ी दुनिया में प्रवेश करने जा रहे हैं. अभी तक पूरी यात्रा को चुपचाप देखते रहने के बाद पहली बार लगा कि किसी ऐसी दुनिया के सामने हाजिर होने जा रहे हैं जो मेरी संभावनाओं का सही पता लगा सकती है. देर रात ट्रेन से उतरकर हम जहां पहुंचे उसे वहां की भाषा में आज भी झुग्गी ही कहा जाता है. गांव के चाचा, चाची, उनके तीन चार बच्चे और मैं. कमरा सिर्फ एक. फिर भी, वहां पहुंचते ही मुझे बड़ा झटका लगा हो ऐसा नहीं है. असल में तो मुझे होश ही नहीं था. चौबीस घंटे की खट पट खट पट सुनने के बाद नींद बड़ी तेज आ रही थी और जहां पड़े वहीं सो गये. सोते में भी कानों में ट्रेन की सुरीली खटपट ही चलती रही. सुबह उठे तो बड़े भाई मौजूद थे अपने साथ ले जाने के लिए. मुंबई की उस झुग्गी बस्ती से भाई के अपेक्षाकृत साफ सुथरे कमरे तक का सफर भी कम रोमाचंक नहीं था. उसने रास्ते में मुझे वह सबकुछ दिखाया जिससे मैं उसके ऊपर यह विश्वास कर लेता कि उसका मुंबई के बारे में सामान्य ज्ञान बहुत अच्छा है.

लेकिन मुंबई पहुंचकर इस किशोर के सामने अब चुनौती यह थी कि करना क्या है और रहना कहां है. ग्रामीण रिश्ते इतने मजबूत थे कि मैं भाई के साथ भरपूर अन्याय करते हुए उसके कमरे में रह भी सकता था और उससे पैसे लेकर घूमने भी जा सकता था लेकिन यह सब बहुत दिन तो नहीं चलनेवाला था. इसलिए इस किशोर को काम की तलाश में लग जाना था. इस अठारह उन्नीस साल के नौजवान को दो तीन महीने के लिए कोई काम चाहिए था ताकि वह इतना पैसा कमा सके कि वापस लौटकर इलाहाबाद यूनिवर्सिटी में अपनी पढ़ाई पूरी कर सके. क्योंकि मां ने कितनी भी उम्मीद से बीस रूपये का पैथान दिया हो लेकिन नौजवान तो इलाहाबाद युनिवर्सिटी में पढ़ने के लिए कुछ पैसा कमा लेना चाहता था. हालांकि मुझे बाद में अहसास हुआ कि मुझे खदेड़ा ही इसलिए गया था कि पढ़ाई से ज्यादा अब मैं कमाई पर ध्यान दूं लेकिन अपने मन में तीन महीने कमाने का ही लक्ष्य था. ये तीन महीने फिर तेरह महीने और फिर तीन साल के तीन अनुभव ऐसे रहे कि मुंबई एक स्वप्निल शहर की बजाय हमारे जैसे नौजवानों के लिए एक त्रासदी नजर आई. समूची मुंबई एक ऐसी मिल नजर आई जिसमें जवानी का कच्चा माल झोंककर उसकी ताकत से इस शहर के लिए समृद्धि निचोड़ ली जाती है और फिर उस शरीर के बुढ़ापे को गांव की ओर वापस फेंक दिया जाता है. यह सब होने में तीन चार दशक लगता जरूर है लेकिन यह एक प्रक्रिया सी बन गई है जिसकी शुरूआत पैथान देकर होती है. इस प्रक्रिया से गुजरा बुजुर्ग आनेवाली पीढ़ी को वही लक्ष्य सौंप देता है जिसे निचुड़कर वह नष्ट हो आया है. इसलिए इस प्रक्रिया का अनिवार्य और अघोषित रूप से पालन किया जाता है.

अपनी किशोराबस्था हम जंघई मेरी जान जानते हुई बिता रहे थे लेकिन बंबई पहुंचे तो अब हमें एक नई भाषा सीखने की जरूरत महसूस हो रही थी- बंबई मेरी जान. जंघई से बंबई (अब मुंबई) का यह बदलाव न तो इतना आसान था कि इसे झटपट स्वीकर लिया जाए और न ही इतना सम्मानजक कि इसको अपना परिचय बनाया जा सके. मुंबई में आम तौर पर हमें भैय्या कहा जाता है. हमें याद है बचपन में अपने बड़े भाई को नाम की बजाय भैय्या कहने के लिए हमें किस प्रकार "संस्कारित" किया गया था. इस संस्कार को ग्रहण करने में कई बार मां-बाप की डांट भी शामिल थी और कुछ थप्पड़ भी. लेकिन इस शहर में आकर महसूस हुआ कि सम्मान के शब्दों को भी गाली में तब्दील कि जा सकता है. अगर बोध नकारात्मक हो तो शब्द कितने भी सुंदर हो अपना भाव खो देते हैं. हम पूर्वी उत्तर प्रदेश से मुंबई आते हैं तो हमारी सिर्फ एक योग्यता है कि हम भैय्या है. कई बार भैय्या साला भी. यह उन मराठी लोगों के मानसिकता पर निर्भर करता है कि वे हमें भैय्या कहकर सम्मानिक करेंगे या भैय्या साला कहकर अपमानित करेंगे. उनके मन में भाव कोई भी हो उनकी जुबान से ये शब्द कभी अच्छे नहीं लगे.

इसलिए सबकुछ करते हुए भी मन अंदर से यह मानने को तैयार नहीं था कि यहां रहना चाहिए. देश के दूसरे हिस्सों में पलायन करके रह रहे लोग भी क्या वैसे ही रहते हैं जैसे मुंबई में ये उत्तर भारतीय रहते हैं? यह सवाल बार बार मेरे मन में उठता था. करीब डेढ़ सौ साल की जड़ जमाने के बाद मुंबई में उत्तर भारतीयों की आर्थिक स्थिति भले ही अब अच्छी हो चली हो लेकिन सामाजिक रूप से वे अभी भी एक बहिष्कृत और अपमानित जमात हैं. वे भले ही अपने आयोजनों और उत्सवों से समाज होने की कोशिश करते हों लेकिन डेढ़ सौ साल बाद भी वे एक समाज नहीं हो पाये हैं. मुंबई के मराठी समाज ने न तो उन्हें कल स्वीकार किया था और न ही आज स्वीकार कर रहा है. फिर मराठी माणुस की मानसिकता और स्थानीय अधिकारों की वकालत करनेवाले राजनीतिक दल आग में घी डालने का काम करते हैं. इन राजनीतिक दलों के मुखिया ये नहीं जानते कि इनके बयान हम जैसे नौजवानों को अंदर से कितना अपमानित करते हैं, और मुंबई किस तरह हमें डराने लगती है. फिर भी मुंबई में जिससे भी बात करते उसका एक ही जवाब होता- यह मुंबई है और यहां तो ऐसा ही होता है. यह जवाब कुछ कुछ वैसा ही है जैसे दिल्ली में बिहार से आया हुआ कोई नौजवान इसे डिल्ली है डिल्ली कहकर अपने यहां होने का सामर्थ्य प्रकट करता है. लेकिन आश्चर्य देखिए कि इस अपमान में भी सम्मान खोज लेने की कला कोई परजीवी और बेशर्म समाज ही कर सकता है. और यह काम मुंबई के उत्तर भारतीय जमात ने बखूबी कर रखा है.

अपनी इसी शुरूआती यात्रा में एक बार मैंने एक मराठी नौजवान धनंजय से एक सवाल पूछा था जो आम मराठियों जैसा मूर्ख बिल्कुल नहीं था. मैंने उससे पूछा कि आखिर यहां के लोग यूपी बिहार के लोगों से इतनी नफरत क्यों करते हैं? उसने कहा था कि तुम लोग यहां आना बंद कर दो, इनकी नफरत खत्म हो जाएगी. मैंने उससे जानना चाहा था कि हमारे पास पैसा नहीं है. हम अपने ही देश के एक हिस्से में अगर दो पैसा कमाने के लिए आते हैं तो क्या गलत करते हैं? धनंजय ने कहा था कि तुम लोग यहां आकर जितना संघर्ष करते हो अगर इतना संघर्ष अपने इलाके में करो, तो तुम्हें यहां आने की जरूरत ही नहीं रहेगी. तुम्हारे पास देश की सबसे उपजाऊ मिट्टी है. तुम्हारे पास देश का सबसे अच्छा दिमाग है, तुम्हारे पास गंगा और यमुना है, फिर तुम लोग मेहनत मजदूरी करने यहां क्यों चले आते हो? उसके इस सवाल का हमारे पास भला इसका क्या उत्तर हो सकता था?

डेढ़ दशक पहले भी हमारे पास धनंजय के सवाल का कोई जवाब नहीं था और आज डेढ़ दशक बाद जब एक नयी पौध अपमान की रोटी कमाने के लिए मुंबई की ओर कूच कर चुकी है हमारे पास इस सवाल का कोई जवाब नहीं है. राहुल गांधी ने इसी पूर्वी उत्तर प्रदेश में अगर मुंबई में उत्तर भारतीयों के भीख मांगने का सवाल उठाया है तो इसमें ऐसा कुछ गलत नहीं है जिसे स्वीकार न कर लिया जाए. अपमान से कमाया गया धन भीख ही होता है. और मुंबई किसी भी उत्तर भारतीय को सम्मान से धन कमाने का मौका मुहैय्या नहीं कराती है. फिर भी पूर्वी उत्तर प्रदेश का लगभग हर दूसरा नौजवान मुंबई की गलियों में गालियां खाने के लिए मजबूर है. आखिर क्यों नहीं प्रदेश की कोई सरकार ऐसे इंतजाम करती कि कम से कम इस इलाके के लोगों को अपमान की रोटी के लिए मुंबई जाना बंद हो? मैंने तो धनंजय की बात मान ली अपनी शर्तों पर तीन साल के अंदर मुंबई को अलविदा बोल दिया. वहां की सफलता की मृग मरीचिकाएं मुंझे तीन साल से ज्यादा रोक न सकीं. दिल्ली पहुंच गये. लेकिन आज भी लाखों नौजवान अपमान की रोटी कमाने के लिए मजबूर हैं. उत्तर प्रदेश में आगे जो भी सरकार आये कम से कम उसके एजंडे में एक बात जरूर होनी चाहिए कि वे ऐसी योजना बनाएं ताकि पूर्वी उत्तर प्रदेश का यह पलायन पूरी तरह न भी रुके तो कम से कम आंशिक रूप से कम जरूर हो जाए. इसी से उत्तर प्रदेश के नौजवानों के लिए सम्मान का रास्ता भी निकलेगा और मुंबईवालों की उत्तर भारतीयों के प्रति नफरत भी कम होगी.

http://visfot.com/home/index.php/permalink/5294.html

Fourth Estate's Failure Gives Birth to Lokpal?

2011-12-11T06:53:00.000-08:00

While going through the 662 page report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on Lokpal Bill that includes the dissent note and testimonies, one came came across a revealing statement of Ram Jethmalani about Fourth Estate.

It reads: "please bear in mind that in India, unfortunately, today our Fourth Estate is not powerful as it should be. I want to share with this gathering that I came across a TV channel where I discovered that thousands of crores of money are coming from foreign tax havens. I wrote an article in which I asked it to be explained as to where from did you get this money; who are these tax havens giving you this money you are getting. I received a notice from them saying that I would be sued. I said, “Please. I hope, you will do it to morrow instead of day after tomorrow.” I have not heard of them again. This is the condition of the Fourth Estate in this country. If the Fourth Estate was powerful, there would have been no need for a Lokpal."

He adds, "We need a Lokpal because other institutions have failed us today and we are trying the last one desperately. Therefore, I think, it is good to put the media also under the control of the Lokpal. But, there may be some good reasons for saying no; but, kindly consider media’s failure in its duty and you are not dealing with that kind of a media which ought to be on the ground of its reputation and utility being excluded."

Do we know which TV channel Jethmalani is referring to?

One of the key finding of a study on the 'Drivers and Dynamics of Illicit Financial Flows from India: 1948-2008' conducted by the US-based Global Financial Integrity is that at least $500 billion, or Rs.22.5 lakh crore, has been shifted out of India illegally to foreign bank accounts over the six decades since Independence. It is about half of India's $1.3-trillion GDP. This money is lying in tax havens like Cayman Islands.

Which article is Jethmalani referring to?

Ashok Kumar Parija, Chairman, Bar Council of India (BCI) said, "there could be another law to regulate media and media owners." He added, "You have such an irresponsible media in this country that unless you immediately make a law to regulate the media, then, there will be a complete chaos. I mean in every case a trial is done by the media and then by courts. The solution is make a law to regulate the media. It need not be under the Lokpal, it could be another law."

One submission reads, "We are talking about journalists. We have had these tapes which was a big embarrassment for the Government and others too. Some Journalists tried to fix up the Ministers in the Government. Now would that come in your definition of 'corruption' or not? I mean you are, after all, trying to fix up people somewhere who have on tapes which obviously with a mind to see that in future you may he hauled up with something or the other. Does that also come in your definition of 'corruption'? It is not only giving or taking money but also soliciting positions for various people in Government and other places."

Another testimony reads: "I would like to get some clarifications regarding media. We all know how media has become a big profession and it is even attracting foreign investments. Now can media also be brought under the Lokpal or not?"

There is a chapter in the report that deals with "Jurisdictional Limits of Lokpal: Private NGOs, Corporates and Media"

Excerpts from the report:

"India’s Parliament is not supreme at all. It is a Parliament which is subject to judicial review. Its legislative actions can be set aside by the Judiciary on the ground that they are contrary to the Constitution, that they are contrary to the fundamental rights of the poor citizens of this country. Please make no mistake; in a republic, it is not the majority of MPs who are sovereign, but it is the individual who is sovereign because the individual has a sanctum sanctorum protected by the fundamental rights chapter where all MPs unanimously from both Houses cannot enter into and trespass into. The citizen is supreme."

Is media serving the Sovereign Citizens? Isn't media serving Undemocratic Private NGOs, Undemocratic Corporates and Undemocratic Political Parties? Is this the way to serve democracy?

Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on Lokpal Bill

2011-12-11T03:12:00.000-08:00

Draft Bill is to come before the Parliament after the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice was adopted on December 7, 2011 and presented to the Parliament on December 9, 2011. The Draft Bill suggested by the Committee is not the official Bill.

Sharad Yadav has suggested that the session be extended for the passage of the Bill.

If the Bill is not passed the ruling party will face the music in the five assembly elections ahead.

The 662 page report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice The Lokpal Bill, 2011 and Evidence on the Bill

The report refers to Committee Proceedings and Timelines, the Concept of Lokpal: Evolution and Parliamentary History, Citizens' Charter and Grievance Redressal
Mechanism, Prime Minister: Full Exclusion Versus Degrees of Inclusion, Members of Parliament: Vote, Speech and Conduct within the House, Lokpal and State Lokayuktas: Single Enactment and Uniform Standards, Lower Bureaucracy: Degrees of Inclusion, False Complaints and Complainants: Punitive Measures, Judiciary: To Include or Exclude, Lokpal: Search and Selection, the Trinity of the Lokpal, CBI and CVC: In Search of an Equilibrium, Constitutional Status: If, How and How Much Jurisdictional Limits of Lokpal: Private NGOs, Corporates and Media, Supports Structure for the Lokpal: Whistle Blowers, Phone Tappers and Legal Aid/ Assistance Issues, Lokpal Miscellany: Residual Issues and afterword: Recommendations At a Glance.

It includes Minutes of Dissent by members of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice
(i) Shri Balavant alias Bal Apte, Shri Kirti Azad, Shri D.B. Chandre Gowda,
Shri Arjun Ram Meghwal, Shri Harin Pathak and Shri Madhusudan Yadav
(ii) Shri Ram Jethmalani
(iii) Shri Ram Vilas Paswan
(iv) Shri Shailendra Kumar
(v) Shri Prasanta Kumar Majumdar
(vi) Shri Pinaki Misra
(vii) Adv. A. Sampath
(viii) Shri S. Semmalai
(ix) Smt. Deepa Dasmunshi, Ms. Meenakshi Natrajan and Adv. P. T. Thomas
(x) Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh

The Statement of Objects and Reasons, appended to the Lok Bill reads as under:-
"The need to have a strong and effective institution of Lokpal has been felt for quite sometime. The Administrative Reforms Commission , in its interim report on the
'problems of Redressal of Citizens' Grievances submitted in 1966, inter alia
recommended the setting up of an institution of Lokpal at the Centre in this regard.
To give effect to this recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission,
eight Bills on Lokpal were introduced in the Lok Sabha in the past, namely in the
years 1968, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2001. However, these Bills had
lapsed consequent upon the dissolution of the respective Lok Sabha except in the case of 1985 Bill which was withdrawn after its introduction.

A need has been felt to constitute a mechanism for dealing with complaints on
corruption against public functionaries in high places. In this regard, the Central
Government constituted a Joint Drafting Committee (JDC) on 8th April, 2011 to draft
a Lokpal Bill.

Based on the deliberation and having regard to the need for establishing a strong and effective institution of Lokpal to inqjuire into allegation of corruption against certain public functionaries, it has been decided to enact a stand alone legislation, inter alia to provide for the following matters, namely :-
(i) to establish an Institution of Lokpal with a Chairperson and eight Members of
which fifty per cent shall be Judicial Members;
(ii) to set up Lokpal's own Investigation Wing and Prosecution Wing with such officers and employees a felt by it to be necessary;
(iii) the category of public functionaries against whom allegation of corruption are
to be inquired into, namely :-
a. a Prime Minister, after he has demitted office;
b. a Minister of the Union;
c. a Member of Parliament;
d. any Group "A" officer or equivalent;
e. a Chairperson or member or officer equivalent to Group "A" in any body, Board, corporation, authority, company, society, trust, autonomous body established by an Act of Parliament or wholly or partly financed or controlled by the Central Government;
f. any director, manager, secretary or other officer of a society or association of persons or trust wholly or partly financed or aided by the Government or in receipt of any donations from the public and whose annual income exceeds such amount as the Central Government may be notification specify but the organizations created for religious purposes and receiving public donations would be outside the purview of the Lokpal.
(iv) To provide for a mechanism to ensure that no sanction or approval under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, will be required in cases here prosecution is proposed by the Lokpal.
(v) to confer on the Lokpal the power of search and seizures and certain powers of a
Civil Court;
(vi) To empower the Lokpal or any investigation officer authorized by it in this behalf to attach property which, prima facie, has been acquired by corrupt means;
(vii) To lay down a period of limitation of seven years from the date of commission of alleged offence for filing the complaints before the Lokpal;
(viii) To confer powers of police upon Lokpal which the police officers have in connection with investigation;
(ix) To charge the expenses of Lokpal on the Consolidated Fund of India;
(x) to utilize services of officers of Central or State Government with the consent of the State Government for the purpose of conducting inquiry;
(xi) To recommend transfer or suspension of public servants connected with allegation of corruption;
(xii) To constitute sufficient number of Special Courts as may be recommended by the
Lokpal to hear and decide the cases arising out of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 under the proposed enactment;
(xiii) To make every public servant to declare his assets and liabilities, and in case of default or furnishing misleading information, to presume that the public servant has acquired such assets by corrupt means;
(xiv) To provide for prosecution of persons who make false or frivolous or vexatious
complaints.

The notes on clauses explain in detail the various provisions contained in the Bill.
The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.”

There were six major areas of divergent views in the Joint Drafting Committee on Lokpal Bill:-
i. Should one single Act be provided for both the Lokpal in the Centre and Lokayukt
in the State? Would the State Governments be willing to accept a draft provision
for the Lokayukt on the same lines as that of the Lokpal?
ii. Should the Prime Minister be brought within the purview of the Lokpal? If the
answer is in affirmative, should there be a qualified inclusion?
iii. Should Judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts be brought within the
purview of the Lokpal?
iv. Should the conduct of Members of Parliament inside Parliament, their right to
speak and right to vote in the House, be brought within the purview of the
Lokpal? Presently such actions of the Members of Parliament are covered by
article 105(2) of the Constitution?
v. Whether Articles 311 and 320 (3) (c) of the Constitution notwithstanding
members of a civil service of the Union or an All India Service or a Civil Service
of a State or a person holding a civil post under the Union or State, be subject to
enquiry and disciplinary action including dismissal and removal by the Lokpal
and Lokayukta, as the case may be?
vi. What should be the definition of the Lokpal, and should it itself exercise quasi-judicial powers also or delegate these powers to its subordinate officers?"

Following three issues were discussed in both the Houses:-
i. Whether the jurisdiction of the Lokpal should cover all employees of the Central
Government?
ii. Whether it will be applicable through the institution of the Lokayukt in all States?
iii. Whether the Lokpal should have the power to punish all those who violate the
'grievance redressal mechanism' to be put in place?

Earlier, in the last session of Parliament the Union Minister of Finance concluded in both the Houses in these words:-
“ This House agrees in principle on the Citizens Charter, Lower Bureaucracy to be
brought under Lokpal through appropriate mechanism and Establishment of Lok
Ayuktas in the States. I will request you to transmit the proceedings to the
Department-related Standing Committee for its perusal while formulating its
recommendations for a Lokpal Bill.”

Lok Sabha Debates dated 23rd April, 1965, referred to Lokpal as "overdue" in 1965 is being enacted in 2011. Will it be enacted before the year ends?

Excerpts from the report:

"India’s Parliament is not supreme at all. It is a Parliament which is subject to judicial review. Its legislative actions can be set aside by the Judiciary on the ground that they are contrary to the Constitution, that they are contrary to the fundamental rights of the poor citizens of this country. Please make no mistake; in a republic, it is not the majority of MPs who are sovereign, but it is the
individual who is sovereign because the individual has a sanctum sanctorum protected by the fundamental rights chapter where all MPs unanimously from both Houses cannot enter into and trespass into. The citizen is supreme."

AFTERWORD: REASONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE

Committee Proceedings and Timelines

1. In a nut shell, therefore, this Committee could become legally operational only
w.e.f. September 23, 2011 and has completed hearing witnesses on 4th November,
2011. It had its total deliberations including Report adoption spread over 14
meetings, together aggregating 40 hours within the space of ten weeks
commencing from September 23, 2011 and ending December 7, 2011. [Para 2.6.]

2. Though not specific to this Committee, it is an established practice that all 24
Parliamentary Standing Committees automatically lapse on completion of their
one year tenure and are freshly constituted thereafter. This results in a legal
vacuum, each year, of approximately two to three weeks and occasionally, as in
the present case, directly affects the urgent and ongoing business of the
Committee. The Committee would respectfully request Parliament to reconsider
the system of automatic lapsing. Instead, continuity in Committees but
replacement of Members on party-wise basis would save time. [Para 2.7.]

The Concept of Lokpal: Evolution and Parliamentary History

3. A proposal in this regard was first initiated in the Lok Sabha on April 3, 1963 by the Late Dr. LM Singhvi, MP2. While replying to it, the then Law Minister observed that though the institution seemed full of possibilities, since it involved a matter of policy, it was for the Prime Minister to decide in that regard3. Dr. LM Singhvi then personally communicated this idea to the then Prime Minister, Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru who in turn, with some initial hesitation, acknowledged that it was a valuable idea which could be incorporated in our institutional framework. On 3rd November, 1963, Hon’ble Prime Minister made a statement

2 Lok Sabha Debates dated 3rd April, 1963, vol. XVI, P.7556-7558
3 ibid., P.7590-92

in respect of the possibilities of this institution and said that the system of
Ombudsman fascinated him as the Ombudsman had an overall authority to deal
with the charges of corruption, even against the Prime Minister, and
commanded the respect and confidence of all4. [Para 3.3]

4. Thereafter, to give effect to the recommendations of the First Administrative
Reforms Commission, eight Bills were introduced in the Lok Sabha from time to
time. However, all these Bills lapsed consequent upon the dissolution of the
respective Lok Sabhas, except in the case of the 1985 Bill which was
subsequently withdrawn after its introduction. A close analysis of the Bills
reflects that there have been varying approaches and shifting foci in scope and
jurisdiction in all these proposed legislations. The first two Bills viz. of 1968 and of 1971 sought to cover the entire universe of bureaucrats, Ministers, public
sector undertakings, Government controlled societies for acts and omissions
relating to corruption, abuse of position, improper motives and maladministration.

The 1971 Bill, however, sought to exclude the Prime Minister from its coverage. The 1977 Bill broadly retained the same coverage except that corruption was subsequently sought to be defined in terms of IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. Additionally, the 1977 Bill did not cover maladministration as a separate category, as also the definition of “public man” against whom complaints could be filed did not include bureaucrats in general.

Thus, while the first two Bills sought to cover grievance redressal in respect of
maladministration in addition to corruption, the 1977 version did not seek to
cover the former and restricted itself to abuse of office and corruption by
Ministers and Members of Parliament. The 1977 Bill covered the Council of
Ministers without specific exclusion of the Prime Minister.

The 1985 Bill was purely focused on corruption as defined in IPC and POCA and
neither sought to subsume mal-administration or mis-conduct generally nor
4 His initial hesitation to this idea was probably due to the Scandinavian origin of the nomenclature of the institution. In a lighter vein, he happened to ask Dr. L.M. Singhvi “To what zoo does this animal belong” and asked Shri Singhvi to indigenize the nomenclature of the institution. Dr. L.M. Singhvi then coined the term Lokpal / Lokayukta to modify the institution of Ombudsman to the Indian context (as related by Dr. L.M. Singhvi to the Chairman of this Committee). Also referred to by Mr. Arun Jaitley M.P. during the Parliament Debate on 27th August 2011. He started the debate in the Upper House thus:-“Now, ‘Ombudsman’ was a Scandinavian concept and, coincidentally, on 3rd April, 1963, then an Independent young Member of the Lok Sabha, Dr. L.M. Singhvi, in the course of his participation in a debate for having an Ombudsman in India, attempted to find out what the Indian equivalent could be, and this word ‘Lokpal’ was added to our vocabulary, the Hindi vocabulary, by Dr. L.M. Singhvi who translated this word.” bureaucrats within its ambit. Moreover, the 1985 Bill impliedly included the Prime Minister since it referred to the office of a Minister in its definition of “public functionary”.

The 1989 Bill restricted itself only to corruption, but corruption only as specified in the POCA and did not mention IPC. It specifically sought to include the Prime Minister, both former and incumbent.
Lastly, the last three versions of the Bill in 1996, 1998 and 2001, all
largely;
(a) focused only on corruption;
(b) defined corruption only in terms of POCA;
(c) defined “public functionaries” to include Prime Minister,
Ministers and MPs;
(d) did not include bureaucrats within their ambit. [Para 3.5]

5. Though the institution of Lokpal is yet to become a reality at the Central level,
similar institutions of Lokayuktas have in fact been setup and are functioning for
many years in several States. In some of the States, the institution of Lokayuktas
was set up as early as in 1970s, the first being Maharashtra in 1972. Thereafter,
State enactments were enacted in the years 1981 (M.P.), 1983 (Andhra Pradesh
and Himachal Pradesh), 1984 (Karnataka), 1985 (Assam), 1986 (Gujarat), 1995
(Delhi), 1999 (Kerala), 2001 (Jharkhand), 2002 (Chhatisgarh) and 2003
(Haryana). At present, Lokayuktas are in place in 17 States and one Union
Territory. However, due to the difference in structure, scope and jurisdiction,
the effectiveness of the State Lokayuktas vary from State to State. It is
noteworthy that some States like Gujarat, Karnataka, Bihar, Rajasthan and
Andhra Pradesh have made provisions in their respective State Lokayuktas Act
for suo motu investigation by the Lokpal. In the State Lokayukta Acts of some
States, the Lokayukta has been given the power for prosecution and also power
to ensure compliance of its recommendations. However, there is a significant
difference in the nature of provisions of State Acts and in powers from State to
State. Approximately nine States in India have no Lokayukta at present. Of the
States which have an enactment, four States have no actual appointee in place
for periods varying from two months to eight years. [Para 3.8]

Citizens' Charter and Grievance Redressal Mechanism

6. The Committee believes that while providing for a comprehensive Grievance
Redressal Mechanism is absolutely critical, it is equally imperative that this
mechanism be placed in a separate framework which ensures speed, efficiency
and focus in dealing with citizens' grievances as per a specified Citizens' Charter.
The humongous number of administrative complaints and grievance redressal
requests would critically and possibly fatally jeopardize the very existence of a
Lokpal supposed to battle corruption. At the least, it would severally impair its
functioning and efficiency. Qualitatively, corruption and mal-administration fall
into reasonably distinct watertight and largely non-overlapping, mutually
exclusive compartments. The approach to tackling such two essentially distinct
issues must necessarily vary in content, manpower, logistics and structure. The
fact that this Committee recommends that there must be a separate efficacious
mechanism to deal with Grievance Redressal and Citizens' Charter in a
comprehensive legislation other than the Lokpal Bill does not devalue or
undermine the vital importance of that subject. [Para 4.15]

7. Consequently the Committee strongly recommends the creation of a separate
comprehensive enactment on this subject and such a Bill, if moved through the
Personnel/Law Ministry and if referred to this Standing Committee, would
receive the urgent attention of this Committee. Indeed, this Committee, in its
29th Report on “Public Grievance Redressal Mechanism”, presented to
Parliament in October, 2008 had specifically recommended the enactment of
such a mechanism. [Para 4.16]

8. To emphasize the importance of the subject of Citizens' Charter and to impart it
the necessary weight and momentum, the Committee is of the considered opinion
that any proposed legislation on the subject:
(i) should be urgently undertaken and be comprehensive and all inclusive;
(ii) such enactment should, subject to Constitutional validity, also be
applicable for all States as well in one uniform legislation;
(iii) must provide for adequate facilities for proper guidance of the citizens on
the procedural and other requirements while making requests.
(iv) must provide for acknowledgement of citizen’s communications within a
fixed time frame;
(v) must provide for response within stipulated time frame;
(vi) must provide for prevention of spurious or lame queries from the
department concerned to illegally/unjustifiably prolong/extend the time
limit for response;
(vii) must provide for clearly identifiable name tags for each employee of
different Government departments;
(viii) must provide for all pending grievances to be categorized subject-wise
and notified on a continually updated website for each department;
(ix) must provide for a facilitative set of procedures and formats, both for
complaints and for appeals on this subject - along the lines of the
Information Commissioners system set up under the RTI;
(x) must, in the event that the proposed Central law does not cover states,
make strong recommendations to have similar enactments for grievance
redressal/citizen charter at each State level;
(xi) may provide for exclusionary or limited clauses in the legislation to the
effect that Citizen Charter should not include services involving
constraints of supply e.g. power, water, etc. but should include subjects
where there is no constraint involved e.g. birth certificates, decisions,
assessment orders. These two are qualitatively different categories and
reflect an important and reasonable distinction deserving recognition
without which Government departments will be burdened with the legal
obligation to perform and provide services or products in areas beyond
their control and suffering from scarcity of supply. [Para 4.17]
9. The Committee strongly feels that the harmonious synchronization of the RTI
Act and of the Citizens' Charter and Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism
will ensure greater transparency and accountability in governance and enhance
the responsiveness of the system to the citizens' needs/expectations/grievances.
[Para 4.18]

10. Lastly, the Committee wishes to clarify that the conclusion of the Hon’ble Union
Minister for Finance on the Floor of the House quoted in Para 1.8 above of the
Report does not intend to direct or mandate or bind or oblige this Committee to
provide for a Citizen’s Charter within the present Lokpal Bill alone. The
Committee reads the quoted portion in para 1.8 above to mean and agree in
principle to provide for a Citizen’s Charter/Grievance Redressal system but not
necessarily and inexorably in the same Lokpal Bill. Secondly, the reference to
‘appropriate mechanism’ in para 1.8 above further makes it clear that there
must be a mechanism dealing with the subject but does not require it to be in the
same Lokpal Bill alone. Thirdly, the reference in para 1.8 above to the phrase
‘under Lokpal’ is not read by the Committee to mean that such a mechanism
must exist only within the present Lokpal Bill. The Committee reads this to
mean that there should be an appropriate institution to deal with the subject of
Citizen’s Charter/Grievance redressal which would be akin to the Lokpal and
have its features of independence and efficacy, but not that it need not be the
very same institution i.e. present Lokpal. Lastly, the Committee also takes note
of the detailed debate and divergent views of those who spoke on the Floor of
both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on this issue and concludes that no binding
consensus or resolution to the effect that the Grievances Redressal/Citizen’s
Charter mechanism must be provided in the same institution in the present
Lokpal Bill, has emerged [Para 4.19]

11. Contextually, the issues and some of the suggestions in this Chapter may overlap
with and should, therefore, be read in conjunction with Chapter 13 of this
report. Though the Committee has already opined that the issue of grievance
redressal should be dealt with in a separate legislation, the Committee hereby
also strongly recommends that there should be a similar declaration either in the
same Chapter of the Lokpal or in a separate Chapter proposed to be added in
the Indian Constitution, giving the same constitutional status to the citizens
grievances and redressal machinery.[Para 4.20]

12. This recommendation to provide the proposed Citizen Charter and Grievances
Redressal Machinery the same Constitutional status as the Lokpal also reflects
the genuine and deep concern of this Committee about the need, urgency, status
and importance of a citizen's charter/grievance machinery. The Committee
believes that the giving of the aforesaid constitutional status to this machinery
would go a long way in enhancing its efficacy and in providing a healing touch to
the common man. Conclusions and recommendations in this regard made in
para 13.12 (j) and (k) should be read in conjunction herein.[Para 4.21]

13. Furthermore, the Committee believes that this recommendation herein is also
fully consistent with the letter and spirit of para 1.8 above viz. the conclusions of the Minister of Finance in the Lower House recorded in para 1.8 above.
[Para 4.22]

The Prime Minister : Full Exlusion Versus Degrees of Inclusion

14. The issue of the Prime Minister's inclusion or exclusion or partial inclusion or
partial exclusion has been the subject of much debate in the Committee. Indeed,
this has occupied the Committee’s deliberations for at least three different
meetings. Broadly, the models / options which emerged are as follows:
(a) The Prime Minister should be altogether excluded, without exception and
without qualification.
(b) The Prime Minister should altogether be included, without exception and
without qualification ( though this view appears to be that of only one or
two Members).
(c) The Prime Minister should be fully included, with no exclusionary
caveats but he should be liable to action / prosecution only after demitting
office.
(d) The Prime Minister should be included, with subject matter exclusions
like national security, foreign affairs, atomic energy and space. Some
variants and additions suggested included the addition of “national
interest” and “public order” to this list of subject matter exclusions.
(e) One learned Member also suggested that the Prime Minister be included
but subject to the safeguard that the green signal for his prosecution must
be first obtained from either both Houses of Parliament in a joint sitting
or some variation thereof. [Para 5.22]

15. It may be added that so far as the deferred prosecution model is concerned, the
view was that if that model is adopted, there should be additional provisions
limiting such deferment to one term of the Prime Minister only and not giving
the Prime Minister the same benefit of deferred prosecution in case the Prime
Minister is re-elected. [Para 5.23]

16. In a nut shell, as far as the overwhelming number of Members of the Committee
are concerned, it was only three models above viz. as specified in paras (a), (c)
and (d) in para 5.17 above which were seriously proposed. [Para 5.24]

17. Since the Committee finds that each of the views as specified in paras (a), (c) and (d) in para 5.17 above had reasonably broad and diverse support without going
into the figures for or against or into the names of individual Members, the
Committee believes that, in fairness, all these three options be transmitted by the
Committee as options suggested by the Committee, leaving it to the good sense of
Parliament to decide as to which option is to be adopted. [Para 5.25]

18. It would be, therefore, pointless in debating the diverse arguments in respect of each option or against each option. In fairness, each of the above options has a
reasonable zone of merit as also some areas of demerit. The Committee believes
that the wisdom of Parliament in this respect should be deferred to and the
Committee, therefore, so opines. [Para 5.26]

Members of Parliament: Vote, Speech and Conduct within the House

19. The Committee strongly feels that constitutional safeguards given to MPs under
Article 105 are sacrosanct and time-tested and in view of the near unanimity in
the Committee and among political parties on their retention, there is no scope
for interfering with these provisions of the Constitution. Vote, conduct or speech
within the House is intended to promote independent thought and action,
without fetters, within Parliament. Its origin, lineage and continuance is ancient
and time-tested. Even an investigation as to whether vote, speech or conduct in a
particular case involves or does not involve corrupt practices, would whittle such
unfettered autonomy and independence within the Houses of Parliament down to
vanishing point. Such immunity for vote, speech or conduct within the Houses of
Parliament does not in any manner leave culpable MPs blameless or free from
sanction. They are liable to and, have, in the recent past, suffered severe
parliamentary punishment including expulsion from the Houses of Parliament,
for alleged taking of bribes amounting to as little as Rs. 10,000/- for asking
questions on the floor of the House. It is only external policing of speech, vote or
conduct within the House that Article 105 frowns upon. It leaves such speech,
vote and conduct not only subject to severe intra-parliamentary scrutiny and
action, but also does not seek to affect corrupt practices or any other vote, speech
or conduct outside Parliament. There is absolute clarity and continued
unanimity on the necessity for this limited immunity to be retained. Hence,
speculation on constitutional amendment in this regard is futile and engenders
interminable delay.[Para 6.19]

20. Consequently, the existing structure, mechanism, text and context of clauses
17 (1) (c) and 17 (2) in the Lokpal Bill 2011 should be retained.[Para 6.20]
Lokpal and State Lokayuktas: Single Enactment and Uniform Standards

21. The Committee finds merit in the suggestion for a single comprehensive federal
enactment dealing with Lokpal and State Lokayuktas. The availability of
uniform standards across the country is desirable; the prosecution of public
servants based upon widely divergent standards in neighboring states is an
obvious anomaly. The Committee has given its earnest attention to the
constitutional validity of a single enactment subsuming both the Lokpal and
Lokayukta and concludes that such an enactment would be not only desirable
but constitutionally valid, inter alia because,
(a) The legislation seeks to implement the UN Convention on Corruption
ratified by India.
(b) Such implementing legislation is recognized by Article 253 and is treated
as one in List III of the 7th Schedule.
(c) It gets additional legislative competence, inter-alia, individually or jointly
under Entries 1, 2 and 11A of List-III.
(d) A direct example of provision for National Human Rights Commission
and also for State Human Rights Commissions in the same Act is
provided in the Protection of the Human Rights Act 1986 seeking to
implement the UN Convention for the Protection of Human Rights.
(e) Such Parliamentary legislation under Article 253, if enacted, can provide
for repealing of State Lokayukta Acts; subject, however, to the power of
any State to make State specific amendments to the federal enactments
after securing Presidential assent for such State specific amendments.[Para 7.26]

22. Additionally, it is recommended that the content of the provisions dealing with
State Lokayuktas in the proposed central/ federal enactment must be covered
under a separate chapter in the Lokpal Bill. That may be included in one or
more chapters possibly after Chapter II and before Chapter III as found in the
Lokpal Bill 2011. The entire Lokpal Bill 2011 would have to incorporate
necessary changes and additions, mutatis mutandis, in respect of the State
Lokayukta institutions. To give one out of many examples, the Selection
Committee would be comprised of the State Chief Minister, the Speaker of the
Lower House of the State, the Leader of Opposition in the Lower House, the
Chief Justice of the High Court and a joint nominee of the State Election
Commissioner, the State Auditor General and State PSC Chairman or, where
one or more of such institutions is absent in the State, a joint nominee of
comparable institutions having statutory status within the State.[Para 7.27]

23. All these State enactments shall include the Chief Minister within their purview. The Committee believes that the position of the State Chief Minister is not
identical to that of the Prime Minister. The arguments for preventing instability
and those relating to national security or the image of the country do not apply
in case of a Chief Minister. Finally, while Article 356 is available to prevent a
vacuum for the post of Chief Minister, there is no counterpart constitutional
provision in respect of the federal Government.[Para 7.28]

24. Article 51 (c) of the Directive Principles of State Policy enjoining the federation to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations……………..” must also be kept in mind while dealing with implementing legislations pursuant to
international treaties, thus providing an additional validating basis for a single
enactment.[Para 7.29]

25. The Committee recommends that the Lokpal Bill 2011 may be expanded to
include several substantive provisions which would be applicable for Lokayuktas
in each State to deal with issues of corruption of functionaries under the State
Government and employees of those organizations controlled by the State
Government, but that, unlike the Lokpal, the state Lokayuktas would cover all
classes of employees.[Para 7.30]

26. The Committee recommends that if the above recommendation is implemented
the Lokpal Bill 2011 may be renamed as “Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill 2011”[Para 7.31]

27. The Committee believes that the recommendations, made herein, are fully
consistent with and implement, in letter and spirit, the conclusions of the
Minister of Finance on the floor of the Houses in respect of establishment of
Lokayuktas in the States, as quoted in para 1.8 above. The Committee is
conscious of the fact that the few States which have responded to the
Secretariat’s letter sent to each and every State seeking to elicit their views, have opposed a uniform Central federal Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill and,
understandably and expectedly, have sought to retain their powers to enact State
level Lokayukta Acts. The Committee repeats and reiterates the reasons given
hereinabove, in support of the desirability of one uniform enactment for both
Lokpal and Lokayuktas. The Committee also reminds itself that if such a
uniform Central enactment is passed, it would not preclude States from making
any number of State specific amendments, subject to prior Presidential assent, as
provided in the Indian Constitution. The Committee, therefore, believes that it
has rightly addressed the two issues which arise in this respect viz. the need and
desirability for a uniform single enactment and, secondly, if the latter is
answered in the affirmative, that such a uniform enactment is Constitutionally
valid and permissible.[Para 7.32]

28. Since this report, and especially this chapter, recommends the creation of a
uniform enactment for both Central and State Lokayuktas, it is reiterated that a
whole separate chapter (or, indeed, more than one chapter) would have to be
inserted in the Lokpal Bill of 2011 providing for State specific issues. Secondly,
this would have to be coupled with mutatis mutandis changes in other parts of
the Act to accommodate the fact that the same Act is addressing the requirement
of both the federal institution and also the State level institution.[Para 7.33]

29. Furthermore, each and every chapter and set of recommendations in this report
should also be made applicable, mutatis mutandis, by appropriate provisions in
the Chapter dealing with State Lokayuktas. [Para 7.34]

30. Although it is not possible for this Committee to specifically list the
particularised version of each and every amendment or adaptation required to
the Lokpal Bill, 2011 to subsume State Lokayuktas within the same enactment, it
gives below a representative non-exhaustive list of such
amendments/adaptations, which the Government should suitably implement in
the context of one uniform enactment for both Lokpal and Lokayuktas. These
include :
(a) Clause 1 (2) should be retained even for the State Lokayukta provisions
since State level officers could well be serving in parts of India other than
the State concerned as also beyond the shores of India.
(b) The Chief Minister must be included within the State Lokayukta on the
same basis as any other Minister of the Council of Ministers at the State
level. Clause 2 of the 2011 Bill must be amended to include Government
servants at the State level. The competent authority in each case would
also accordingly change e.g. for a Minister of the Council of Minister, it
would be the Chief Minister; for MLAs, it would be the presiding officer
of the respective House and so on and so forth. The competent authority
for the Chief Minister would be the Governor.
(c) As regards Clause 3, the only change would be in respect of the
Chairperson, which should be as per the recommendation made for the
Lokpal.
(d) As regards the Selection Committee, the issue at the Lokayukta level has
already been addressed above.
(e) References in the Lokpal context to the President of India shall naturally
have to be substituted at the Lokayukta level by references to the
Governor of the State.
(f) The demarcation of the criminal justice process into five broad areas
from the initiation of complaint till its adjudication, as provided in
Chapter 12, should also apply at the State Lokayukta level. The
investigative agency, like the CBI, shall be the anti-corruption unit of the
State but crucially, it shall be statutorily made independent by similar
declarations of independence as already elaborated in the discussion in
Chapter 12. All other recommendations in Chapter 12 can and should be
applied mutatis mutandis for the Lokayukta.
(g) Similarly, all the recommendations in Chapter 12 in respect of
departmental inquiry shall apply to the Lokayukta with changes made,
mutatis mutandis, in respect of State bodies. The State Vigilance
Commission/machinery would, in such cases, discharge the functions of
the CVC. However, wherever wanting, similar provisions as found in the
CVC Act buttressing the independence of the CVC shall be provided.
(h) The recommendations made in respect of elimination of sanction as also
the other recommendations, especially in Chapter 12, relating to Lokpal,
can and should be applied mutatis mutandis in respect of Lokayukta.
(i) Although no concrete fact situation exists in respect of a genuine multi-
State or inter-State corruption issue, the Committee opines that in the
rare and unusual case where the same person is sought to be prosecuted
by two or more State machineries of two or more Lokayuktas, there
should be a provision entitling the matter to be referred by either of the
States or by the accused to the Lokpal at the federal level, to ensure
uniformity and to eliminate turf wars between States or jurisdictional
skirmishes by the accused.
(j) As already stated above, the coverage of the State Lokayukta, unlike the
Lokpal, would extend to all classes of employees, including employees of
state owned or controlled entities. [Para 7.35]

Lower Bureaucracy: Degrees of Inclusion

31. The Committee, therefore, recommends
(a) That for the Lokpal at the federal level, the coverage should be expanded
to include Group A and Group B officers but not to include Group C and
Group D.
(b) The provisions for the State Lokayuktas should contain similar
counterpart reference, for purposes of coverage, of all similar categories
at the State level which are the same or equivalent to Group A and Group
B for the federal Lokpal. Though the Committee was tempted to provide
only for enabling power for the States to include the State Lokayuktas to
include the lower levels of bureaucracy like groups ‘C’ and ‘D’ at the
State level, the Committee, on careful consideration, recommends that all
the groups, including the lower bureaucracy at the State level and the
groups equivalent with ‘C’ and ‘D’ at the State level should also be
included within the jurisdiction of State Lokayuktas with no exclusion.
Employees of state owned or controlled entities should also be covered.
(c) The Committee is informed by the DoPT that after the Sixth Pay
Commission Report, Group-D has been/will be transposed and submerged
fully in Group-C. In other words, after the implementation of the
Sixth Pay Commission Report, which is already under implementation,
Group-D will disappear and there will be only Group-C as far as the
Central Government employees are concerned.
(i) Consequently, Group-C, which will shortly include the whole of
Group-D will comprise a total number of approximately 30 lakhs (3
million) employees. Though the figures are not fully updated, A+B
classes recommended for inclusion by this Committee would
comprise just under 3 lakhs employees. With some degree of
approximation, the number of Railway employees from group A to
D inclusive can be pegged at about 13½ lakhs (as on March 2010). If
Central Government PSUs are added, personnel across all
categories (Group A, B, C and D as existing) would be
approximately an additional 15 lakhs employees. Post and
Telegraph across all categories would further number
approximately 4½ lakhs employees. Hence the total, on the aforesaid
basis (which is undoubtedly an approximation and a 2010 figure) for
Group A to D (soon, as explained above, to be only Group-C) +
Railways + Central PSUs + Post and Telegraph would be
approximately 63 lakhs, or at 2011 estimates, let us assume 65 lakhs
i.e. 6.5 million.
(ii) On a conservative estimate of one policing officer per 200 employees
(a ratio propounded by several witnesses including Team Anna),
approximately 35000 employees would be required in the Lokpal to
police the aforesaid group of Central Government employees
(including, as explained above, Railways, Central PSUs, P&T etc.).
This policing is certainly not possible by the proposed nine member
Lokpal. The Lokpal would have to spawn a bureaucracy of at least
35000 personnel who would, in turn, be recruited for a parallel
Lokpal bureaucracy. Such a mammoth bureaucracy, till it is
created, would render the Lokpal unworkable. Even after it is
created, it may lead to a huge parallel bureaucracy which would set
in train its own set of consequences, including arbitrariness,
harassment and unfair and illegal action by the same bureaucracy
which, in the ultimate analysis would be nothing but a set of similar
employees cutting across the same A, B and C categories. As some of
the Members of the Committee, in a lighter vein put it, one would
then have to initiate a debate on creating a super Lokpal or a
Dharampal for the policing of the new bureaucracy of the Lokpal
institution itself.
(iia) The Committee also notes that as far as the Lokpal institution is
concerned, it is proposed as a new body and there is no such
preexisting Lokpal bureaucracy available. In this respect, there is a
fundamental difference between the Lokpal and Lokayuktas, the
latter having functioned, in one form or the other in India for the
last several decades, with a readily available structure and
manpower in most parts of India.
(iii) If, from the above approximate figure of 65 lakhs, we exclude C and
D categories (as explained earlier, D will soon become part of C)
from Central Government, Railways, PSUs, Post and Telegraph etc.,
the number of A and B categories employees in these departments
would aggregate approximately 7.75 lakhs. In other words, the
aggregate of C and D employees in these classes aggregate
approximately 57 or 58 lakhs. The Committee believes that this
figure of 7.75 or 8 lakhs would be a more manageable, workable and
desirable figure for the Lokpal institution, at least to start with.
(iv) The impression that inclusion of Group ‘A’ and B alone involves
exclusion of large sections of the bureaucracy, must be dispelled.
Though in terms of number, the aggregation of Groups ‘C’ and ‘D’
is an overwhelming percentage of total Central Government
employees, Groups ‘A’ and B include the entire class above the
supervisory level. Effectively, this means that virtually all Central
Government employees at the Section Officer level and above would
be included. It is vital to emphasize that this demarcation has to be
viewed in functional terms, since it gives such categories significant
decision making power in contra-distinction to mere numbers and
necessarily subsumes a major chunk of medium and big ticket
corruption.
(v) Another misconception needs to be clarified. There is
understandable and justifiable anger that inclusion of Group C and
D would mean exclusion of a particular class which has tormented
the common man in different ways over the years viz. Tehsildar,
Patwari and similarly named or equivalent officers. Upon checking,
the Secretariat has clarified that these posts are State Government
posts under gazette notification notified by the State Government
and hence the earlier recommendation of this Committee will enable
their full inclusion.
(vi) We further recommend that for the hybrid category of Union
Territories, the same power be given as is recommended above in
respect of State Lokayuktas. The Committee also believes that this is
the appropriate approach since a top heavy approach should be
avoided and the inclusionary ambit should be larger and higher at
the state level rather than burdening the Lokpal with all classes of
employees.
(vii) As of now, prior to the coming into force of the Lokpal Act or any of
the recommendations of this report, Group C and D officers are not
dealt with by the CVC. Group C & D employees have to be
proceeded against departmentally by the appropriate Department
Head, who may either conduct a departmental enquiry or file a
criminal corruption complaint against the relevant employee
through the CBI and/or the normal Police forces. The Committee
now recommends that the entire Group C & D, (later only Group C
as explained above) shall be brought specifically under the
jurisdiction of the CVC. In other words, the CVC, which is a high
statutory body of repute and whose selection process includes the
Leader of the Opposition, should be made to exercise powers
identical to or at least largely analogous, in respect of these class C
and class D employees as the Lokpal does for Group A and B
employees. The ultimate Lokpal Bill/Act should thus become a
model for the CVC, in so far as Group C & D employees are
concerned. If that requires large scale changes in the CVC Act, the
same should be carried out. This would considerably strengthen the
existing regime of policing, both departmentally and in terms of
anti-corruption criminal prosecutions, all Group C & D employees
and would not in any manner leave them either unpoliced or subject
to a lax or ineffective regime of policing.
(viii) Furthermore, this Committee recommends that there would be
broad supervisory fusion at the apex level by some appropriate
changes in the CVC Act. The CVC should be made to file periodical
reports, say every three months, to the Lokpal in respect of action
taken for these class C and D categories. On these reports, the
Lokpal shall be entitled to make comments and suggestions for
improvement and strengthening the functioning of CVC, which in
turn, shall file, appropriate action taken reports with the Lokpal.
(ix) Appropriate increase in the strength of the CVC manpower, in the
light of the foregoing recommendations, would also have to be
considered by the Government.
(x) The Committee also feels that this is the start of the Lokpal
institution and it should not be dogmatic and inflexible on any of the
issues. For a swift and efficient start, the Lokpal should be kept slim,
trim, effective and swift. However, after sometime, once the Lokpal
institution has stabilized and taken root, the issue of possible
inclusion of Group C classes also within the Lokpal may be
considered. This phase-wise flexible and calibrated approach would,
in the opinion of this Committee, be more desirable instead of any
blanket inclusion of all classes at this stage.
(xi) Another consideration which the Committee has kept in mind is the
fact that if all the classes of higher, middle and lower bureaucracy
are included within the Lokpal at the first instance itself, in addition
to all the aforesaid reasons, the CVC’s role and functioning would
virtually cease altogether, since the CVC would have no role in
respect of any class of employee and would be reduced, at best, to a
vigilance clearance authority. This would be undesirable in the very
first phase of reforms, especially since the CVC is a high statutory
authority in this country which has, over the last half century,
acquired a certain institutional identity and stability along with
conventions and practices which ought not to be uprooted in this
manner.
(d) All provisions for prior sanction / prior permission, whether under the
CrPC or Prevention of Corruption Act or DSPE Act or related legislation
must be repealed in respect of all categories of bureaucrats / government
servants, whether covered by the Lokpal or not, and there should
consequently be no requirement of sanction of any kind in respect of any
class or category of officers at any level in any Lokpal and Lokayukta or ,
indeed, CVC proceedings ( for non Lokpal covered categories). In other
words, the requirement of sanction must go not only for Lokpal covered
personnel but also for non-Lokpal covered personnel i.e. class ‘C’ and ‘D’
(Class D, as explained elsewhere, will eventually be submerged into Class
‘C’). The sanction requirement, originating as a salutary safeguard
against witch hunting has, over the years, as applied by the bureaucracy
itself, degenerated into a refuge for the guilty, engendering either endless
delay or obstructing all meaningful action. Moreover, the strong filtering
mechanism at the stage of preliminary inquiry proposed in respect of the
Lokpal, is a more than adequate safeguard, substituting effectively for the
sanction requirement.
(e) No doubt corruption at all levels is reprehensible and no doubt
corruption at the lowest levels does affect the common man and inflicts
pain and injury upon him but the Committee, on deep consideration and
reconsideration of this issue, concluded that this new initiative is intended
to send a clear and unequivocal message, first and foremost, in respect of
medium and big ticket corruption. Secondly, this Committee is not
oblivious to the fact that jurisdiction to cover the smallest Government
functionary at the peon and driver level ( class C largely covers peons,
assistants, drivers, and so on, though it does also cover some other more
"powerful" posts) may well provide an excuse and a pretext to divert the
focus from combating medium and big ticket corruption to merely
catching the smaller fry and building up an impressive array of statistical
prosecutions and convictions without really being able to root out the true
malaise of medium and big ticket corruption which has largely escaped
scrutiny and punishment over the last 60 years.
(f) The Committee also believes that the recommendations in respect of
scope of coverage of the lower bureaucracy, made herein, are fully
consistent with the conclusions of the Minister of Finance on the floor of
the Houses, as quoted in para 1.8 above of this Report. Firstly, the lower
bureaucracy has been, partly, brought within the coverage as per the
recommendations above and is, thus, consistent with the essence of the
conclusion contained in para 1.8 above. Secondly, the Committee does not
read para 1.8 above to meet an inevitable and inexorable mandate to
necessarily subsume each and every group of civil servant (like Group ‘C’
or Group ‘D’, etc.). Thirdly, the in principle consensus reflected in para
1.8 would be properly, and in true letter and spirit, be implemented in
regard to the recommendations in the present Chapter for scope and
coverage of Lokpal presently. Lastly, it must be kept in mind that several
other recommendations in this Report have suggested substantial
improvements and strengthening of the provisions relating to policing of
other categories of personnel like C and D, inter alia, by the CVC and/or
to the extent relevant, to be dealt with as Citizens’ Charter and Grievance
Redressal issues.[Para 8.18]

False Complaints and Complainants: Punitive Measures

32.. It cannot be gainsaid that after the enormous productive effort put in by the
entire nation over the last few months for the creation of a new initiative like the
Lokpal Bill, it would not and cannot be assumed to be anyone's intention to
create a remedy virtually impossible to activate, or worse in consequence than
the disease. The Committee, therefore, starts with the basic principle that it must
harmoniously balance the legitimate but competing demands of prevention of
false, frivolous complaints on the one hand as also the clear necessity of ensuring
that no preclusive bar arises which would act as a deterrent for genuine and
bona fide complaints.[Para 9.6]

33. The Committee sees the existing provisions in this regard as disproportionate, to the point of being a deterrent.[Para 9.7]

34. The Committee finds a convenient analogous solution and therefore adopts the
model which the same Committee has adopted in its recently submitted report
on Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 presented to the Rajya
Sabha on August 30, 2011.[Para 9.8]

35. In para 18.8 of the aforesaid Report, the Committee, in the context of Judicial
Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 said : "The Committee endorses the
rationale of making a provision for punishment for making frivolous or
vexatious complaints. The Committee, however, expresses its reservation over
the prescribed quantum of punishment both in terms of imprisonment which is
up to 5 years and fine which is up to 5 lakh rupees. The severe punishment
prescribed in the Bill may deter the prospective complainants from coming
forward and defeat the very rationale of the Bill. In view of this, the Committee
recommends that Government should substantially dilute the quantum of the
punishment so as not to discourage people from taking initiatives against the
misbehaviour of a judge. In any case, it should not exceed the punishment
provided under the Contempt of Court Act. The Government may also consider
specifically providing in the Bill a proviso to protect those complainants from
punishment / penalty who for some genuine reasons fail to prove their
complaints. The Committee, accordingly, recommends that the Bill should
specifically provide for protection in case of complaints made 'in good faith' in
line with the defence of good faith available under the Indian Penal Code."
[Para 9.9]
36. Consequently, in respect of the Lokpal Bill, the Committee recommends that, in
respect of false and frivolous complaints, :
(a) The punishment should include simple imprisonment not exceeding six
months;
(b) The fine should not exceed Rs.25000; and
(c) The Bill should specifically provide for protection in case of complaints
made in good faith in line with the defence of good faith available under
the Indian Penal Code under Section 52 IPC.[Para 9.10]

The Judiciary: To Include or Exclude

37. The Committee recommends:
(i) The Judiciary, comprising 31 odd judges of the Apex Court, 800 odd
judges of the High Courts, and 20,000 odd judges of the subordinate
judiciary are a part of a separate and distinct organ of the State. Such
separation of judicial power is vitally necessary for an independent
judiciary in any system and has been recognized specifically in Article 50
of the Indian Constitution. It is interesting that while the British
Parliamentary democratic system, which India adopted, has never
followed the absolute separation of powers doctrine between the
Legislature and the Executive, as, for example, found in the US system,
India has specifically mandated under its Constitution itself that such
separation must necessarily be maintained between the Executive and the
Legislature on the one hand and the Judiciary on the other.
(ii) Such separation, autonomy and necessary isolation is vital for ensuring
an independent judicial system. India is justifiably proud of a vigorous
(indeed sometimes over vigorous) adjudicatory judicial organ. Subjecting
that organ to the normal process of criminal prosecution or punishment
through the normal courts of the land would not be conducive to the
preservation of judicial independence in the long run.
(iii) If the Judiciary were included simpliciter as suggested in certain
quarters, the end result would be the possible and potential direct
prosecution of even an apex Court Judge before the relevant magistrate
exercising the relevant jurisdiction. The same would apply to High Court
Judges. This would lead to an extraordinarily piquant and an untenable
situation and would undermine judicial independence at its very root.
(iv) Not including the Judiciary under the present Lokpal dispensation does
not in any manner mean that this organ should be left unpoliced in
respect of corruption issues. This Committee has already proposed and
recommended a comprehensive Judicial Standards and Accountability
Bill which provides a complete in-house departmental mechanism, to deal
with errant judicial behavior by way of censure, warning, suspension,
recommendation or removal and so on within the judicial fold itself. The
Committee deprecates the criticism of the Judicial Standards and
Accountability Bill as excluding issues of corruption for the simple reason
that they were never intended to be addressed by that Bill and were
consciously excluded.
(v) As stated in para 21 of the report of this Committee on the Judicial
Standards and Accountability Bill, to this report, the Committee again
recommends, in the present context of the Lokpal Bill, that the entire
appointment process of the higher judiciary needs to be revamped and
reformed. The appointment process cannot be allowed and should not be
allowed to continue in the hands of a self-appointed common law
mechanism created by judicial order operating since the early 1990s. A
National Judicial Commission must be set up to create a broad-based and
comprehensive model for judicial appointments, including, if necessary,
by way of amendment of Articles 124 and 217 of the Indian Constitution.
Without such a fundamental revamp of the appointment process at
source and at the inception, all other measures remain purely ex-post
facto and curative. Preventive measures to ensure high quality judicial
recruitment at the entrance point is vital.
(vi) It is the same National Judicial Commission which has to be entrusted
with powers of both transfer and criminal prosecution of judges for
corruption. If desired, by amending the provisions of the Constitution as
they stand today, such proposed National Judicial Commission may also
be given the power of dismissal / removal. In any event, this mechanism of
the National Judicial Commission is essential since it would obviate
allegations and challenges to the validity of any enactment dealing with
judges on the ground of erosion or impairment of judicial independence.
Such judicial independence has been held to be part of the basic structure
of the Indian Constitution and is therefore unamendable even by way of
an amendment of the Indian Constitution. It is for this reason that while
this Committee is very categorically and strongly of the view that there
should be a comprehensive mechanism for dealing with the trinity of
judicial appointments, judicial transfers and criminal prosecution of
judges, it is resisting the temptation of including them in the present
Lokpal Bill. The Committee, however, exhorts the appropriate
departments, with all the power at its command, to expeditiously bring a
Constitutional Amendment Bill to address the aforesaid trinity of core
issues directly impinging on the judicial system today viz. appointment of
high quality and high caliber judges at the inception, non-discriminatory
and effective transfers and fair and vigorous criminal prosecution of
corrupt judges without impairing or affecting judicial independence.
(vii) The Committee finds no reason to exclude from the conclusions on this
subject, the burgeoning number of quasi-judicial authorities including
tribunals as also other statutory and non-statutory bodies which, where
not covered under category ‘A’ and ‘B’ bureaucrats, exercise quasijudicial
powers of any kind. Arbitrations and other modes of alternative dispute resolution should also be specifically covered in this proposed mechanism. They should be covered in any eventual legislation dealing with corruption in the higher judiciary. The Committee notes that a large mass of full judicial functions, especially from the High Courts has, for the last 30 to 40 years, been progressively hived off to diverse tribunals exercising diverse powers under diverse statutory enactments. The Committee also notes that apart from and in addition to such tribunals, a plethora of Government officials or other persona designata exercise quasi judicial powers in diverse situations and diverse contexts. Whatever has been said in respect of the judiciary in this chapter should, in the considered opinion of this Committee, be made applicable, with
appropriate modifications in respect of quasi-judicial bodies, tribunals
and persons as well. [Para 10.21]

The Lokpal: Search and Selection

38. To ensure flexibility, speed and efficiency on the one hand and representation to all organs of State on the other, the Committee recommends a Selection
Committee comprising:-
(a) The Prime Minister of India- as Head of the Executive.
(b) The Speaker Lok Sabha, as Head of the Legislature.
(c) The Chief Justice of India-as Head of the Judiciary.
(d) The leader of the Opposition of the Lower House.
(e) An eminent Indian, selected as elaborated in the next paragraph.
N.B.: functionaries like the Chairman and Leader of the Opposition of the
Upper House have not been included in the interests of compactness and
flexibility. The Prime Minister would preside over the Selection Committee. [Para 11.18]

39. The 5th Member of the Selection Committee in (e) above should be a joint
nominee selected jointly by the three designated Constitutional bodies viz., the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India, the Chief Election Commissioner and
the UPSC Chairman. This ensures a reasonably wide and representative degree
of inputs from eminent Constitutional bodies, without making the exercise too
cumbersome. Since the other Members of the Selection Committee are all exofficio,
this 5th nominee of the aforesaid Constitutional bodies shall be nominated
for a fixed term of five years. Additionally, it should be clarified that he should
be an eminent Indian and all the diverse criteria, individually, jointly or
severally, applicable as specified in Clause 4 (1) (i) of the Lokpal Bill 2011 should be kept in mind by the aforesaid three designated Constitutional
nominators.[Para 11.19]

40. There should, however, be a proviso in Clause 4(3) to the effect that a Search
Committee shall comprise at least seven Members and shall ensure
representation 50 per cent to Members of SC’s and/or STs and/or Other
Backward Classes and/or Minorities and/or Women or any category or
combination thereof. Though there is some merit in the suggestion that the
Search Committee should not be mandatory since, firstly, the Selection
Committee may not need to conduct any search and secondly, since this gives a
higher degree of flexibility and speed to the Selection Committee, the Committee,
on deep consideration, finally opines that the Search Committee should be made
mandatory. The Committee does so, in particular, in view of the high desirability
of providing representation in the Search Committee as stated above which, this
Committee believes, cannot be effectively ensured without the mandatory
requirement to have a Search Committee. It should, however, be clarified that
the person/s selected by the Search Committee shall not be binding on the
Selection Committee and secondly, that, where the Selection Committee rejects
the recommendations of the Search Committee in respect of any particular post,
the Selection Committee shall not be obliged to go back to the Search Committee
for the same post but would be entitled to proceed directly by itself. [ Para 11.20]

41. Over the years, there has been growing concern in India that the entire mass of
statutory quasi judicial and other similar tribunals, bodies or entities have been
operated by judicial personnel i.e. retired judges, mainly of the higher judiciary
viz. the High Courts and the Supreme Court.[Para 11.20(A)]

42. There is no doubt that judicial training and experience imparts not only a
certain objectivity but a certain technique of adjudication which, intrinsically
and by training, is likely to lead to greater care and caution in preserving
principles like fair play, natural justice, burden of proof and so on and so forth.
Familiarity with case law and knowledge of intricate legal principles, is naturally
available in retired judicial personnel of the higher judiciary.[Para11.20(B)]

43. However, when a new and nascent structure like Lokpal is being contemplated,
it is necessary not to fetter or circumscribe the discretion of the appointing
authority. The latter is certainly entitled to appoint judges to the Lokpal, and
specific exclusion of judges is neither contemplated nor being provided.
However, to consider, as the Lokpal Bill 2011 does, only former Chief Justices of
India or former judges of the Supreme Court as the Chairperson of the Lokpal
would be a totally uncalled for and unnecessary fetter. The Committee,
therefore, recommends that clause 3(2) be suitably modified not to restrict the
Selection Committee to selecting only a sitting or former Chief Justice of India or
judge of the Supreme Court as Chairperson of the Lokpal.[Para 11.20(C)]

44. A similar change is not suggested in respect of Members of the Lokpal and the
existing provision in clause 3 (2) (b) read with clause 19 may continue. Although
the Committee does believe that it is time to consider tribunals staffed by
outstanding and eminent Indians, not necessarily only from a pool of retired
members of the higher judiciary, the Committee feels hamstrung by the Apex
Court decision in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 1997 (3) SCC 261 which
has held and has been interpreted to hold that statutory tribunals involving
adjudicatory functions must not sit singly but must sit in benches of two and that
at least one of the two members must be a judicial member. Hence, unless the
aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India is
reconsidered, the Committee refrains from suggesting corresponding changes in
clause 3 (2) (b) read with clause 19, though it has been tempted to do so.[Para
11.20(D)]

45. There is merit in the suggestion that clause 3 (4) of the Lokpal Bill 2011 be
further amended to clarify that a person shall not be eligible to become
Chairperson or Member of Lokpal if:
(a) He/ she is a person convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude;
(b) He/ she is a person less than 45 years of age, on date of assuming office as
Chairperson or Member of Lokpal;
(c) He/ she has been in the service of any Central or State Government or
any entity owned or controlled by the Central or State Government and
has vacated office either by way of resignation, removal or retirement
within the period of 12 months prior to the date of appointment as
Chairperson or Member of Lokpal.[Para 11.20(E)]

46. In clause 9 (2), the existing provision should be retained but it should be added at the end of that clause, for the purpose of clarification, that no one shall be eligible for re-appointment as Chairperson or Member of the Lokpal if he has already enjoyed a term of five years.[Para 11.20(F)]

47. The Committee has already recommended appropriate representation on the
Search Committee, to certain sections of society who have been historically
marginalized. The Committee also believes that although the institution of
Lokpal is a relatively small body of nine members and specific reservation
cannot and ought not to be provided in the Lokpal institution itself, there should
be a provision added after clause 4 (5) to the effect that the Selection Committee
and the Search Committee shall make every endeavour to reflect, on the Lokpal
institution, the diversity of India by including the representation, as far as
practicable, of historically marginalized sections of the society like SCs/ STs,
OBCs, minorities and women. [Para 11.20(G)]

48. As regards clause 51 of the Lokpal Bill, 2011, the Committee recommends that
the intent behind the clause be made clear by way of an Explanation to be added
to the effect that the clause is not intended to provide any general exemption and
that "good faith" referred to in clause 52 shall have the same meaning as
provided in section 52 of the IPC.[Para 11.20(H)]
The Trinity of the Lokpal, CBI and CVC:
In Search of an Equilibrium
49. (A) Whatever is stated hereinafter in these recommendations is obviously
applicable only to Lokpal and Lokayukta covered personnel and offences/
misconduct, as already delineated in this Report earlier, inter alia, in Chapter 8
and elsewhere.
(B) For those outside (A) above, the existing law, except to the extent changed,
would continue to apply. (Para 12.32]

50. This Chapter, in the opinion of the Committee, raises an important issue of the
quality of both investigation and prosecution; the correct balance and an
apposite equilibrium of 3 entities (viz. Lokpal, CBI and CVC) after creation of
the new entity called Lokpal; harmonious functioning and real life operational
efficacy of procedural and substantive safeguards; the correct balance between
initiation of complaint, its preliminary screening/ inquiry, its further
investigation, prosecution, adjudication and punishment; and the correct
harmonization of diverse provisions of law arising from the Delhi Special Police
Establishment Act, the CVC Act, the proposed Lokpal Act, the IPC, CrPC and
the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is, therefore, a somewhat delicate and
technical task. [Para 12.33]

51. The stages of criminal prosecution of the Lokpal and Lokayukta covered persons
and officers can be divided broadly into 5 stages, viz. (a) The stage of complaint,
whether by a complainant or suo motu, (b) the preliminary screening of such a
complaint, (c) the full investigation of the complaint and the report in that
respect, (d) prosecution, if any, on the basis of the investigation and (e)
adjudication, including punishment, if any.[Para 12.34]

52. The Committee recommends that the complaint should be allowed to be made
either by any complainant or initiated suo motu by the Lokpal. Since, presently,
the CBI also has full powers of suo motu initiation of investigation, a power
which is frequently exercised, it is felt that that the same power of suo motu
proceedings should also be preserved for both the CBI and the Lokpal, subject,
however, to overall supervisory jurisdiction of the Lokpal over the CBI,
including simultaneous intimation and continued disclosure of progress of any
inquiry or investigation by the CBI to the Lokpal, subject to what has been
elaborated in the next paragraph.[Para 12.35]

53. Once the complaint, through any party or suo motu has arisen, it must be
subject to a careful and comprehensive preliminary screening to rule out false,
frivolous and vexatious complaints. This power of preliminary inquiry must
necessarily vest in the Lokpal. However, in this respect, the recommendations of
the Committee in para 12.36(I) should be read with this para. This is largely
covered in clause 23 (1) of the Lokpal Bill, 2011. However, in this respect, the
Lokpal would have to be provided, at the inception, with a sufficiently large
internal inquiry machinery. The Lokpal Bill, 2011 has an existing set of
provisions (Clauses 13 and 14 in Chapter III) which refers to a full-fledged
investigation wing. In view of the structure proposed in this Chapter, there need
not be such an investigation wing but an efficacious inquiry division for holding
the preliminary inquiry in respect of the complaint at the threshold. Preliminary
inquiry by the Lokpal also semantically distinguishes itself from the actual
investigation by the CBI after it is referred by the Lokpal to the CBI. The
pattern for provision of such an inquiry wing may be similar to the existing
structure as provided in Chapter III of the Lokpal Bill 2011 but with suitable
changes made, mutatis mutandis, and possible merger of the provisions of
Chapter VII with Chapter III.[Para 12.36]

54. The Committee is concerned at the overlap of terminology used and procedures
proposed, between preliminary inquiry by the Lokpal as opposed to investigation by the investigating agency, presently provided in Clause 23 of the Lokpal Bill. The Committee, therefore, recommends:
(a) that only two terms be used to demarcate and differentiate between
the preliminary inquiry to be conducted by the Lokpal, inter-alia,
under Chapters VI and VII read with Clause 2(1)(e) as opposed to an
investigation by the investigating agency which has been proposed to
be the CBI in the present report. Appropriate changes should make it
clear that the investigation (by the CBI as recommended in this
report), shall have the same meaning as provided in Clause 2 (h) of the
Cr.P.C whereas the terms “inquiry” or “preliminary investigation”
should be eschewed and the only two terms used should be
“preliminary inquiry” ( by the Lokpal) on the one hand &
“investigation” (by the CBI), on the other.
(b) the term preliminary inquiry should be used instead of the term
inquiry in clause 2(1)(e) and it should be clarified therein that it refers
to preliminary inquiry done by the Lokpal in terms of Chapters VI
and VII of the Lokpal Bill, 2011 and does not mean or refer to the
inquiry mentioned in Section 2(g) of the Cr.P.C.
(c) the term “investigation” alone should be used while eschewing terms
like “preliminary investigation” and a similar definitional provision
may be inserted after Clause 2(1)(e) to state that the term
investigation shall have the same meaning as defined in Clause 2(h) of
the Cr.P.C.
(d) Similar changes would have to be made in all other clauses in the Lokpal
Bill, 2011, one example of which includes Clause-14.[Para 12.36(A)]

55. There are several parts of Clause 23 of the 2011 Bill, including Clauses 23(4),
23(5), 23(6), 23(9) and 23(11) which require an opportunity of being heard to be
given to the public servant during the course of the preliminary inquiry i.e. the
threshold proceedings before the Lokpal in the sense discussed above. After deep
consideration, the Committee concludes that it is unknown to criminal law to
provide for hearing to the accused at the stage of preliminary inquiry by the
appropriate authority i.e. Lokpal or Lokayukta in this case. Secondly, the
preliminary inquiry is the stage of verification of basic facts regarding the
complaint, the process of filtering out false, frivolous, fictitious and vexatious
complaints and the general process of seeing that there is sufficient material to
indicate the commission of cognizable offences to justify investigation by the
appropriate investigating agency. If the material available in the complaint at
the stage of its verification through the preliminary inquiry is fully disclosed to
the accused, a large part of the entire preliminary inquiry, later investigation,
prosecution and so on, may stand frustrated or irreversibly prejudiced at the
threshold. Thirdly, and most importantly, the preliminary inquiry is being
provided as a threshold filter in favour of the accused and is being entrusted to
an extremely high authority like the Lokpal, created after a rigorous selection
procedure. Other agencies like the CBI also presently conduct preliminary
inquiries but do not hear or afford natural justice to the accused during that
process. Consequently the Committee recommends that all references in Clause
23 or elsewhere in the Lokpal Bill, 2011 to hearing of the accused at the
preliminary inquiry stage should be deleted.[Para 12.36(B)]

56. Since the Committee has recommended abolition of the personal hearing process
before the Lokpal during the preliminary inquiry, the Committee deems it fit
and proper to provide for the additional safeguard that the decision of the
Lokpal at the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry to refer the matter further
for investigation to the CBI, shall be taken by a Bench of the Lokpal consisting of
not less than 3 Members which shall decide the issue regarding reference to
investigation, by a majority out of these three.[Para 12.36.(BB)]

57. Naturally it should also be made clear that the accused is entitled to a full
hearing before charges are framed. Some stylistic additions like referring to the
charge sheet “if any” (since there may or may not be a chargesheet) may also be
added to Clause 23(6). Consequently, Clauses like 23(7) and other similar clauses
contemplating proceedings open to public hearing must also be deleted. [Para
12.36(C)]

58. Clause 23(8) would have to be suitably modified to provide that the appropriate
investigation period for the appropriate investigating agency i.e. CBI in the
present case, should normally be within six months with only one extension of a
further six months, for special reasons. Reference in Clause 23(8) to “inquiry”
creates highly avoidable confusion and it should be specified that the meanings
assigned to inquire and investigate should be as explained above.[Para 12.36(D)]

59. The Committee also believes that there may be several exigencies during the
course of both preliminary inquiry and investigation which may lead to a
violation of the 30 days or six months periods respectively specified in Clause
27(2) and 23(8). The Committee believes that it cannot be the intention of the law
that where acts and omissions by the accused create an inordinate delay in the
preliminary inquiry and / or other factors arise which are entirely beyond the
control of the Lokpal, the accused should get the benefit or that the criminal trial
should terminate. For that purpose it is necessary to insert a separate and
distinct provision which states that Clauses 23(2), 23(8) or other similar time
limit clauses elsewhere in the Lokpal Bill, 2011, shall not automatically give any
benefit or undue advantage to the accused and shall not automatically thwart or
terminate the trial. [Para 12.36(E)]

60. Clause 23(10) also needs to be modified. Presently, it states in general terms the discretion to hold or not to hold preliminary inquiry by the Lokpal for reasons to be recorded in writing. However, this may lead to allegations of pick and choose
and of arbitrariness and selectivity. The Committee believes that Clause 23(10)
should be amended to provide for only one definition viz., that preliminary
inquiry may be dispensed with only in trap cases and must be held in all other
cases. Even under the present established practice, the CBI dispenses with
preliminary inquiry only in a trap case for the simple reason that the context of
the trap case itself constitutes preliminary verification of the offence and no
further preliminary inquiry is necessary. Indeed, for the trap cases, Section 6 A
(ii) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 also dispenses with the
provision of preliminary inquiries. For all cases other than the trap cases, the
preliminary inquiry by the Lokpal must be a non dispensable necessity.[Para
12.36(F)]

61. Clause 23(11) also needs to be modified / deleted since, in this Report, it is
proposed that it is the CBI which conducts the investigation which covers and
includes the process of filing the charge sheet and closure report. [Para 12.36(G)]
62. Similarly Clause 23 (12) (b) would have to be deleted, in view of the conclusion
hereinabove regarding the absence of any need to provide natural justice to the
accused at the stage of preliminary inquiry. Clause 23(14) is also unusually
widely worded. It does not indicate as to whom the Lokpal withhold records
from. Consequently that cannot be a general blanket power given to the Lokpal
to withhold records from the accused or from the investigating agency. Indeed,
that would be unfair, illegal and unconstitutional since it would permit selectivity
as also suppress relevant information. The clause, therefore, needs to be
amended.[Para 12.36(H)]

63. The case of the Lokpal initiating action suo motu, requires separate comment. In
a sense, the preliminary inquiry in the case of a Lokpal suo motu action becomes
superfluous since the same body ( i.e. Lokpal) which initiates the complaint, is
supposed to do a preliminary inquiry. This may, however, not be as anomalous
as it sounds since even under the present structure, the CBI, or indeed the local
police, does both activities ie suo motu action as also preliminary screening/
inquiry. The Committee was tempted to provide for another body to do
preliminary inquiry in cases where the Lokpal initiates suo motu action, but in
fact no such body exists and it would create great multiplicity and logistical
difficulty in creating and managing so many bodies. Hence the Committee
concludes that in cases of suo motu action by Lokpal, a specific provision must
provide that that part of the Lokpal which initiates the suo motu proposal,
should be scrupulously kept insulated from any part of the preliminary inquiry
process following upon such suo motu initiation. It must be further provided that
the preliminary inquiry in cases of suo motu initiation must be done by a Lokpal
Bench of not less than five Members and these should be unconnected with those
who do the suo motu initiation.[Para 12.36(I)]

64. These recommendations also prevent the Lokpal from becoming a single
institution fusing unto itself the functions of complainant, preliminary inquirer,
full investigator and prosecutor. It increases objectivity and impartiality in the
criminal investigative process and precludes the charge of creating an
unmanageable behemoth like Lokpal, while diminishing the possibility of abuse
of power by the Lokpal itself.[Para 12.37]

65. These recommendations also have the following advantages:
(i) The CBI’s apprehension, not entirely baseless, that it would become a
Hamlet without a Prince of Denmark if its Anti-Corruption Wing was
hived off to the Lokpal, would be taken care of.
(ii) It would be unnecessary to make CBI or CVC a Member of the Lokpal
body itself.
(iii) The CBI would not be subordinate to the Lokpal nor its espirit de corps
be adversely affected; it would only be subject to general superintendence
of Lokpal. It must be kept in mind that the CBI is an over 60 year old
body, which has developed a certain morale and espirit de corps, a
particular culture and set of practices, which should be strengthened and
improved, rather than merely subsumed or submerged within a new or
nascent institution, which is yet to take root. Equally, the CBI, while
enhancing its autonomy and independence, cannot be left on auto pilot.
(iv) The CVC would retain a large part of its disciplinary and functional role
for non Lokpal personnel and regarding misconduct while not being
subordinate to the Lokpal. However, for Lokpal covered personnel and
issues, including the role of the CBI, the CVC would have no role.
(v) Mutatis mutandis statutory changes in the Lokpal Bill, the CVC and the
CBI Acts and in related legislation, is accordingly recommended.
[Para 12.38]

66. After the Lokpal has cleared the stage for further investigation, the matter
should proceed to the CBI. This stage of the investigation must operate with the
following specific enumerated statutory principles and provisions:
(A) On the merits of the investigation in any case, the CBI shall not be
answerable or liable to be monitored either by the Administrative
Ministry or by the Lokpal. This is also fully consistent with the
established jurisprudence on the subject which makes it clear that the
merits of the criminal investigation cannot be gone into or dealt with even
by the superior courts. However, since in practise it has been observed in
the breach, it needs to be unequivocally reiterated as a statutory
provision, in the proposed Lokpal Act, a first in India.
(B) The CBI shall, however, continue to be subject to the general supervisory
superintendence of the Lokpal. This shall be done by adding a provision
as exists today in the CVC Act which shall now apply to the Lokpal in
respect of the CBI. Consequently, the whole of the Section 8 (1) (not
Section 8 (2) ) of the CVC Act should be included in the Lokpal Bill to
provide for the superintendence power of the Lokpal over the CBI.[Para 12.39]

67. Correspondingly, reference in Section 4 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act to the CVC would have to be altered to refer to the Lokpal. [Para 12.40]

68. At this stage, the powers of the CBI would further be strengthened and enhanced
by clarifying explicitly in the Lokpal Bill that all types of prior sanctions/terms
or authorizations, by whatever name called, shall not be applicable to Lokpal
covered persons or prosecutions. Consequently, the provisions of Section 6 (A) of
the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and Section 197 of the IPC or any other provision of the law,
wherever applicable, fully or partially, will stand repealed and rendered
inoperative in respect of Lokpal and Lokayukta prosecutions, another first in
India. Clause 27 of the Lokpal Bill, 2011 is largely consistent with this but the
Committee recommends that it should further clarify that Section 6 A of the
DSPE Act shall also not apply in any manner to proceedings under the proposed
Act. The sanction requirement, originating as a salutary safeguard against witch
hunting has, over the years, as applied by the bureaucracy itself, degenerated
into a refuge for the guilty, engendering either endless delay or obstructing all
meaningful action. Moreover, the strong filtering mechanism at the stage of
preliminary inquiry proposed in respect of the Lokpal, is a more than adequate
safeguard, substituting effectively for the sanction requirement. Elsewhere, this
Report recommends that all sanction requirements should be eliminated even in
respect of non Lokpal covered personnel. [Para 12.41]

69. The previous two paragraphs if implemented, would achieve genuine and
declared statutory independence of investigation for the first time for the
CBI.[Para 12.42]

70. The main investigation, discussed in the previous few paragraphs, to be
conducted by the CBI, necessarily means the stage from which it is handed over
to the CBI by the Lokpal, till the stage that the CBI files either a chargesheet or
a closure report under Section 173 of the CrPC. However, one caveat needs to be
added at this stage. The CBI's chargesheet or closure report must be filed after
the approval by the Lokpal and, if necessary, suitable changes may have to be
made in this regard to Section 173 Cr PC and other related provisions.[Para 12.43]

71. The aforesaid independence of the CBI is reasonable and harmonizes well with
the supervisory superintendence of the Lokpal in the proposed Lokpal Bill,
which is now exercised by CVC under Section 8 (1) of the CVC Act. The
Committee recommends the above provision, suitably adapted to be applicable
in the relationship between the Lokpal and the CBI. [Para 12.44]

72. The next stage of the criminal process would go back to the Lokpal with full
powers of prosecution on the basis of the investigation by the CBI. The following
points in this respect are noteworthy:
• Clause 15 in Chapter IV of the Lokpal Bill, 2011 already contains
adequate provisions in this regard and they can, with some modifications,
be retained and applied.
• The Committee's recommendations create, again for the first time, a fair
demarcation between independent investigation and independent
prosecution by two distinct bodies, which would considerably enhance
impartiality, objectivity and the quality of the entire criminal process.
• It creates, for the first time in India, an independent prosecution wing,
under the general control and superintendence of the Lokpal, which,
hopefully will eventually develop into a premium, independent
autonomous Directorate of Public Prosecution with an independent
prosecution service (under the Lokpal institution). The Committee also
believes that this structure would not in any manner diminish or dilute
the cooperative and harmonious interface between the investigation and
prosecution processes since the former, though conducted by the CBI,
comes under the supervisory jurisdiction of the Lokpal.[Para 12.45]

73. The next stage is that of adjudication and punishment, if any, which shall, as
before, be done by a special Judge. The Committee considers that it would be
desirable to use the nomenclature of 'Lokpal Judge' ( or Lokayukta Judge in
respect of States) under the new dispensation. However, this is largely a matter
of nomenclature and existing provisions in the Lokpal Bill, 2011 in Chapter IX
are adequate, though they need to be applied, with modifications. [Para 12.46]
74. The aforesaid integrates all the stages of a criminal prosecution for an offence of corruption but still leaves open the issue of departmental proceedings in respect of the same accused.[Para 12.47]

75. The Committee agrees that for the Lokpal covered personnel and issues, it would
be counter-productive, superfluous and unnecessary to have the CVC to play
any role in departmental proceedings. Such a role would be needlessly
duplicative and superfluous. For such matters, the Lokpal should be largely
empowered to do all those things which the CVC presently does, but with some
significant changes, elaborated below.[Para 12.48]
76. Clauses 28 and 29 of the Lokpal Bill are adequate in this regard but the
following changes are recommended:
(i) The Lokpal or Lokayukta would be the authority to recommend
disciplinary proceedings for all Lokpal or Lokayukta covered persons.
(ii) The CVC would exercise jurisdiction for all non Lokpal covered persons
in respect of disciplinary proceedings.
(iii) The CBI would similarly continue to exercise its existing powers under
the CVC's superintendence for all non Lokpal personnel and proceedings.
(iv) Departmental action must, as the law today stands, comply with the over
arching mandate of Article 311 of the Indian Constitution. Dissatisfaction
or objection to the practical operation of Article 311, fully understandable
and indeed justifiable, does not permit or impel us to ignore the existence
of Article 311, until altered. If there is consensus outside the Committee
on amending Article 311, it must be amended as elaborated and
recommended by the Committee in paragraph 12.49. However, absent
such a consensus, the passage of the Lokpal Bill need not be held up on
that account and hence the present report makes recommendations on the
basis of the continuance of Article 311. If, however, it is amended as per
paragraph 12.49, the proposed Lokpal Act can easily be modified to
reflect such changes.
(v) It may also be remembered that the Lokpal itself does not conduct the
departmental proceedings. For the law to provide for Lokpal to conduct
the entire departmental proceedings itself, would be to put a humungous
and unworkable burden on the institution.
(vi) Therefore, the power to take departmental action whether in the case of
bureaucrats or in the case of Ministers as provided in Clauses 28 and 29
of the Lokpal Bill 2011, are largely appropriate.
(vii) The Committee is informed that suspension of a delinquent officer during
his criminal prosecution is virtually automatic in practice. However, the
Committee feels the need to emphasize that a specific provision be added
in Chapter VII making it clear that once any bureaucrat (viz. group A or
group B officer) as covered in the proposed Lokpal Bill is under
investigation and the Lokpal makes a recommendation that such a person
be suspended, such suspension should mandatorily be carried out unless,
for reasons to be recorded in writing by a majority out of a group of 3
persons not below the rank of Ministers of State belonging to the
Ministries of Home, Personnel and the relevant administrative Ministry
of the delinquent officer, opine to the contrary. Such suspension on
Lokpal recommendation does not violate Article 311 in any manner.
Refusal by the aforesaid Committee of three provides a check and balance
qua possibly unreasonable Lokpal recommendations. The reference is to
three high functionaries of three Ministries and not to the Administrative
Ministry alone since it is frequently found in practise that the
Administrative Ministry's responses alone may seek to preserve the status
quo on account of vested interests arising from the presence of the
delinquent officer in that Administrative Ministry.
(viii) There cannot be a counterpart suspension provision in respect of MPs or
Ministers or the like, but an explicit clause may be added to the existing
Clause 29 that the Presiding Officer of the relevant House in the case of
MPs and Prime Minister in the case of a member of the Council of
Ministers shall record a note in writing indicating the action being taken
in regard to the Lokpal's recommendations or the reasons for not taking
such action.
(ix) Wherever otherwise applicable, in respect of the details of the
departmental inquiry, the provisions of Article 311 would, unless altered
and subject to Paras D above and 12.49 below, continue to apply.[Para 12.49]

77. The Committee strongly pleads and recommends that the provisions of Article
311 require a close and careful relook to ensure that reasonable protection is
given to bureaucrats for the independent and fair discharge of their functions
but that the enormous paraphernalia of procedural rules and regulations which
have become a major obstacle in the taking of genuine and legitimate
departmental action against delinquent officers, be eliminated. The Committee
notes with concern and with growing apprehension that serious and high level /
big ticket corruption has increased exponentially since Independence at all levels
in the Lokpal proposed categories of personnel. In particular, bureaucratic
corruption has been relatively ignored or underplayed in the context of the
excessive media and civil society focus on political corruption, coupled with the
doctrine of civil service anonymity, which this country imported from our
former colonial masters. Hence, the substantial modification of Article 311 or,
indeed, its replacement by a much lesser statutory (not constitutional
counterpart) should be taken up and implemented at the earliest. It may be
added that what requires to be looked into is not the mere text of Article 311 but
the context which has grown around it, through an undesirably large number of
statutory and non-statutory rules, procedures and regulations coupled with huge
common law jurisprudence over the last 6 decades. It is universally believed that
the aforesaid has, in practice, converted Article 311, from a reasonable and
salutary safeguard to a haven for those indulging in mal-administration and/
corruption with no fear of consequences and the certainty of endless delay. The
fact that Article 311 had been given constitutional and not mere statutory status
is also responsible for its largely unchanged character over the last six plus
decades.[Para 12.50]

78. Though not strictly within the purview of the Lokpal Bill 2011 itself, the
Committee also recommends that CVC's advice in respect of departmental
action to be taken by the relevant department in case of non-Lokpal covered
personnel must, by a suitable amendment to the CVC Act, be made binding to
the extent that, unless for reasons to be recorded by a majority out of the same
joint group as aforesaid, comprising 3 persons not below the rank of Ministers of
State belonging respectively to the Ministries of Home Affairs, Personnel and the
Administrative Ministry to which the delinquent officer belongs, states that CVC
advice be not followed, such CVC advice shall be binding. [Para 12.51]

79. The Committee has deliberated long and hard on whether it can or should go to
the extent of suggesting changes in the selection procedure of the CBI chief.
Presently, the CBI chief is appointed by the Government on the recommendation
of a Committee consisting of the CVC as Chairperson, Vigilance Commissioner,
Secretary, Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs and Secretary
of the Administrative Ministry (in this case the Ministry of Personnel) [see
Section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946]. Section 8 (2) of
the 1946 Act further provides for a mandatory input in the selection of a new
Director to be made by the outgoing Director and also enjoins upon the
Committee, in Section 8 (3), to make recommendations for a panel of officers on
the basis of seniority, integrity and experience in the investigation of anticorruption cases, necessarily belonging to the Indian Police Services. [Para
12.52]

80. Interestingly, Section 4 C of the same 1946 Act provides for the same Committee
to make recommendations for all appointments as also extension or curtailment
of tenure of all officers above the level of Superintendent of Police in the CBI.
[Para 12.53]

81. It is thus clear that it is not correct to suggest that the Central Government has absolute discretion in appointing the CBI Director. After the Vineet Narain vs.
Union of India judgment* by the Apex Court, significant changes were brought
into the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. In 2003 (by Act 45 of 2003)
providing for the aforesaid independent and autonomous regime for selection
and appointment of CBI Director. The Central Vigilance Commissioner who
heads the selection and recommendation process is itself a high statutory
authority under a separate enactment called the Central Vigilance Commission
Act of 2003 which, in turn in Section 4, obliges the Government to appoint the
CVC on the basis of a recommendation of a high powered Committee
comprising the Prime Minster, the Home Minister and the leader of opposition
in the Lok Sabha. It is, therefore, erroneous to brush aside the existing system as
merely involving absolute power/discretion to select Government favourites as
CBI Director. [Para 12.54]

82. Furthermore, the Committee believes that it would neither be proper nor
desirable for the Committee to go into and suggest fundamental statutory
alterations to the procedure for selection and appointment of CBI Director,
which appears, nowhere, directly or indirectly, to be a subject referred for the
consideration of this Committee. Collateral recommendations of this nature by a
side wind should, in the opinion of this Committee, be avoided, especially since
* 1996(2) SCC 199. significant statutory changes have been brought in with respect to the appointment of the CBI Director less than 8 years ago. [Para 12.55]

Constitutional Status: If, How and How Much

83. The Committee, therefore, recommends:-
(a) The institution of Lokpal must be given constitutional status by inserting
into the Constitution by way of constitutional amendment certain basic
principles about the Lokpal and leaving the details in the new proposed
statute on which this Committee is opining.
(b) One practical, reasonable and legally valid model would be for the
Government to consider the model and set of provisions asked for by the
Committee and presented in the evidence to the Committee as a draft
constitutional amendment by two former Chief Justices of India. That
draft is enclosed herewith as Annexure ‘F’ and is self-explanatory.
(c) This constitutional amendment does not require ratification by not less
than half of the State Legislatures since it does not seek to make any
change in any of the provisions listed in the second proviso to Article 368
(2) of the Indian Constitution.
(d) The constitutional amendment should, as reflected in the enclosed
Annexure ‘F’ be a set of basic principles for the Lokpal as also provide
for the basic set up of the Lokayuktas. Both these provisions, proposed in
the enclosed draft, propose Part XVA and Articles 329(C) and 329(D), as
enabling, empowering and permissive provisions and authorize and
empower the appropriate legislature to make proper laws, mutatis
mutandis, for Lokpal at the Centre and for Lokayuktas at the State.
(e) Such a constitutional status would not only considerably enhance the
stature, legal and moral authority of the Lokpal institution but would
make interference and tinkering in these basic principles not subject to
the vicissitudes of ordinary or transient majorities. Over a period of time,
it is likely that these principles would develop into a set of immutable
principles and, possibly, even become part of basic structure of the
Constitution rendering the existence of the Lokpal and its basic features
un-amendable even by a constitutional amendment.
(f) Apprehensions regarding delay are misplaced. The constitutional
amendment bill would be much shorter than the statutory bill for the new
proposed Lokpal and can be passed on the same day and at the same time
as the latter, though by a different majority. It is inconceivable that while
parties are in favour of the institution of Lokpal in principle, as a
statutory body, parties would not agree with equal alacrity for the
passage of a constitutional amendment bill.
(g) The suggestion that the entire statutory bill should be transposed as a
constitutional amendment into the Constitution is untenable and
impracticable. That would eliminate flexibility and would require a
constitutional amendment for the smallest future change. Moreover, the
Constitution does not and is not intended to provide for nitty gritty
operational details. It should be and is intended to be a declaration of
general and basic principles which, in turn, enable and empower formal
legislation, which in turn would take care of the details.
(h) An easy or casual repeal of the entire Lokpal scheme would not be
possible once it is constitutionally entrenched.
(i) Similarly, there would be no option for the federal or State Legislatures
not to have a Lokpal or a Lokayukta at all since the constitutional
mandate would be to the contrary.
(j) Contextually, the issues and some of the suggestions in this Chapter may
overlap with and should, therefore, be read in conjunction with Chapter 7
of this report. Though the Committee has already opined in Chapter 4 of
this Report here that the issues of grievance redressal should be dealt
with in a separate legislation, the Committee hereby also strongly
recommends that there should be a similar declaration either in the same
Chapter of the Lokpal or in a separate Chapter proposed to be added in
the Indian Constitution, giving the same constitutional status to the
citizens grievances and redressal machinery.
(k) This recommendation also reflects the genuine and deep concern of this
Committee about the need, urgency, status and importance of a citizen's
charter/grievance machinery and the Committee believes that the giving
of the aforesaid constitutional status to this machinery would go a long
way in enhancing its efficacy and in providing a healing touch to the
common man.
(l) Furthermore, the Committee believes that this recommendation herein is
also fully consistent with the letter and spirit of para 1.8 above viz. the
conclusions of the Minister of Finance in the Lower House recorded in
para 1.8 above. [Para 13.12]

The Jurisdictional Limits of Lokpal: Private NGOs, Corporates and Media

84. There is no doubt that corruption is neither the exclusive preserve nor the
special privilege nor the unique entitlement of only the political or bureaucratic
classes. Nor can anyone justify exclusionary holy cows, supposedly immunized,
exempted or put outside the purview of a new and vigorous anti-corruption
monitoring, investigation and prosecution regime as the proposed new Lokpal
Bill seeks to create. If corruption is rampant in a country like India, it permeates
and pervades every nook and cranny of society and is certainly not restricted to
the political or bureaucratic classes. Indeed, while no specific statistical data are available, it may not be at all inconceivable that, in quantum terms, the degree of corruption in the non-political/non-bureaucratic private sector, in the aggregate, is far higher than in the realm of political and bureaucratic classes alone. Therefore, in principle, non-application of the proposed Lokpal Bill to all such classes does not appear to be justifiable.[Para 14.22]

85. In this connection, the very recent UK Bribery Act, 2010, is both interesting and instructive. Drafted in a completely non-legalistic manner, format and language,
this Act seeks to criminalize corruption everywhere and anywhere, i.e. in the
public and private sectors in UK, in Governmental and non-Governmental sectors, by UK citizens abroad, by non-UK citizens acting in UK and in the entire gamut of private and individual transactions in addition to covering dealings in the private sector, intra-private sector, intra-public sector, in Government and private interface and in every other nook and cranny of society.[Para 14.23]

86. Despite the above and despite the simplicity and attractiveness of an all inclusive approach, the latter must yield to exigencies of logistics, operational efficacy and pragmatism. Since this is the nation’s first experiment with a central Lokpal institution, it would amount to starry-eyed idealism to recommend the blanket
inclusion of every segment of society under the jurisdiction of an omnipotent and
omniscient Lokpal. Such comprehensive inclusion is entirely understandable and
may be logically more justifiable in principle, but, in the final opinion of the
Committee, must await several years of evolution of the Lokpal institution and a
corpus of experiential and practical lessons as also the wisdom of a future
generation of Parliamentarians.[Para 14.24]

87. As far as the proposed dispensation is concerned, the only available dividing and demarcating line between the complete inclusion and partial exclusion of entities from the jurisdiction of the Lokpal would have to be some test of Government ownership and/or control and/or size of the entity concerned. In this regard, clauses 17 (1) (f) and (g) of the Lokpal Bill, 2011 are relevant. Clause 17 (1) (f) applies the Lokpal jurisdiction mainly to office-bearers of every society, A.o.P. or trust, registered or not, but wholly or partially financed or aided by the
Government, subject to being above some specified annual income minima. Clause 17 (1) (g), similarly, applies the Lokpal to office-bearers of every society,
A.o.P. or trust, receiving donations from the public, again subject to an annual
income minima to be specified by the Central Government.[Para 14.25]

88. After deep consideration, the Committee believes and recommends that these
clauses should be merged and expanded to provide for the following coverage/jurisdiction of the Lokpal:
(a) The Lokpal jurisdiction should apply to each and every institution/entity, by whatever name called, owned or controlled by the Central Government, subject, however, to an exclusionary minima, where the ownership or control of the Central Government de minims. Such minima would have to be specified and the power of such specification should be given to the Central Government by notification;
(b) Additionally, all entities/institutions, by whatever name called, receiving
donations from the public above a certain minima, liable to be specified
by the Central Government should be included. In addition, as also all
entities/institutions receiving donations from foreign sources in the terms
and context of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in excess
of Rs.10 lakh per year, should be covered, whether or not, controlled by
the Government. This is largely as per existing clause 17 (1) (g), except for
the addition of the foreign donation recipient facet;
(c) It should be clarified that this coverage shall apply, as also stated above,
to every entity and institution, by whatever name called, be it corporate,
society, trust, A.o.P., partnership, sole proprietorship, LLP or any other,
registered or not. It should also be made clear that the approach is functional or ownership based or size based and not based on nomenclature;
(d) It is thus clear that corporates, media or NGOs should and would be
covered only to the above extent and not otherwise.[Para 14.25.A]

89. Despite the foregoing elaborations and ‘lament’ regarding exclusion of large
slices of society from the Lokpal regime, it must not be forgotten that all persons,
whether private, individual, and totally non-Governmental, are already
necessarily covered as abettors, co-conspirators, inciters and givers or recipients
or bribes in terms of clause 17 (3) of the Lokpal Bill, 2011. It may, however, be
further clarified suitably in inclusive and not exhaustive terms in clause 17 (3)
that the phrase "if such person is associated with the allegation of corruption",
should include abettors, bribe-givers, bribe-takers, conspirators and all other
persons, directly or indirectly, involved in the act or omission relating to
corruption within which all other persons and entities in clause 17 are subsumed.
The word "associated" presently used is too general and vague.[Para 14.26]

90. The Committee further recommends that clause 17 (3) should be explicitly
clarified to the effect that the abettor, conspirator or person associated, in any
manner, directly or indirectly, with the corruption allegation, shall not only be
included but be fully liable to investigation, prosecution and punishment and
that the proviso to clause 17 (3) shall be limited only to proposed action to be
taken ‘in case of a person serving in the affairs of a State’ and not qua anyone
else.[Para 14.26.A]

Support Structure for the Lokpal: Whistle Blowers, Phone Tappers and Legal Aid/ Assistance Issues

91. As regards the whistleblower issue, this Committee has made a detailed
recommendation on the subject on August 10, 2011 in respect of the Bill referred
to it. That Bill and the Committee’s recommendation are under the active
decision making process of the Government of India for eventual translation into
law.[Para 15.10]

92. The Committee recommends that the Whistleblowers Bill (Bill No. 97 of 2010)
referred to the Committee, with the changes already recommended by the
Committee in respect of that Bill (in the Committee's report dated August 10,
2011), be implemented into law simultaneously and concurrently with the
Lokpal Bill. In that case, only one provision needs to be inserted in the Lokpal
Bill to the effect that safeguards and machinery provided elaborately in the
proposed Whistleblowers Bill, as opined upon by the Committee, would be
applicable, mutatis mutandis to the Lokpal Bill. In particular, the Committee
notes that clauses 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the aforesaid Whistleblowers Bill, provide
a fairly comprehensive fasciculus of provisions providing safeguards against
victimization, protection of witnesses and other persons, protection of identity of
complainant and power to pass interim orders. The Whistleblowers Bill also sets
up a competent authority and provides for several other related provisions to
make the functioning of that authority efficacious and to enhance the efficiency,
potency and vigour of the safeguards intended to be provided to a whistleblower.
The proposed provision in the Lokpal Bill should act as a cross referencing,
breach of which should activate the related/ applicable provisions of the
Whistleblower Bill and render them applicable to all Lokpal proceedings, as if
set out in the Lokpal Bill, 2011.[Para 15.11]

93. Naturally, one of the main adaptations of the Whistleblowers Bill for Lokpal
proceedings would be that the competent authority in respect of Lokpal covered
persons and offences would be the Lokpal and references in the Whistleblowers
Bill to CVC or other entities would be rendered inoperative for purposes of
Lokpal personnel and officers.[Para 15.12]

94. If, however, the aforesaid Whistleblower Bill, along with the recommendations of
`this Committee in that regard, are not enacted into law by the Government of
India, co-terminously and simultaneously with the Lokpal Bill, then this Committee recommends the creation of some safeguards, in substance and essence, by the addition of a whole new chapter and certain provisions in the proposed Lokpal Bill. However, those provisions in the Lokpal Bill would be largely an adaptation of the same provisions of the Whistleblowers Bill, especially clauses 10 to 13 of the Whistleblowers Bill, while, as explained above, making the Lokpal the competent authority for such whistleblower issues.[Para 15.13]

95. As regards phone tapping, the Committee emphasizes and underlines the basic
reality that phone tapping by regulatory and policing agencies has been
prevalent in India for several years and the rules and regulations in that regard
have undergone periodic refinement and amendment. Currently the regime of
phone tapping is governed by Indian Telegraph Act and Rules read with the
judgments of the Supreme Court inter alia in People Union for Civil Liberties
Vs. Union of India (1997) 1 SCC 301. The Committee believes that there is no
reason, sufficiently strong, to suggest that this substantive law should be altered
in respect of Lokpal proceedings.[Para 15.14]

96. Phone tapping has been resorted to, inter alia, by agencies as diverse as CBI,
Enforcement Directorate, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and others, under
the aforesaid regime of the Act., Rules and the Supreme Court mandated
principles. In all such cases, the Committee is not aware of any situation where
any of these agencies are entitled to suo motu, on their own, without separate
authorization, and in secrecy, initiate or continue phone tapping. There is,
therefore, no reason as to why the proposed Lokpal institution should also not be
subjected to the same regime and mechanism. To provide for inherent and
separate power in the Lokpal institution in this regard, would also create an
excessive and undesirable concentration of powers, would frequently involve a
conflict of interest between preliminary inquiry, investigation and prosecution
and would disturb the equilibrium of all investigative agencies for the past
several years with established practices in respect of phone tapping issues.
Indeed, the Committee notes that in other parts of this Report (Chapter 12), the
CBI is the principal investigating agency and, therefore, its powers of phone
tapping must continue as they exist today. [Para 15.15]

97. As regards legal aid/ assistance, the Committee concludes that clause 56 as
framed does not intend to and should not be read to be a mandate for provision
of automatic legal aid for every accused in a Lokpal proceeding. Clause 56, by
any fair reading, and in the opinion of this Committee, is only intended to
provide legal assistance by way of legal representation to the accused in any case
before the Lokpal eg:- a preliminary inquiry. Firstly, the Committee does not
read this to mean automatic monetary or fiscal assistance or by way of lawyers’
fees for the accused. Secondly, the Committee believes that this was intended to
and recommended so that it should be explicitly clarified that it permits the use
of, or appearance by a legal practitioner, where the accused asks for one in
Lokpal proceedings eg:- a preliminary inquiry. In any event, elsewhere in this
Report we have recommended deletion of the concept of hearing an accused
during preliminary inquiry. If that is done away with, no issue would arise of
legal practitioners appearing. In any case, they are entitled to appear in all later
stages including trial. Finally, it should be clarified that clause 56 does not intend to abrogate or dilute or attenuate any other provision of law under where, by
virtue of those provisions of law, the accused may be entitled to a monetary/
fiscal legal aid or assistance.[Para 15.16]

The Lokpal Miscellany: Residual Issues

98. Although it is implicit in the Lokpal Bill, 2011, the Committee believes that to
obviate all doubts and to prevent any jeopardy to ongoing trials, the proposed
Lokpal should have a specific provision categorically applying Section 4 (3) of
the POCA to Lokpal proceedings, to enable the special judge or Lokpal judge to
try any other offence, where connected, other than those covered by the Lokpal
Act. [Para 16.3]

99. Clause 17 (1) in most of its sub-clauses, including (b), (c), (d) and so on,
specifically refers to a current/serving as also a former public servant (e.g.
Minister, MP, bureaucrat, etc. both past and present). [Para 16.4]

100. The Committee has seen the substantive provisions of POCA and it appears to
be clear that the POCA, which shall continue to be the substantive law applicable to Lokpal trials and proceedings, seeks to render culpable and punish only official acts done by public servants. Be that as it may, the Committee is of the opinion that a specific provision should be inserted in Clause 17 clarifying and specifying that reference to present and former public servants only means that they can be prosecuted whether in or not in office, but only for acts/omissions done while they were in office and not for allegedly fresh acts/omissions after ceasing to hold office.[Para 16.5]

101. The Committee finds that clause 8 and especially clause 8 (1) of the Lokpal Bill, 2011 has struck the right balance and does not need any fundamental changes. It is intended to strengthen the independence and autonomy of the Lokpal by not
making it easy to initiate complaints against Lokpal for the Lokpal’s removal.
The Committee, however, recommends an addition to clause 8 (1)(iii), to allay
and obviate the apprehension expressed in some quarters, that the process to
remove the Lokpal cannot be initiated, under the sub-clause, if the President
(which essentially means the Central Government) refuses to refer the complaint
against the Lokpal. The Committee feels that this apprehension would be
adequately taken care of by providing in clause 8 (1)(iii) that where the President
does not refer a citizen’s complaint against the Lokpal to the Apex Court, the
President (i.e. the Central Government) shall be obliged to record reasons for the
same and to furnish those reasons to the complainant within a maximum period
of 3 months from the date of receipt of the complaint. The Committee feels that
this process, including the transparency involved in recording these reasons and
the attendant judicial review available to the complainant to challenge such
reason/refusal, contains an adequate check and balance on this subject.[Para
16.6]

102. Additionally, the Committee recommends that Clause 8 (1) (iv) be added in the
existing Lokpal Bill, 2011 to provide, specifically, that anyone can directly
approach the apex court in respect of a complaint against the Lokpal (institution
or individual member) and that such complaint would go through the normal
initial hearing and filter as a preliminary matter before the normal bench
strength as prescribed by the Supreme Court Rules but that, if the matter is
admitted and put for final hearing, the same shall be heard by an apex court
bench of not less than 5 members. It is but obvious that other consequential
changes will have to be made in the whole of Section 8 to reflect the addition of
the aforesaid Clause 8 (1) (iv). [Para 16.6A]

103. Clause 21 of the Lokpal Bill, 2011 needs a relook. In its present form, it appears to empower the Lokpal Chairperson to intervene and transfer any pending case
from one Bench to another, which appears to include the power of transfer even
while a case is under consideration of the Lokpal bench on the merits. This
uncircumscribed power would seriously impair the objectivity and autonomy of
Lokpal Benches, especially at the stage of preliminary inquiry which is a crucial
filtering mechanism. It also appears to be inconsistent with normal principles of
jurisprudence which seriously frown upon interference even by the Chief Justice
in a pending judicial matter before another Bench. The way out would be to
delete this provision and to provide for transfer only in exceptional cases where,
firstly, strong credible allegations are brought to the forefront in respect of the
functioning of any particular Lokpal Bench and secondly, the decision to
transfer is taken by not only the entire Lokpal institution sitting together, but
also including the Members of the Bench from which the matter is sought to be
transferred.[Para 16.7]

104. As regards punishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act for a person
convicted of different offences relating to corruption, it is noteworthy that the
Prevention of Corruption Act prescribes, as it now stands, punishment not less
than six months which may extend to five years for various offences involving
public servant taking gratification in Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and also Section 11
which deals with public servant obtaining valuable thing without consideration.
Section 12 of POCA dealing with the abetment prescribes the same as six months
to five years range of punishment. On the other hand, for offences of criminal
misconduct by public servant, the prescribed punishment is not less than one
year, extendable upto seven years in Section 13 while Section 14 prescribes
punishment of not less than two years extendable to seven years. Section 15
prescribes the punishment for offences referred to in clause C or clause D of
5.13(i) which has no lower limit but a maximum of three years. Additionally, all
these provisions empower the imposition of fine. [Para 16.8]
105. Diverse representations from diverse quarters have suggested an enhancement of
punishment, with diverse prescriptions of quantum of sentence, including life
imprisonment. After deep consideration, the Committee finds it prudent to strike
a balanced, reasonable middle ground. A sudden, dramatic and draconian
enhancement is, in the opinion of the Committee, undesirable. The Committee
cannot ignore the inherent fallibility of mankind and if fallibility is inherent in
every system, draconian and extreme punishment, even in a few cases of
wrongful conviction, would be undesirable. [Para 16.9]

106. Taking a holistic view, the Committee is of the opinion that:
(a) In the cases of Sections 7, 8, 9 and the like, the range from six months to
five years should the substituted by imprisonment not less than three
years which may extend to not more than seven years.
(b) In the Sections 13 and 14 category of cases providing for a range to one
year to seven years, the Committee suggests enhancement, in the case of
Section 13 offences, to a minimum of four years and a maximum of ten
years while for Section 14, the Committee suggests a minimum of five
years and a maximum of ten years.
(c) For Section 12 which presently prescribes six months to five years, the
aforesaid of minimum three and maximum of seven years shall apply
whereas for Section 15 which presently prescribes zero to three years, the range should be very minimum from two to maximum five years.
(d) Additionally, wherever applicable, there should be a general provision,
cutting across Sections, creating a power of full confiscation of assets,
proceeds, receipts and benefits, by whatever name called, arising from
corruption by the accused. This provision should be properly drafted in a
comprehensive manner to cover diverse situations of benefit in cash or
kind, which, to the maximum extent possible, should fully be liable to
confiscation. [Para 16.9A]

107. Although this issue has been discussed in other parts of this Report, for the sake of clarity, the Committee clarifies that there should be 3 specific and important time limits in the final enactment viz. firstly, the period of 30 days extendable once by a further period of 60 days for preliminary inquiry by the Lokpal; secondly, for completion of investigation by the investigating agency, within 6 months with one further extension of 3 months and thirdly, for completion of trials, within one year with one further extension of 6 months.[Para 16.10]

108. The Committee finds no basis for and no reason to retain the last proviso to
clause 17 (1)(g) which appears to be overbroad and altogether exempts from the
Lokpal Bill 2011 any entity, simply because it is constituted as a new religious
entity or meant to be constituted as an entity for religious purposes. This proviso
should be deleted, otherwise this exception would virtually swallow up the entire
rule found in the earlier parts of clause 17.[Para 16.11]

109. As regards clause 51 of the Lokpal Bill 2011, the Committee recommends that
the intent behind the clause be made clear by way of an Explanation to be added
to the effect that the clause is not intended to provide any general exemption and
that "good faith" referred to in clause 52 shall have the same meaning as
provided in section 52 of the IPC. [Para 16.12]
- - - -

Kisan Sansad Demands Withdrawal of LARR Bill & FDI in Retail

2011-12-04T05:40:00.001-08:00

Hundreds of famers from all over the country gathered at Parliament Street to hold a ‘Farmers’ Parliament’ (Kisan Sansad) on policy issues affecting farmers, including the Land Acquisition Bill and FDI in retail.

The assembled farmers debated resolutions on the LARR Bill and the FDI in retail policy. The Kisan Sansad adopted a resolution demanding withdrawal of the UPA Government’s LARR Bill, declaring it to be a blueprint for land grab. Instead they demanded measures to protect agricultural, forest and costal land from land grab.

Addressing the Kisan Sansad, CPI(ML) General Secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya said, “Land grab threatens not only the survival of farmers but also the country’s food security and environment. The LARR Bill’s provision allowing acquisition of up to 5 percent of multi-crop irrigated area in a district will jeopardize food security. The Government must withdraw the anti-farmer LARR Bill, and instead enact protection for agricultural, forest and costal land in the interests of food security and environment.” He continued, “Land reform laws mandate that government lands be redistributed among the landless. Violating this principle, the LARR Bill paves the way to hand these over to corporates!” He concluded, “The UPA Govt is trying to hand over India’s agriculture and retailing to MNCs and corporates – but the farmers are holding their own Parliament, and tell the Government and Parliament that they will not allow anti-farmer policies to be pushed through.”

The Kisan Sansad also adopted a resolution condemning the Government’s unilateral decision allowing 51% FDI in multi-brand retail. FDI in retail will threaten not only small retailers in India, but also small farmers, agriculture and food security, famers felt.

The Kisan Sansad also passed resolutions demanding withdrawal of the anti-farmer Seed Bill. They also demanded the release of activists Afroz Alam of CPI(ML) in Uttar Pradesh and Abhay Sahoo, the anti-POSCO leader from Odisha, who have been jailed while leading struggles of rural poor and peasantry.

The Kisan Sansad was also addressed by senior journalist Kuldeep Nayyar, Swapan Mukherjee, General Secretary of AICCTU and several others.

The resolutions passed were submitted to the Lok Sabha Speaker as well as MPs of all parties, demanding that Parliament heed the opinions of the Kisan Sansad.

The Kisan Sansad held on November 30 was organized by the All India Kisan Mahasabha (AIKM), was attended by farmers from UP, Bihar, Punjab, Haryana, Jharkhand, Bengal, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Assam, Odisha and several other states.

Introducing the Kisan Sansad, Rajaram Singh, General Secretary of AIKM, said, “Parliament and Government are pushing through Bills and policies affecting farmers – without even consulting the farmers themselves. This is why we farmers are holding a Farmers’ Parliament – to assert farmers’ own views on laws and policies affecting them.”

The Kisan Sansad was presided by Ruldu Singh, President, AIKM, AIKM Vice Presidents Kartick Pal, Prem Singh Gehlawat, Devendra Singh Chauhan, Rajaram, as well as CPI(ML) CC Member and former Jharkhand MLA Bahadur Oraon in New Delhi.

Prabhat Khabar Debates UID/Aadhaar & NPR project

2011-11-28T02:56:00.000-08:00

Prabhat Khabar, a newspaper having 10 editions in Eastern India carries a debate on Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number and National Population Register (NPR) in its 28th November issue available here:

http://epaper.prabhatkhabar.com/epapermain.aspx?pppp=8&queryed=9&eddate=11/28/2011%2012:00:00%20AM

Withdraw Aadhar scheme: Achuthanandan

2011-11-27T04:55:00.000-08:00

Withdraw Aadhar scheme:

Achuthanandan

Express News Service

The New Indian Express

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Opposition leader V S Achuthanandan has demanded that the Aadhar scheme for Unique Identification card should be abandoned in view of the fact that even the Union Home Ministry has come to the conclusion that the exercise will ultimately affect national security.

Achuthanandan pointed out that Union Home Minister P Chidambaram had observed that an Aadhar card could be forged by anyone without any checks or scrutiny.
The Union Minister had even written to the Planning Board vice-chairman in this regard and the Population Registrar-General has also expressed doubts whether the card could be used for the population register.

The fears expressed on the security aspects of the card as well as citizen’s rights have been vindicated, the Opposition leader said. Achuthanandan alleged that it is commercial interests which guided the piloting of a scheme which has flopped globally.

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/withdraw-aadhar-scheme-achuthanandan/206233-60-123.html

DRAFT BIHAR LOKAYUKTA BILL, 2011

2011-11-15T06:10:00.000-08:00

1
A DRAFT FOR
THE BIHAR LOKAYUKTA BILL, 2011
2
The Bihar Lokayukta Bill, 2011
A
Bill
Preamble. - To provide for establishment of Lokayukta institution and Benches, appointment of its Chairperson and Members and Staff and its powers and functions and for delivering justice to the general public.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Bihar in the Sixty-second year of the Republic of India as follow:-
CHAPTER I
PRELIMINARY
1. Short title and commencement.- (1) This Act may be called the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011.
(2) It shall extend to the whole of the State of Bihar.
(3) It shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint.
2. Definitions. -(1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(a) " Allegation" in relation to a public servant means affirmation that such public servant-
(i) has abused his position as such to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person.
(ii) was actuated in the discharge of the functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper, corrupt motives, or
(iii) is guilty of corruption or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant.
(b) "Bench" means a Bench of the Lokayukta;
(c) “Chairperson” means the Chairperson of the Lokayukta;
(d) “competent authority”, in relation to—
(i) "Chief Minister" means the Governor;
(ii) "a member of the Council of Ministers" means the Chief Minister;
(iii) "a member of the State Legislative Council other than a Minister or the Chairman" means the Chairman of the State Legislative Council & “a member of the state Legislative Assembly other than a Minister or the Speaker” means the Speaker of the Bihar Legislative Assembly;
And
“Chairman of the Legislative Council and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly” means the Governor;
(iv) an officer in the Ministry or Department of the Government means the Minister in charge of the Ministry or Department under which such officer is serving;
(v) a chairperson or director - members of any body, or Board or corporation or authority or company or society or autonomous body (by whatever name called) established or constituted under State Act or wholly or partly financed by the State Government or controlled by it means the Minister in charge of the administrative Ministry of such body, or Board or corporation or authority or company or society or autonomous body;
(vi) an officer of any body or Board or corporation or authority or company or society or autonomous body (by whatever name called) established or constituted under State Act or wholly or partly financed by the State
3
Government or controlled by it means the head of such body or Board or corporation or authority or company or society or autonomous body;
(vii) any director, manager, secretary or other officer of every other society or association of persons or trust (whether registered under any law for the time being in force or not) wholly or partly financed by the Government or in receipt of any sums under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 or any donation from the public, the head of the Society or the head of the Association of the Person or the head of the Trust.
(e) "full bench" means the bench of the Lokayukta consisting of the Chairperson and all the existing members of the Lokayukta.
(f) "grievance" means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration;
(g) “inquiry” means every inquiry conducted under this Act by the Lokayukta;
(h) “Judicial Member” means a Judicial Member of the Lokayukta appointed as such;
(i) “Lokayukta” means the institution established under section 3 of this Act;
(j) “Member” means a Member of the Lokayukta;
(k) “Minister” means a member of the Council of Ministers (by whatever name called) for the State and includes a State Minister, a Deputy Minister and Parliamentary Secretary;
(l) “notification” means notification published in the Official Gazette and the expression “notify” shall be construed accordingly;
(m) "Officer" means a person appointed to a public service or post in connection with the affairs of the State;
(n) “prescribed” means prescribed by rules made under this Act;
(o) "Public Servant" means a person referred to in clause of Section 16(1);
(p) “regulations” means regulations made under this Act;
(q) “Schedule” means a Schedule to this Act;
(r) “Special Court” means a Special Court established under sub‐ section (1) of section 3 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or Special Courts established under Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009.
(2) Words and expressions used and not defined in this Act shall have the meanings respectively which are assigned to them in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
CHAPTER II
ESTABLISHMENT OF LOKAYUKTA
3. Establishment of Lokayukta.- (1) As from the commencement of this Act, there shall be established, for the purpose of making inquiries in respect of complaints made under this Act, an institution to be called the “Lokayukta”.
(2) The Lokayukta shall consist of—
(a) a Chairperson; and
(b) two Members,
provided that out of “Chairperson and two members” at least two persons shall be Judicial Members.
Provided further that the Lokayukta appointed prior to the commencement of this Act shall continue as the first Chairperson till the completion of his term.
(3) A person shall be eligible to be appointed,—
(a) as the Chairperson or a Member if he is a person of impeccable integrity, outstanding ability and standing having special knowledge of, and professional experience of not less than twenty‐five years in, public affairs, administrative law and policy, academics, commerce and industry, law, finance or management and not less than fifty years of age.
4
(b) as a Judicial Member if he is or has been Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court or qualified to be appointed as Judge of a High Court and not less than 50 years of age.
(4) The Chairperson or Member shall be a person who is / was not a member of the Parliament or a member of the Legislature of any State or Union territory and shall not hold any office of trust or profit (other than his office as the Chairperson or a Member) or be connected with any political party or carry on any business or practice any profession and accordingly, before he enters upon his office, a person appointed as the Chairperson or a Member, as the case may be, shall, if –
(a) he holds any office of trust or profit, resign from such office; or
(b) he is connected with any political party, severe his connection with it; or
(c) he is carrying on any business, severe his connection with the conduct and management of such business; or
(d) he is practicing any profession, cease to practise such profession.
(5) The Chairperson and every Member shall, before entering upon his office, make and subscribe before the Governor an oath or affirmation in the form set out in the First Schedule.
4. Appointment of Chairperson and other Members and Selection Committee.- (1) The Chairperson and Members shall be appointed by the Governor after obtaining the recommendations of a Selection Committee consisting of—
(a) the Chief Minister — chairperson;
(b) one Minister to be appointed by the Chief Minister - member;
(c) the Leader of the Opposition in the State Legislative Assembly or if there is no such leader a person elected in this behalf by the Members of the Opposition in the State Legislative Assembly in such manner as the Speaker may direct — member;
(d) outgoing Lokayukta - member;
(e) two sitting Judges of the High Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of Patna High Court — member;
(f) one eminent citizen of Bihar to be nominated by the Chief Minister in consultation with the leader of the opposition and the Chief Justice of Patna High Court - member;
(2) No appointment of a Chairperson or a Member shall be invalid merely by reason of any vacancy in the Committee.
(3) The Selection Committee may, if it considers necessary for the purposes of selecting the Chairperson and other members of the Lokayukta and for preparing a panel of persons to be considered for appointment as such, constitute a Search Committee consisting of such persons of impeccable integrity and outstanding ability and standing having special knowledge of, and professional experience of not less than twenty‐five years in, public affairs, administrative law and policy, academics, commerce and industry, law, finance, management, or in any other matter which in the opinion of the Selection Committee, may be useful in making selection of Lokayukta and other Members of the Lokayukta.
(4) The Selection Committee shall regulate its own procedure for selecting the Chairperson and Members of the Lokayukta which shall be transparent.
(5) The term of the search committee referred to in sub‐section (3) and fee and allowances
5
payable to the members of the search committee and the manner of selection of panel of names shall be such as may be prescribed.
5. Term of officeof Chairperson and Members. - The Chairperson and every other Member shall, on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, be appointed by the Governor by warrant under his hand and seal and hold office as such for a term not exceeding five years from the date on which he enters upon his office or until he attains the age of seventy years, whichever is earlier:
Provided that he may—
(a) by writing under his hand addressed to the Governor, resign his office; or
(b) be removed from his office in the manner provided in section 7.
6. Salary, allowances and other conditions of service of the Chairperson and members.-The salary, allowances and other conditions of service of the Chairperson shall be the same as those of the Chief Justice of Patna High Court and other Members shall be the same as those of a Judge of the High Court:
Provided that if the Chairperson or a Member is, at the time of his appointment, in receipt of pension (other than disability pension) in respect of any previous service under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, his salary in respect of service as the Chairperson or, as the case may be, as a Member, be reduced—
(a) by the amount of that pension; and
(b) if he has, before such appointment, received, in lieu of a portion of the pension due to him in respect of such previous service, the commuted value thereof, by the amount of that portion of the pension:
Provided further that the salary, allowances and pension payable to, and other conditions of service of, the Chairperson or a Member shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment.
7. Removal and suspension of Chairperson and other Member of Lokayukta. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), the Chairperson or any other Member shall be removed from his office by order of the Governor on grounds of misbehaviour after the Supreme Court, on a reference being made to it by the Governor, has, on inquiry held in accordance with the procedure prescribed in that behalf, reported that the Chairperson or such other Member, as the case may be, ought on any such ground to be removed.
(2) The Governor may suspend from office the Chairperson or any other Member in respect of whom a reference has been made to the Supreme Court under sub-section (1) until the Governor has passed orders on receipt of the report of the Supreme Court on such reference.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub‐section (1), the Governor may by order remove from the office the Chairperson or any other Member if the Chairperson or such other Member, as the case may be,—
(a) is adjudged an insolvent; or
(b) engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or
(c) is, in the opinion of the Governor, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of
6
mind or body.
(4) If the Chairperson or any other Member is or becomes in any way concerned or interested in any contract or agreement made by or on behalf of the Government of India or the Government of a State or participates in any way in the profit thereof or in any benefit or emolument arising there from otherwise than as a member and in common with the other members of an incorporated company, he shall, for the purposes of sub‐section (1), be deemed to be guilty of misbehaviour.
8. Restriction on employment by Chairperson and Members after ceasing to hold office. - (1) On ceasing to hold office, the Chairperson and every other Member shall be ineligible for-
(i) re‐appointment as the Chairperson or a Member of the Lokayukta;
(ii) further employment to any other office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of a State;
(iii) Appointment to any such society or association of persons or trust (whether registered under any law for the time being in force or not) wholly or partly financed by the Government or in receipt of any sums under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 or any donation from the public, which is partially or wholly funded by the Government.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub‐section (1), a Member shall be eligible to be appointed as a Chairperson, if his total tenure as Member and Chairperson does not exceed five years.
9. Member to act as Chairperson or to discharge his functions in certain circumstances. -(1) In the event of the occurrence of any vacancy in the office of Chairperson by reason of his death, resignation or otherwise, the Governor may, by notification, authorize the senior‐most Member to act as the Chairperson until the appointment of a new Chairperson to fill such vacancy.
(2) When the Chairperson is unable to discharge his functions owing to absence on leave or otherwise, the senior‐most Member available, as the Governor may, by notification, authorize in this behalf, shall discharge the functions of the Chairperson until the date on which the Chairperson resumes his duties.
10. Secretary, other Officers and Staff of Lokayukta.- (1) The Secretary to Lokayukta shall be appointed by the Governor.
The Secretary shall be drawn from the Indian Administrative Service permanently allotted to the State Cadre, drawing pay in the super time scale of the service, or the State Superior Judicial Service in the super time scale, and shall receive the pay which he would have drawn but for his appointment as Secretary.
The Secretary shall hold office for a period as may be decided by the Government in consultation with the Chairperson.
7
(2) The other gazetted officers, the Ministerial Officers and the class IV staff in the Establishment shall be appointed by the Chairperson:
Provided that the Chairperson may, by general or special order, delegate to the Secretary the power to make appointment to a post or a class of posts in class of posts in class III or class IV specified in such order.
(3) Subject to the provisions of any law made by State Legislature, the conditions of service of Secretary and other officers including officers of the investigation wing and staff of the Lokayukta shall be such as may be specified by regulations made by the Lokayukta for the purpose:
Provided that the regulations made shall, so far as they relate to creation of posts, salaries, allowances, leave or pensions and working conditions, require the approval of the state government.
CHAPTER III
INVESTIGATION WING
11. Investigation Wing.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, the Lokayukta shall constitute an Investigation Wing for the purpose of conducting investigation of any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
Provided that till such time the Investigation Wing is constituted by the Lokayukta, the State Government shall make available such number of investigation officers and other staff from such of its Ministries or Departments, as may be required by the Lokayukta, for carrying out investigation under this Act.
12. Investigation officer to have powers of police. -(1) No investigation shall be made by an investigation officer of the Investigation Wing below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or by any other officer of equivalent rank.
(2) The investigation officers of the Investigation Wing shall have in relation to the investigation of such offences, all the powers, duties, privileges and liabilities which police officers have in connection with the investigation of such offences.
13. Investigation officer to inquire on direction of Lokayukta.- (1) The Lokayukta may, before holding any inquiry under this Act, by an order, require the investigation officer of its Investigation Wing to make, or cause to be made, a preliminary investigation in such manner as it may direct and submit a report to the Lokayukta, within such time as may be specified by the Lokayukta, to enable it to satisfy itself as to whether or not the matter requires to be inquired into by the Lokayukta.
(2) The investigation officer on receipt of an order under sub‐section (1) shall complete the investigation and submit his report within the time specified under that sub‐section.
8
CHAPTER IV
PROSECUTION WING
14. Appointment of Prosecution Director. -(1) The Lokayukta may, by notification, constitute a prosecution wing and appoint a prosecution Director and such other officers and employees to assist the prosecution Director for the purpose of prosecution of public servants in relation to any complaint by the Lokayukta under this Act.
(2) The prosecution Director shall, after having been so directed by the Lokayukta, after due inquiry file a complaint before the Special Court, and take all necessary steps in respect of the prosecution of public servants in relation to any offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009.
CHAPTER V
EXPENSES OF INSTITUTION OF LOKAYUKTA TO BE CHARGED ON CONSOLIDATED FUND OF STATE
15. Expenses of Lokayukta to be charged on Consolidated Fund of State.- The expenses of the Lokayukta, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the Chairperson, members or secretary or other officers or staff of the Lokayukta, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund of the State and any fees or other moneys taken by the Lokayukta shall form part of that Fund.
CHAPTER VI
JURISDICTION IN RESPECT OF INQUIRY
16. Jurisdiction of Lokayukta.- (1) Subject to other provisions of this Act, Lokayukta shall inquire into any matter involved in, or arising from, or connected with any allegation or grievance against any public servant made in the complaint in respect of the following, namely:
(a) any person who is or has been a Chief Minister of the State,
(b) any person who is or has been a Minister of the State,
(c) any person who is or has been a Member of either house of the State Legislature,
(d) every officer referred to in clause (m) of Section 2,
(e) every officer referred to in clause (m) who on deputation or on transfer to foreign service is in the service or pay of -
(i) any local authority in the State which is notified in the Official Gazette;
(ii) any Corporation (not being the local authority) established by or under the State Act and owned or controlled by the State Government;
(iii) any government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act I of 1956) in which not less than fifty-one percent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government of any company which is a subsidiary of a company capital is held by the State Government;
(iv) any society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act 21 of 1860) which is subject to the control of the State Government and which is notified by the State Government in this behalf in the Official Gazette;
(f) every head or his deputy by whatever designation he may be known of the Corporation, the Government company or a registered society referred to in sub-clause (iv) or any other institution or authority, subsidized by the State Government.
9
(g) any Chairperson or member or officer {referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1)} or equivalent / above in any body / Board / Corporation / Authority / Company / Society / Autonomous Body (by whatever name called) established or constituted under an Act of State Legislature or Wholly or Partly financed by the State Govt. or controlled by it,
Provided that no investigation or prosecution shall be initiated without obtaining permission from a full bench of Lokayukta against; persons named in clause (a) & (b) of sub-section(1) of Section 16 of the Act.
(2) The Lokayukta may inquire into any act or conduct of any person other than those referred to in sub-section(1) of section 16, if such person is associated with the allegation of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
17. Matters pending before any Court or Committee or authority before inquiry before Lokayukta.-In case any matter or proceeding related to allegation of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been pending before any Court or Committee of either house of State Legislature or before any authority prior to commencement of this Act or prior to commencement of any inquiry, after the commencement of this Act, such matter or proceeding shall be continued before such Court/Committee of either house of State Legislature/any other authority except for such matters as are protected under clause 2 of Article 194 of the Constitution of India or are pending before a Court, shall not affect the power of Lokayukta to inquire into such matter under this Act.
18. Constitution of benches of Lokayukta.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act -
(a) The jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Lokayukta may be exercised by Benches there of
(b) a bench shall be constituted by the Chairperson with one or Members as the Chairperson may deem fit,
(c) every bench shall ordinarily consist of at least one Judicial Member,
(d) Where a bench consists of Chairperson, such bench shall be presided over by the Chairperson,
(e) Where a bench consists of a Judicial and a non Judicial Member not being the Chairperson, such bench shall be presided over by the Judicial Member,
(f) The benches of the Lokayukta shall ordinarily sit at Patna and at such other places as the Lokayukta may, by regulation specify.
(2) The Lokayukta shall notify the areas in relation to which each bench of Lokayukta may exercise jurisdiction,
(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub section (2), the Chairperson shall have the power to constitute and reconstitute the benches from time to time.
(4) If at any stage of the hearing of a case or a matter, it appears to the Chairperson or a Member, that the case or matter is of such nature that it ought to be heard by a full bench, the case or the matter may be transferred by the Chairperson , or as the case may be, referred to him for transfer, to full bench as the Chairperson may deem fit.
(5) Chairperson may for the purpose of securing that any case or cases which, having regard to the nature of questions involving, requires or require, in his opinion or under the rules made in this behalf by the State Govt., to be decided by a Bench composed of more than two members issue such a general or special order as he may deem fit.
(6) Not withstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this section, it shall be
10
competent for the chairperson or any other Member authorised by the chairperson in this behalf to function as a Bench consisting of a Single Member and exercise the jurisdiction, power and authority of the Lokayukta in respect of such classes of cases or such matters pertaining to such classes of cases as the Chairperson may by general or special order specify.
Provided that if at any stage of the hearing of any such case or matter it appears to the Chairperson or such Member that the case or matter is of such a nature than it ought to be heard by a Bench consisting of two members the case or matter may be transferred by the Chairperson or, as the case may be, referred to him for transfer to, such Bench as the chairperson may deem fit.
19. Distribution of business amongst Benches.- Where the benches are constituted, the chairperson may, from time to time, by notification, make provisions as to distribution of the business of the Lokayukta amongst the benches and also provide for the matter which may be dealt with by each bench.
20. Power of chairperson to transfer cases.- On an application for transfer made by the complainant or the public servant, the Chairperson, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the complainant or the public servant, as the case may be, may transfer any case pending before any bench for disposal to any other bench.
21. Decision to be by majority.- When in any matter heard by a Bench of two members, a difference of opinion arises between them on a point or points either member desire that the matter be referred it shall be referred to and heard by full Bench.
Explanation: In case the post of one member is vacant, the view of the Chairperson shall prevail.
22. Validation of act or proceeding.- No act or proceeding of the Lokayukta shall be invalid merely by reason of-
(a) any vacancy in, or any defect in constitution of Lokayukta.
(b) any defect in the appointment of the person acting as member of Lokayukta or
(c) any irregularity not affecting the merits of the case.
CHAPTER VII
PROCEDURE IN RESPECT OF INQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION
23. Provision relating to complaints and inquiry and investigation.- (1) The Lokayukta, on receipt of a complaint, may cause preliminary inquiry or investigation to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter.
(2) Every preliminary inquiry or preliminary investigation referred to in sub section (1) shall ordinarily be completed within a period of thirty days and for reasons to be recorded to writing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of complaint.
(3) Upon completion of the preliminary investigation, the investigating authority shall submit its report to the Chairperson.
24. Persons likely to be prejudicially affected to be heard.- If, at any stage of proceeding, the Lokayukta-
(a) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person other than the prospective accused; or
(b) is of opinion that the reputation of any person other than a accused is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry,
11
The Lokayukta shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence, consistent with the principle of natural justice.
25. Lokayukta may require any public servant and any other person to furnish information etc. - (I) Subject to the provisions of this section for the purpose of any investigation (including the preliminary inquiry, if any, before such investigation) under this Act, the Lokayukta may require any public servant or any other person who in his opinion is able to furnish information or produce documents relevant to the investigation, to furnish any such information, or produce any such documents.
(2) For the purpose of any such investigation (including the preliminary inquiry), the Lokayukta shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act 5 of 1908), in respect of the following matters namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of any document;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits;
(d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office:
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) such other matters as may be prescribed.
(3) Any proceeding before the Lokayukta shall be deemed to be judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (Act no. 45 of 1863).
(4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (5) no obligation to maintain secrecy or other restriction upon the disclosure of information obtained by or furnished to Government or any public servant, whether imposed by any enactment or by any rule of law, shall apply to the disclosure of information for the purposes of any investigation under this Act and the Government or any public servant shall not be entitled in relation to any such investigation to any such privilege in respect of the production of documents or the giving of evidence as is allowed by any enactment or be any rule of law in legal or proceedings.
(5) No person shall be required or authorized by virtue of this Act to furnish any such information or answer any such question or produce so much of any documents-
(a) as might prejudice the security of the State of the investigation or direction of crime; or(b) as might involve the disclosure of proceedings of the Cabinet of the State Government, and for the purposes of this sub-section, a certificate issued by a Secretary certifying that any information, answer of portion of a document is of the nature specified in clause (a) or clause (b) shall be binding and conclusive.
(6) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), no person shall be compelled for the purpose of investigation under this Act to give any evidence or produce any document which he could not be compelled to give or produce in proceeding before Court.
26. Procedure for sanction of prosecution.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section so far sanction under section 197 code of Criminal Procedure and section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, the competent authority shall pass an appropriate order on the recommendation of Lokayukta within three months from the receipt of recommendation for sanction or permission.
(2) The provisions contained in sub-sections(1) shall be without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in article 311 and sub-clause (c) of clause (3) of article 320 of the Constitution.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure- no finding, sentence or order passed by Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal or revision on the ground of the absence of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction required under sub-
12
section (1) unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
27. Action on inquiry in relation to Public Servants not being Chief Minister or Ministers. - (1) Where after the conclusion of the inquiry or investigation, the findings of the Lokayukta disclose the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by a public servant referred to in clause (c), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of sub-section (1) of section 16, any officer authorized by Lokayukta shall-
(a) file a case in the Special Court and send a copy of the report together with its findings to the competent authority;
(b) recommend to the competent authority for initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the rules of disciplinary proceedings applicable to such public servant;
(c) provide a copy of the report to the public servant or his representative;
(2) The competent authority shall, within a period of thirty days of the receipt of recommendation under clause (b) of sub-section (1), initiate disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent public servant accused of committing offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and forward its comments on the report, including the action taken or proposed to be taken thereon, to the Chairperson ordinarily within six months of initiation of such disciplinary proceedings.
28. Action on inquiry against Public Servants being Chief Minister or Ministers.- (1) Where the matter relates to public servant refers in clause (a) & (b) of sub-section (1) of section 16 of this act the Lokayukta finding a prima facie case after following the procedure laid down in section 16(1) proviso, direct for inquiry or investigation.
(2) Where after the conclusion of the inquiry or investigation, the findings of the Lokayukta disclose the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by a public servant referred to in clause(a) & (b) of sub-section (1) of section 16, the Lokayukta may file a case in the Special Court and shall send a copy of the report together with its findings to the competent authority and also to the public servant.
CHAPTER VIII
POWERS OF LOKAYUKTA
29. Provisions relating to complaints.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act a complaint may be made under this Act to the Lokayukta -
(a) in the case of grievance, by the person aggrieved;
(b) in the case of an allegation by any person other than a public servant;
Provided that where the person aggrieved is dead or is for any reason unable to act for himself, the complaint may be made by any person who in law represents his Estate or, as the case may be, by any person who is authorised by him in this behalf.
(2) every complain under this act shall be made, as far as possible, in the forms prescribed and shall contain the following particulars:-
(a) Every complaint shall bear the heading title "before the Lokayukta of Bihar."
(b) Name or names of the complainant with their full addresses.
(c) Name or names of persons complained against with full address (es)
(3) All complaints made before the Lokayukta shall be duly signed by the complaint or, if he is illiterate, shall bear his left thumb impression duly attested by a literate person, clearly disclosing the name and full address of the attesting persons.
13
(4) Every complaint shall be supported by an affidavit as prescribed.
(5) The Lokayukta shall not investigate any complaint -
(a) involving a grievance, if the complaint is made after the expiry of twelve months from the date on which the action complained against becomes known to the complaint;
(b) involving an allegation, if the complaint is made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place:
Provided that the Lokayukta may entertain a complaint referred to in clause (a) if the complainant satisfies him that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within the period specified in that clause.
(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other enactment, any letter written to the Lokayukta by a person, in Police custody or in a jail or in any asylum or other place for insane person, shall be forwarded to the addressee un-opened and without delay by the Police Officer or other person in charge of such jail, asylum or other place and the Lokayukta may, if satisfied that it is necessary so to do treat such letter as a complaint made in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2).
30. Investigation.- (1) Investigating officers of Lokayukta authorized to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall have all the powers which are vested in a police officer while investigating offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(2) All investigating officers of Lokayukta superior in rank to an Investigating Officer may exercise the same powers as may be exercised by Investigating Officer.
31. Search and seizure.- (1) Where in consequence of information in his possession, the Lokayukta or the Officer authorized by it-
(a) has reason to believe that any person to whom a summon or notice under this Act, has, been or might be issue will not or would not produce or cause to be produced any property, document or thing which will necessary or useful for or relevant to any enquiry or other proceeding to be conducted by him may issue a search warrant, and authorize any officer not below the rank of Inspector of Police to conduct a search or carry out an inspection in accordance therewith and in particular to, enter and search any building or place where he has reason to suspect that such property, or document, is kept.
(2) A warrant issued under sub-section(1) shall all purposes, be deemed to be warrant issued by a Court under section 93 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(3) If the Lokayukta is satisfied that any document seized under sub-section(1) would be evidence for the purpose of investigation or enquiry under this act and it would be necessary to retain the documents in its custody or in custody of search officers as may be authorized it may so return or direct such officer authorized to retain such document till the completion of such investigation or enquiry.
Provided that where any document is required to be returned the Lokayukta or the authorized officer may return the same after retaining copies of such document duly authenticated.
(4) The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 relating to searches shall, so for as may be, apply to searches under this section.
32. Governance of Investigations.- All the investigations under The Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011 shall be governed by Chapter IV of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Explanation: Notwithstanding the provision of the Act, the provisions of the Chapter XI of the Criminal Procedure Court 1973 relating to investigations, which is not inconsistent with this Act shall also apply.
14
33. Power to punish for contempt.- The Lokayukta shall have, and exercised jurisdiction, powers and authority in respect of contempt of itself as the High Court has and may exercised such powers and authority for this purpose under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 which shall have effect subject to the modification that -
(a) any reference therein to a High Court shall be construed as including the reference to the Lokayukta.
(b) any reference to the Advocate General in section 15 of said Act shall be construed as reference to such law officers as the Chairperson may specify, in this behalf:
Provided that such matters shall be heard by a full bench consisting of all members and Chairperson.
34. Power to Lokayukta to utilize services of Officers of State Government.- (1) The Lokayukta may for the purpose of conducting any inquiry utilize the services of any officers or investigation agency of the State Government, as the case may be;
(2) For the purpose of investigating into any matter pertaining to the inquiry, any officers of agency whose services are utilized under sub-section-(2) may subject to the direction and control of the Lokayukta.
(a) summon and enforce the attendance of any person and examine him;
(b) require the discovery and production of any document; and
(c) requisition any public record or copy thereof from any office.
(3) The officer or agency whose services are utilized under sub-section (2) shall investigate into any matter pertaining to the inquiry and submit a report thereon to the Lokayukta within such period as may be specified by the Lokayukta in this behalf.
35. Provisional attachment of assets. - (1) Where the Lokayukta or any investigation officer authorized by it in this behalf, has reason to believe, the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing, on the basis of material in his possession, that-
(a) any person is in possession of any proceeds of corruption;
(b) such person is accused of having committed an offence relation to corruption; and
(c) such proceeds of offence are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which may result in frustrating any proceeding relating to confiscation of such proceeds of offence, he may, by order in writing, provisionally attach such property for a period not exceeding ninety days from the date of the order, in the manner provided in the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the Lokayukta shall be deemed to be an officer under sub-rule(e) of rule 1 of that schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
(2) The Lokayukta shall, immediately after attachment under sub-section (1) forward a copy of the order, along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Special Court, in a sealed envelope, in the manner as may be prescribed and such Court may extend the order of attachment and keep such material for such period as the Court may deem fit.
(3) Every order of attachment made under sub-section(1) shall cease to have effect after the expiry of the period specified in that sub-section or after the expiry of the period as directed by the Special Court under sub-section(2)
(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the person interested in the enjoyment of the immovable property attached under sub-section(1) or sub-section(2), from such enjoyment.
Explanation - For the purposes of the sub-section, '' person interested" , in relation to any immovable property, includes all person claiming or entitled to claim any interest in the
15
property.
36. Confirmation of attachment of assets.- (1) The Lokayukta, when it provisionally attaches any property under sub-section (1) of section 35 shall, within a period of thirty days of such attachment, direct its prosecution wing to file an application stating the facts of such attachment before the Special Court and make a prayer for confirmation of attachment of the property till completion of the proceedings against the public servant in the Special Court.
(2) The Special Court may, if it is of the opinion that the property provisionally attached had been acquired through corrupt means, make on order for confirmation of attachment of such property till the completion of the proceedings against the public servant in the Special Court.
(3) If the public servant is subsequently acquitted of the charges framed against him, the property, subject to the orders of the Special Court, shall be restored to the concerned public servant along with benefits from such property as might have accrued during the period of attachment.
(4) So far as confiscation of property is concerned provision of the Special Courts Act, 2009 shall apply.
Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "bank'', "debt" and "financial institution" shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in clauses (d), (g) and (h) of section 2 of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
37. Power of Lokayukta to recommend transfer or suspension of Public Servant connected with allegation of corruption.- (1) Where the Lokayukta, while making an inquiry into allegation of corruption, is prima facia satisfied, on the basis of evidence available, that-
the continuance of the public servant referred to in clause (c) or clause(d) of sub-section(1) of section 16 in his post while conducting the inquiry is likely to affect such inquiry adversely;
then the Lokayukta may recommend the State Government for transfer or suspension of such public servant from the post held by him till such period as may be specified in the order.
(2) The State Government shall ordinarily accept the recommendation of the Lokayukta made under sub-section (1) except for the reason to be recorded in writing in a case where it is not feasible for administrative reason.
38. Power of Lokayukta to give directions to prevent destruction of records during inquiry.- The Lokayukta may, in discharge of its functions under this Act, issue appropriate direction to a public servant entrusted with the preparation or custody of any document or record-
(a) to protect such document or record from destruction or damage; or
(b) to prevent the public servant from altering or secreting such document or record; or
(c) to prevent the public servant from transferring or alienating any assets allegedly acquired by his through corrupt means.
39. Power to delegate.- The Lokayukta may, by general or special order in writing, and subject to such condition and limitation as may be specified therein, direct that any administrative or financial power conferred on it may also be exercised or discharged by such of its Members or officers or employees as may be specified in the order.
40. Other power and function.-Lokayukta shall have also following functions and powers:-
I.(a) to monitor the investigation of offences under Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988 involving any act of corruption, for the cases initiated on behalf of the Lokayukta.
(b) to initiate prosecution before a Special Court established under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009, for the cases initiated on behalf of the Lokayukta.
(c) to appoint prosecutors and Senior Counsels under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or
16
under the Bihar Special Court Act, 2009 or under this Act, for the cases initiated on behalf of Lokayukta.
(d) to get the Investigating Officer trained in modern methods of scientific investigation.
(e) to enquire modern equipments necessary for proper investigation.
II. (a) to receive complaints against any officer or staff of Lokayukta.
(b) to ensure the integrity of its functionaries and impose punishments of dismissal, removal and reduction in rank.
CHAPTER IX
SPECIAL COURTS
41. Special Courts to be notified by State Government.- (1) The Lokayukta may recommend for establishment for more Special Courts for the cases arising out of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 or under this Act and the State Government keeping in view the case load assessment may consider the proposal for establishment of more courts.
(2)The Special Courts constituted under sub-section (1) shall ensure completion of each trial within a period of one year from the date of filing of the case in the Court.
Provided that in case the trial cannot be completed within a period of one year, the Special Court shall record reasons therefore and complete the trial within a further period of not more than three months or such further periods exceeding three months each, for reasons to be recorded in writing, before the end of each such three months period but not exceeding a total period of two years.
42. Letter of request to another State in certain cases.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if, in the course of an inquiry or investigation into an offence or other proceedings under this Act, an application is made to a Special Court by the Investigation Officer of the Lokayukta that any evidence is required in connection with the inquiry or investigation into an offence or proceeding under this Act and he is of the opinion that such evidence may be available in any place in another State, and the Special Court, on being satisfied that such evidence required in connection with the inquiry or investigation into an offence or proceeding under this Act may issue a letter of request to a court or an authority in the another State competent to deal with such request to -
(i) examining the facts and circumstances of the case;
(ii) take such steps as the Special Court may specify in such letter of request; and
(iii) forward all the evidence so taken or collected to the Special Court issuing such letters of request.
(2) The letter of request shall be transmitted in such manner as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
(3) Every statement recorded or document or thing received under sub-section(1) shall be deemed to be evidence collected during the course of the inquiry or investigation.
CHAPTER X
Complaint Against Chairperson, Members and official of Lokayukta
43. Complaints against Chairperson and Members not to be inquired by Lokayukta. - (1)The Lokayukta shall not inquire into any complaint made against the Chairperson or any Member.
(2) Any complaint against the Chairperson or the Member shall be made by an application by the party aggrieved to the Governor.
(3) The Governor shall, in case there exists a prima facie case for bias or corruption, make a reference to the Supreme Court in the such manner as may be prescribed for inquiry into the complaint against the Chairperson or the Member.
17
(4) The Governor shall decide the action against the Chairperson or Member on the basis of opinion of the Supreme Court and in case the Governor is satisfied on the basis of the said opinion that the Chairperson or the Member is biased or has indulged in corruption, the Governor shall notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1) of section-7, remove such Chairperson or Member and also order of initiation of prosecution in case of allegation of corruption.
44. Complaints against officers of Lokayukta.- (1) Every complaint of allegation of wrong doing made against any officers or employee or investigating agency under or associated with the Lokayukta for offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 shall be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) The Lokayukta shall complete the inquiry into the complaint or allegation made within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt.
(3) While making an inquiry into the complaint against any officers or employee of the Lokayukta or the agency engaged or associated with the Lokayukta, if it is prima facie satisfied on the basis of evidence available that-
(a) continuance of such officer or employee of the Lokayukta or agency engaged or associated in the post while conducting the inquiry is likely to affect such inquiry adversely; or
(b) an officer or employee of the Lokayukta or agency engaged or associated is likely to destroy or in any way tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses.
then the Lokayukta may, by order, suspend such officer or employee of the Lokayukta or divest such agency engaged or associated with the Lokayukta of all powers and responsibilities here to before exercised by it.
(4) On the completion of the inquiry if the Lokayukta is satisfied that there is prima facie evidence of the commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or of any wrong doing it shall within a period of fifteen days of the completion of such inquiry order to prosecute such officer or employee of the Lokayukta or such officer disciplinary proceedings against the official concerned-
Provided that no such order shall be passed without giving such officers or employee of the Lokayukta or person, agency engaged or associated, a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
CHAPTER XI
FINANCE, ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT
45. Budget.- The Lokayukta shall prepare, in such form and at such time in each financial year as may be prescribed, its budget for the next financial year, showing the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Lokayukta and forward the same to the State Government for information.
46. Grants by State Government.-The State Government may, after due appropriation made by the State Legislature by law in this behalf, make to the Lokayukta fund or such sums of money as are required to be paid for the salaries and allowances payable to the Chairperson and other Members and the administrative expenses, including the salaries and allowances and pension payable to or of officers and other employees of the Lokayukta.
47. Annual Statement of accounts.- (1) The Lokayukta shall maintain proper accounts and other relevant records and prepare an annual statement of accounts in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Accountant General of Bihar.
(2) The accounts of the Lokayukta shall be audited by the Accountant General of Bihar at such
18
intervals as may be specified by him.
(3) The Accountant General of Bihar or any person appointed by him in connection with the audit of the accounts of the Lokayukta under this Act shall have the same rights, privileges and authority in connection with such audit, as the Accountant General of Bihar generally has, in connection with the audit of the Government accounts and, in particular, shall have the right to demand the production of books, accounts, connected vouchers and other documents and papers and to inspect any of the offices of the Lokayukta.
(4) The accounts of the Lokayukta, as certified by the Accountant General of Bihar or any other person appointed by him in this behalf, together with the audit report thereon, shall be forwarded annually to the State Government and the State Government shall cause the same to be laid before each House of the State Legislature.
(5) An appropriate Committee of Bihar Legislative Assembly may decide to do an annual appraisal of the functioning of Lokayukta. The Lokayukta shall submit a compliance report, mentioning detailed reasons where it does not accept the recommendations of this committee, to the Governor. It shall be placed on the table of the House of Legislative Assembly of Bihar.
CHAPTER XII
OFFENCES AND PENALTIES
48. Prosecution for false complaint and payment of compensation etc. to public servant. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act whoever makes any false and frivolous or vexatious complaint under this Act shall on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 25,000/-.
(2) No court except a Special Court shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section(1).
(3) No Special Court shall take cognizance of an offence under sub-section (1) except on a complaint made by a person against whom the false frivolous or vexatious complaints was made.
(4) The prosecution in relation to an offence under sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the Public Prosecutor and all expenses connected with such prosecution shall be born by the State Government.
(5) In case of conviction of a person [being an individual or society or association of person or trust (whether registered or not )], for having made false complaints under this Act such person shall be liable to pay compensation to the public servant against whom he made the false complaints in addition to the legal expenses for contesting the case by the such public servant as the Special Court may determine.
49. False complaint made by society or association of persons or trust. -(1) Where any offence under sub-section(1) of section 48 has been committed by any society or association of person or trust (whether registered or not), every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was directly in charge of, and was responsible to, the society or association of persons or trust, for the conduct of the business or affairs or activities of the society or association of persons of trust as well as such society or association of persons or trust shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment provided in this Act, if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the Commission of such offence.
19
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) where an offence under this Act has been committed by a society or association of persons or trust (whether registered or not) and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any Director/Manager/Secretary or other officers of such society or association of persons or trust, such Director/Manager/Secretary or other officers shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
CHAPTER XIII
MISCELLANEOUS
50. Protection of action taken in good faith by any public servant. - No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings under this Act shall lie against any public servant, in respect of anything which is done in good faith or intended to be done in the discharge of his official function or in exercise of his powers.
51. Protection of action taken in good faith by others. - No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Lokayukta or against any officer, employee, agency or any person, in respect of anything which is done in good faith or intended to be done under this Act.
52. Members, officers and employees of the Lokayukta to be public servants. - The Chairperson, Members, officers and other employees of the Lokayukta shall be deemed, when acting or purporting to act in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act, to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.
53. Bar of Jurisdiction.- No civil court shall have jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Lokayukta is empowered by or under this act to determine.
54. Act of have overriding effect.- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.
55. Provision of this Act to be in addition of other laws.- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force.
56. Furnishing of returns, etc., to State Government. (1) The Lokayukta shall furnish to the State Government, at such time and in such form and manner as may be prescribed or as the State Government may request, such returns and statements and such particulars in regard to any matter under the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta, as the State Government may, from time to time, require.
(2) The Lokayukta shall prepare, once every year, in such form and at such time as may be prescribed, an annual report, giving a summary of its activities during the previous year and copies of the report shall be forwarded to the State Government.
(3) A copy of the report received under sub‐section (2) shall be laid by the State Government, as soon as may be after it is received, before each House of the State Legislature.
57. Power to make rules. (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :-
(a) the term of the search committee, fee and allowances payable to its members and the manner
20
of selection of panel of names under sub-section (5) of section 4;
(b) the procedure of inquiry into misbehaviour for removal of the Chairperson or any other Member under sub-section (1) of section 7;
(c) the manner of sending the order of attachment along with the material to the Special Court under sub-section (2) of section 35 and 36;
(d) the manner of transmitting the letter of request under sub-section (2) of section 42;
(e) the manner of making reference to the Supreme Court under sub-section (3) of section 43;
(f) the form and the time for preparing in each financial year the budget for the next financial year, showing the estimated receipts and expenditure of the Lokayukta under section 45 ;
(g) the form for maintaining the accounts and other relevant records and the form of annual statement of accounts under sub-section (1) of section 47 ;
(h) the form and manner and the time for preparing the returns and statements along with particulars under sub-section (1) of section 47 ;
(i) the form and the time for preparing an annual report giving a summary of its activities during the previous year under sub-section (2) of section 56;
(j) any other matter which is to be or may be prescribed.
58. Power of Lokayukta to make regulations.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the Lokayukta may, after approval of the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette, make regulations to carry out the provisions of this Act.
(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:-
(a) the conditions of service of the Secretary and other Officers and staff of the Lokayukta and the matters which in so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor under sub-section (2) of section 10;
(b) the place of sitting of benches of the Lokayukta under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of 18;
(c) the manner for displaying on the website of the Lokayukta, the status of all complaints pending or disposed of along with records and evidence with reference thereto under sub-section (11) of section 23;
(d) the manner and procedure of conducting an inquiry or investigation;
(e) any other matter which is required to be or may be specified under this Act.
59. Laying of rules and regulations.- Every rule and regulation made under this Act shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before both House of legislature, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or regulation, or both Houses agree that the rule or regulation should not be made, the rule or regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule or regulation.
60. Power to remove difficulties.- (1) If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the State Government may, by order, published in the Official Gazette, make such provisions not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as may appear to be necessary for removing the difficulty:
Provided that no such order shall be made under this section after the expiry of a period of six months from the commencement of this Act.
(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each House of the State Legislature
21
61. Repeal and savings. - (1) The Bihar Lokayukta Act, 1973) and the amendments made in it from time to time is hereby repealed.
(2) Notwithstanding such repeal anything done or any action taken in exercise of the powers conferred by or under the said Bihar Lokayukta Act, shall be deemed to have been done or taken in the exercise of powers conferred by or under this Act as if this Act were in force on the day on which such thing was done or action taken.
.
22
THE FIRST SCHEDULE
[See Section 3(5)]
I, ..................................................................... having been appointed Chairperson / Member* of the Lokayukta do swear in the name of God / solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India as by law established and I will duly and faith fully and to the best of my ability, knowledge and judgement perform the duties of my office without or favour, affection or ill-will.
[*As the case may be)

Chief Secretary's BIADA Report refers to Allotment for Nibhi's Asbetsos Plant

2011-11-12T07:43:00.000-08:00

On page no 10 of by Chief Secretary's BIADA Report refers to allotment of land for Nibhi's Asbestos plant. The 18 page report is available here: http://gov.bih.nic.in/documents/BIADA-Report-by-CS.pdf

BIADA Report: Minor corrections incorporated in the BIADA Report as submitted by the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar. - 04-08-2011.

CBC News - The National - In Depth & Analysis - Canada's Ugly Secret

2011-11-12T07:27:00.000-08:00

CBC News - The National - In Depth & Analysis - Canada's Ugly Secret

India Proposes UN Committee for Internet Governance

2011-11-11T22:36:00.001-08:00

The statement made by India at the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly, in which its proposal for the UN Committee for Internet-Related Policy was presented.

66th Session of the UN General Assembly

New York. October 26, 2011.

Agenda Item 16: Information and Communications

Technologies for Development (ICT): Global Internet Governance

Statement by India

Mr. Chairman,

We thank the Secretary-General for his report on enhanced cooperation on public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, contained in document A/66/77, which provides a useful introduction to the discussions under this agenda item.

As a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and democratic society with an open economy and an abiding culture of pluralism, India emphasizes the importance that we attach to the strengthening of the Internet as a vehicle for openness, democracy, freedom of expression, human rights, diversity, inclusiveness, creativity, free and unhindered access to information and knowledge, global connectivity, innovation and socio-economic growth.

We believe that the governance of such an unprecedented global medium that embodies the values of democracy, pluralism, inclusion, openness and transparency should also be similarly inclusive, democratic, participatory, multilateral and transparent in nature.

Indeed, this was already recognized and mandated by the Tunis Agenda in 2005, as reflected in paragraphs 34, 35, 56, 58, 59, 60, 61 and 69 of the Agenda. Regrettably, in the six long years that have gone by, no substantial initiative has been taken by the global community to give effect to this mandate.

Meanwhile, the internet has grown exponentially in its reach and scope, throwing up several new and rapidly emerging challenges in the area of global internet governance that continue to remain inadequately addressed. It is becoming increasingly evident that the Internet as a rapidly-evolving and inherently global medium, needs quick-footed and timely global solutions and policies, not divergent and fragmented national policies.

The range and criticality of these pressing global digital issues that continue to remain unaddressed, are growing rapidly with each passing day. It is, therefore, urgent and imperative that a multilateral, democratic participative and transparent global policy-making mechanism be urgently instituted, as mandated by the Tunis Agenda under the process of ‘Enhanced Co-operation’, to enable coherent and integrated global policy-making on all aspects of global Internet governance.

Operationalizing the Tunis mandate in this regard should not be viewed as an attempt by governments to “take over” or “regulate and circumscribe” the internet. Indeed, any such misguided attempt would be antithetical not only to the internet, but also to human welfare. As a democratic and open society that has historically welcomed outside influences and believes in openness to all views and ideas and is wedded to free dialogue, pluralism and diversity, India attaches great importance to the preservation of the Internet as an unrestricted, open and free global medium that flourishes through private innovation and individual creativity and serves as a vehicle for open communication, access to culture, knowledge, democratization and development.

India recognizes the role played by various actors and stakeholders in the development and continued enrichment of the internet, and is firmly committed to multi-stakeholderism in internet governance, both at the national and global level. India believes that global internet governance can only be functional, effective and credible if all relevant stake-holders contribute to, and are consulted in, the process.

Bearing in mind the need for a transparent, democratic, and multilateral mechanism that enables all stakeholders to participate in their respective roles, to address the many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by current mechanisms and the need for enhanced cooperation to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, India proposes the establishment of a new institutional mechanism in the United Nations for global internet-related policies, to be called the United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP). The intent behind proposing a multilateral and multi-stakeholder mechanism is not to “control the internet’’ or allow Governments to have the last word in regulating the internet, but to make sure that the Internet is governed not unilaterally, but in an open, democratic, inclusive and participatory manner, with the participation of all stakeholders, so as to evolve universally acceptable, and globally harmonized policies in important areas and pave the way for a credible, constantly evolving, stable and well-functioning Internet that plays its due role in improving the quality of peoples’ lives everywhere.

The CIRP shall be mandated to undertake the following tasks:

Develop and establish international public policies with a view to ensuring coordination and coherence in cross-cutting Internet-related global issues;
Coordinate and oversee the bodies responsible for technical and operational functioning of the Internet, including global standards setting;
Facilitate negotiation of treaties, conventions and agreements on Internet-related public policies;
Address developmental issues related to the internet;
Promote the promotion and protection of all human rights, namely, civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, including the Right to Development;
Undertake arbitration and dispute resolution, where necessary; and,
Crisis management in relation to the Internet.

The main features of CIRP are provided in the annex to this statement. In brief, the CIRP will comprise 50 Member States chosen on the basis of equitable geographical representation, and will meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva. It will ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders by establishing four Advisory Groups, one each for civil society, the private sector, inter-governmental and international organizations, and the technical and academic community. The Advisory Groups will provide their inputs and recommendations to the CIRP. The meetings of CIRP and the advisory groups will be serviced by the UNCTAD Secretariat that also services the meetings of the Commission on Science and Technology for Development. The Internet Governance Forum will provide inputs to CIRP in the spirit of complementarity between the two. CIRP will report directly to the General Assembly and present recommendations for consideration, adoption and dissemination among all relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations. CIRP will be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations; a separate Fund would be set up by drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various bodies, in order to mainly finance the Research Wing to be established by CIRP to support its activities.

Those familiar with the discourse on global internet governance since the beginning of the WSIS process at the turn of the millennium, will recognize that neither the mandated tasks of the CIRP, nor its proposed modalities, are new. The Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) set up by the UN Secretary- General had explicitly recognized the institutional gaps in global internet governance and had proposed four institutional models in its report to the UN General Assembly in 2005. The contours of the CIRP, as proposed above, reflect the common elements in the four WGIG institutional models. While the excellent report of the WGIG was much discussed and deliberated in 2005, unfortunately, no concrete follow-up action was taken to give effect to its recommendations on the institutional front. We hope that this anomaly will be redressed at least six years later, with the timely establishment of the CIRP.

In order to operationalize this proposal, India calls for the establishment of an open-ended working group under the Commission on Science and Technology for Development for drawing up the detailed terms of reference for CIRP, with a view to actualizing it within the next 18 months. We are open to the views and suggestions of all Member States, and stand ready to work with other delegations to carry forward this proposal, and thus seek to fill the serious gap in the implementation of the Tunis Agenda, by providing substance and content to the concept of Enhanced Co-operation enshrined in the Tunis Agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

***

Annex

The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP)

The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) will have the following features:

Membership: The CIRP will consist of 50 Member States of the United Nations, chosen/elected on the basis of equitable geographical representation. It will provide for equitable representation of all UN Member States, in accordance with established UN principles and practices. It will have a Bureau consisting of one Chair, three Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur.

Meetings: The CIRP will meet annually for two working weeks in Geneva, preferably in May/June, and convene additional meetings, as and when required. The UNCTAD Secretariat will provide substantive and logistical support to the CIRP by servicing these meetings.

Multi-stakeholder participation: Recognizing the need to involve all stakeholders in Global Internet Governance in their respective roles, the CIRP shall ensure the participation of all stakeholders recognized in the Tunis Agenda. Four Advisory Groups – one each for Civil Society, the Private Sector, Inter-Governmental and International Organisations, and the Technical and Academic Community - will be established, to assist and advise the CIRP. These Groups would be self-organized, as per agreed principles, to ensure transparency, representativity and inclusiveness. The Advisory Groups will meet annually in Geneva and in conjunction with any additional meetings of the CIRP. Their meetings will be held back-to- back with the meetings of the CIRP, so that they are able to provide their inputs and recommendations in a timely manner, to the CIRP.

Reporting: The CIRP will report directly to the UN General Assembly annually, on its meetings and present recommendations in the areas of policy and implementation for consideration, adoption and dissemination to all relevant inter-governmental bodies and international organizations. .

Research Wing: The Internet is a rapidly-evolving and dynamic medium that throws up urgent and rapidly-evolving challenges that need timely solutions. In order to deal effectively and prudently with these emerging issues in a timely manner, it would be vital to have a well-resourced Research Wing attached to the CIRP to provide ready and comprehensive background material, analysis and inputs to the CIRP, as required.

Links with the IGF: Recognizing the value of the Internet Governance Forum as an open, unique forum for multi-stakeholder policy dialogue on Internet issues, the deliberations in the IGF along with any inputs, background information and analysis it may provide, will be taken as inputs for consideration of the CIRP. An improved and strengthened IGF that can serve as a purposeful body for policy consultations and provide meaningful policy inputs to the CIRP, will ensure a stronger and more effective complementarity between the CIRP and the IGF.

Budget: Like other UN bodies, the CIRP should be supported by the regular budget of the United Nations. In addition, keeping in view its unique multi-stakeholder format for inclusive participation, and the need for a well-resourced Research Wing and regular meetings, a separate Fund should also be set up drawing from the domain registration fees collected by various bodies involved in the technical functioning of the Internet, especially in terms of names and addresses.

***

Excerpts from the Tunis Agenda

Paragraph 34 of the Tunis Agenda defines Internet Governance as “the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet”.

Paragraph 35 reaffirms the respective roles of stakeholders as follows: “(a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues”. (b) The private sector has had, and should continue to have, an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical an economic fields. (c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role. (d) Intergovernmental organizations have had, and should continue to have, a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues. (e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies.”

While delineating the respective roles of stakeholders, Paragraph 56 recognizes the need for an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach by affirming that “The Internet remains a highly dynamic medium and therefore any framework and mechanisms designed to deal with Internet governance should be inclusive and responsive to the exponential growth and fast evolution of the Internet as a common platform for the development of multiple applications”.

Paragraph 58 recognizes “that Internet governance includes more than Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet”.

Paragraph 59 further recognizes that “Internet governance includes social, economic and technical issues including affordability, reliability and quality of service”. Paragraph 60 further recognizes that “there are many cross-cutting international public policy issues that require attention and are not adequately addressed by the current mechanisms”.

Paragraph 61 of the Tunis Agenda therefore concludes that “We are convinced that there is a need to initiate, and reinforce, as appropriate, a transparent, democratic, and multilateral process, with the participation of governments, private sector, civil society and international organisations, in their respective roles. This process could envisage creation of a suitable framework or mechanisms, where justified, thus spurring the ongoing and active evolution of the current arrangements in order to synergize the efforts in this regard”.

Paragraph 69 further recognizes “the need for enhanced cooperation in the future, to enable governments, on an equal footing, to carry out their roles and responsibilities, in international public policy issues pertaining to the Internet, but not in the day-to-day technical and operational matters, that do not impact on international public policy issues”.

Communist Party of China delegation visits Patna

2011-11-06T01:10:00.000-07:00

A 12-member Chinese delegation of the Communist Party of China visited Patna. The delegation came from the Gansu province of China. It spent two days in Bihar under the Chinese-Indian Mutual Exchange program of 2011. It has been noted that both Bihar and Gansu are heavily dependent on agriculture. Earlier, Bihar Chief Minister had visited China.

Post 2014, a non-UPA, non-NDA Govt?

2011-11-06T00:47:00.000-07:00

Note: Assuming that UPA and NDA- both ruling parties- will be decimated in 2014, will the political formation that would become ruling party change the policies, programmes or projects launched during the corrupt regime of UPA and NDA? The third formation must announce its own policies, programmes or projects in order to be taken seriously by the electorate.

gopal krishna

CPI RULES OUT THIRD TERM FOR UPA

A B Bardhan, Senior Communist Party of India (CPI) leader has said the Congress party-led UPA Government belongs to corporate houses. It may not have been reported but the same holds true for NDA as well.

Bardhan said, "We will fight over all these issues. We will fight at the grass root levels. We will fight for jobs, for food security, against corruption and when I talk about food security it also means against price rise".

He said, people would not vote either for the Congress or the BJP in the next Lok Sabha elections in 2014 at a meeting of intellectuals at Vidhayak Club. "Politics starts when people come out on streets. Sitting in a club or any party office, we cannot discuss politics," he said. He noted that "Efforts are also on for corporate farming".

The CPI leader said that the party would organize its 21st congress in Patna from March 27-31, 2012. The party has chosen Hindi belt for this purpose. During the convention, party leaders would discuss the party's programmes and the reasons for its defeat in the last state assembly polls.

During his earlier visit, Bardhan had addressed the Bihar state council meet of his party in Patna on July 5, 2011.

महंगाई धीमी मौत की तरह है: हाई कोर्ट

2011-11-05T22:38:00.001-07:00

पीटीआई, एजेंसियां
कोच्चि।। पेट्रोल की कीमतों में बार-बार बढ़ोतरी पर केरल हाई कोर्ट ने सख्त रुख अपनाया है। उसने शुक्रवार को कहा कि सरकारें इस मसले पर अपनी जिम्मेदारी से पल्ला नहीं झाड़ सकतीं। इसके विरोध के लिए राजनीतिक दलों का इंतजार करने के बजाय देश के लोगों को खुद सामने आना चाहिए। अदालत ने इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन और रिलायंस पेट्रोलियम को अपनी बैलेंस शीट और तिमाही रिपोर्ट तीन सप्ताह में पेश करने का निदेर्श दिया।

एक जनहित याचिका पर सुनवाई करते हुए एक्टिंग चीफ जस्टिस सी.एन. रामचंद्रन नायन और जस्टिस पी.एस. गोपीनाथन ने मौखिक टिप्पणी में कहा कि पिछले एक साल में तेल के दाम 40 पर्सेंट से ज्यादा बढ़ गए हैं। इससे आम आदमी को भारी परेशानी का सामना करना पड़ रहा है। महंगाई धीमी मौत की तरह है।

राजनीतिक दल मुनाफा बटोर रहे हैं। उपभोक्ता विरोध नहीं कर पा रहे हैं। बार-बार की बढ़ोतरी में उन्हें ऐडजस्ट करना पड़ रहा है। अदालत ने कहा कि इस बढ़ोतरी से टू-वीइलर और छोटी कार चलाने वाले ज्यादा प्रभावित होते हैं, अमीर लोग नहीं क्योंकि वे डीजल की महंगी कारों में चलते हैं।

तेल कंपनियों को पेट्रोल के दाम बढ़ाने का अधिकार देने और बार-बार पेट्रोल महंगा होने के विरोध में यह जनहित याचिका पूर्व सांसद पी.सी. थॉमस ने दायर की है। राज्य सरकार के वकील ने तर्क दिया कि यह याचिका राजनीति से प्रेरित है। इस पर कोर्ट ने यह कहते हुए कि राजनीति में भी जनहित जुड़ा होता है, याचिका सुनवाई के लिए स्वीकार कर ली। हालांकि अदालत का कहना था कि तेल उत्पादों के दाम तय करने का अधिकार देना केंद सरकार का पॉलिसी मैटर है, पेट्रोल की मौजूदा बढ़ोतरी पर हम इसमें दखल नहीं दे सकते। पेट्रोल के दाम में बढ़ोतरी राष्ट्रीय मुद्दा है। हम इस पर स्टे नहीं लगा सकते।

महंगाई धीमी मौत की तरह है: हाई कोर्ट

2011-11-05T22:38:00.000-07:00

Communist Party of India (Marxist) Protests Against Advani's Jan Chetana Rath Yatra

2011-10-15T02:07:00.000-07:00

Workers of Communist Party of India (Marxist) workers took out a rally and staged mahadharna in protest against senior BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani's Jan Chetana Rath Yatra in Patna on October 11, 2011.

Source: http://viewpatna.blogspot.com/2011/10/cpi-m-protests-lk-advanis-jan-chetana.html

बिहार केंद्रीय विश्वविध्यालय मामले में नीतीश कुमार के नाम पत्र

2011-10-11T01:42:00.000-07:00

आदरणीय नीतीश कुमार जी,

आशा है आप स्वस्थ और सानंद होंगे.

मैं बिहार केंद्रीय विश्वविध्यालय को लेकर चल रहे विवाद के संदर्भ में आपसे कुछ अनुरोध करना चाह रहा था. इससे पहले कुछ बातें और जो संदर्भ के लिए जरूरी है.

मैं बिहार के औरंगाबाद जनपद के एक छोटे से गाँव सिमरी बाला का रहनेवाला हूँ. और गाँव का पहला ऐसा युवक रहा हूँ, जो किसी विश्वविध्यालय के दरवाजे तक पहुँचा हो. अध्ययन और अध्यापन के सिलसिले में पिछले ढाई दशक से उत्तर प्रदेश में हूँ, किन्तु हमेशा अपने बिहार के बारे में सोचा करता हूँ. जिस मिट्टी में इंसान जन्म लेता है उसका कर्ज कभी नहीं भूल पाता. मेरा भी अपने बिहार के प्रति कर्ज है,जिसे उतरने के लिए वैचारिक रूप से ही सही हमेशा तत्पर रहता हूँ.

नीतीश जी,हम और आप जानते हैं कि बिहार में कुशासन का एक लंबा दौर रहा है. जिस राज्य की तरफ आज पूरे देश की निगाहें लगी है, वहाँ कलतक सांस लेना भी मुश्किल था. आज बिहार की सड़कों और कानून व्यवस्था तथा आपके सुशासन की लोग तारीफ करते हैं, राजनीति में आपकी एक अलग बेदाग छवि है. किन्तु मैं समझता हूँ कि यह सब बातें सिर्फ आपके उत्साह वर्धन के लिए है ना कि महिमामंडन के लिए. हमारे आपके सामने बिहार की तरक्की, शिक्षा और रोजी-रोटी के लिए बिहार से बाहर रह रहे उन करोड़ों बिहारियों को सम्मान दिलाने की भी चुनौती है, जो आज भी बुनियादी सुविधाओं से वंचित हैं और असम से लेकर महाराष्ट्र तक हर रोज गोली और गालियाँ खाते हैं. आप्क पूर्ववर्ती मुख्यमंत्री बिहारियों के लिए गाली के प्रतीक बन चुके थे.

नीतीश जी, आज उन करोड़ों बिहारियों को आजीविका, शिक्षा और सम्मान दिलाने की चुनौती आपके कंधों पर है. ऐसे में हर एक कदम आपको काफी सोचकर उठाना चाहिए,जिससे कि हमारे सपनों पर पानी न फिर जाए. मैने नालंदा और बिहार केंद्रीय विश्वविध्यालय को लेकर प्रिंट और इलेक्ट्रानिक मीडिया की रिपोर्ट देखी है. मुझे जानकार बहुत दुख हुआ कि वर्ष 2009 में संसद में पारित केंद्रीय विश्वविध्यालय अधिनियम के बाद से आजतक बिहार में विश्वविध्यालय के लिए उपयुक्त जमीन नहीं मिल सकी. मुझे पता लगा कि केंद्र सरकार मोतिहारी में विश्वविध्यालय नहीं बनाना चाहती,क्योंकि वह राष्ट्रीय और अंतरराष्ट्रीय नेटवर्क पर नहीं आता. मैं समझता हूँ कि विश्वविध्यालय को एक राष्ट्रीय स्वरूप देने के लिए जरूरी होता है कि उसकी स्थापना ऐसी जगह हो जहाँ देश और दुनियाँ से आनेवाले विशेषग्यों और छात्रों को कोई असुविधा ना हो.

अगर केन्द्र मोतिहारी को नहीं चाहती है तो ना सही, हमारी उदारता तो इसी में हैकि हम कपिल सिब्बल से कह दें कि पूरा बिहार आपका है आप जहाँ चाहें विश्वविध्यालय बना दें. मुख्यमंत्री जी,उन लाखों बिहारी युवाओं को केंद्रीय विश्वविध्यालय चाहिय,जो उच्च शिक्षा प्राप्त करने के लिए बिहार से बाहर दर-दर की ठोकरें खाते फिरते हैं और उंहें अपमान का घूँट पीकर शिक्षा प्राप्त करनी पड़ती है.

नीतीश जी, आपकी राजनीतिक छवि और कद कपिल सिब्बल से कहीं बहुत बड़ा है. और फिर बिहार की तरक्की के लिए बहुत बार आपको झुंकना पड़ेगा, फिर फलदार वृक्ष हमेशा झुक जाते हैं. बिहार की तरक्की में कहीं से भी दलगत राजनीति आड़े नहीं आनी चाहिए. अगर मोतिहारी की जगह बोधगया या पटना के कहीं आसपास ही जगह मिल जाए तो क्या बुरा.

नीतीश जी, बिहार के बौद्धिकों और युवाओं की तरफ से मैं आपसे अपील करता हूँ कि आप केंद्र को तत्काल यह संदेश भिजवा दें कि केंद्र जहाँ चाहे बिहार में एक नहीं दो-दो केंद्रीय विश्वविध्यालय की स्थापना कर ले. हम जमीन देने को तैयार हैं. और अगर अपने मोतिहारी के लोगों को विश्वविध्यालय खोलने का वचन दिया है तो वहाँ एक भव्य राज्य विश्वविध्यालय की स्थापना कीजिए, जो केंद्र के लिए भी आदर्श बने.

हम इस मामले में आपकी पहल की प्रतीक्षा करेंगे.

डा निरंजन सिंह
प्रवक्ता
एस.एस.वी.एम.कालेज, इलाहाबाद
पूर्व पत्रकार, हिन्दुस्तान, अमर उजाला
पूर्व सदस्य,राज्य ललित कला अकादमी,उत्तर प्रदेश
संपर्क: 1/2 ए सुभाष नगर नया माम्फोर्डगंज, इलाहाबाद-211002
फोन; 09455998412 / 09196110677

Once a chief minister of Bihar had stopped a yatra: Modi

2011-10-11T00:04:00.001-07:00

Chief minister Narendra Modi wrote on his blog a day before the yatra from Sitabdiara in Bihar, “once a chief minister of Bihar had stopped a yatra of Advaniji. It is a matter of immense pleasure that today the chief minister of the same state is flagging off Advaniji’s yatra”.

“It is appropriate that this yatra is starting from the native place of Jayaprakash Narayanji on his birth anniversary,” wrote Modi.

Bihar’s Janata Dal (United) Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, an anti-Modi ally in the NDA, is to flag off L K Advani’s yatra on October 11, 2011.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/sadbhavana-payback-modi-wishes-advani-on-yatra-eve/858381/0

Rs 26: Garibi Hatao in the Congress-BJP Way

2011-10-03T03:34:00.000-07:00

In the aftermath of a controversial affidavit by the Planning Commission in the Supreme Court, it is useful to remind its authors of the premise of the first Human Development Report of 1990 that “people are the real wealth of a nation”. UN Declaration of Alma-Ata on Primary Health Care, 1978 also argued for “promotion of food supply and proper nutrition.”

World’s premier intelligence agency will have us believe that, “rich nations generally employ more generous standards of poverty than poor nations” disregarding the fact that 1 in 6 US citizens are living in poverty, highest poverty rate since 1983. According to US census its poverty rate rose to 4.6 crore people in a population of 31 crore.

The question is: how to genuinely assess the felt needs of citizens who are below a decent way of living based on their consumption of food and arrangement for housing. Before that there is need to ponder over: what comes first, poverty alleviation or financial wealth generating economic activity in an “open-market economy”? Planning Commission has been putting the cart before the horse for quite a while.

In an affidavit filed by B D Virdi, Adviser, Planning Commission before the Supreme Court in the PUCL vs Union of India & Others or Writ Petition (Civil) 196 of 2001, the Commission said that any citizen who spends more than Rs 965 per month in urban India (around Rs.32 per day) and Rs 781 in rural India (around Rs.26 per day) “at June 2011 price level” would be considered not to be poor. This is set a poverty line based on the monetary value of some normative expenditure that is deemed essential.

It has done so as an act of generosity that comes naturally to nations that are privatizing governance and subsidizing artificial persons which are ‘engines of growth’. Supreme Court’s observations reveal that “faster rate of growth is systematically associated with higher inequality”. Here ‘growth’ means rate of generation of financial wealth alone and not the growth of citizens who can afford nutritious food.

Even as per Tendulkar Committee, the total Below Poverty Line population was 40.74 crore in March 2005. It highly insensitive on the part of Virdi to suggest that “the total BPL population as per 2009/10 estimation may be lower” than that what emerges from Tendulkar Committee’s projection. World over rise in food prices increases poverty but this insincere affidavit states the contrary.

While it is trite to state that it is the government's responsibility to feed the citizens who are unable to buy anything for themselves, the influence of external financial institutions on the Commission is getting structural changes institutionalized so that the government withdraws. Such calibrated steps are taken in the name of targetting or identifying the poor.

The affidavit submits that “At June 2011 price level, for a family of five this provisional poverty line would amount to Rs.4, 824 per month in urban areas and Rs.3,905 per month in rural areas. However, final poverty lines following the Tendulkar Committee will only be available after completion of the 2011-12 NSS Survey” by National Sample Survey Organisation (NSSO). Till then poor can wait. In the meanwhile, “The poverty estimates for 2009/10 are being worked out on the basis of the detailed NSSO data which has become available”.

While hearing the PUCL case on September 20, 2011, the Bench of Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice Deepak Verma ordered, “We direct the States and Union Territories to inform the public about the availability of the night shelters through print media and electronic media, so that the poor and needy people may avail the benefit of the night shelters.” Clearly, Rs 26 per day for rural India and Rs Rs 32 for urban India is not sufficient to ensure housing for the poor. As to urban India, the Committee on Slum Statistics/Census under the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation has projected the slum population to be 9.3 Crore as of March 2011, which was 5.23 crore in 2001.

While deciding on Rs 32 per day for urban India, the planners seem to have failed in factoring in slums which are “any compact housing cluster or settlement of at least 20 households with a collection of poorly built tenements which are, mostly temporary in nature with inadequate sanitary, drinking water facilities and unhygienic conditions”. Although it does not seem obvious to the Commission, it is quite intelligible to any discerning citizen who is not guided by external financial institutions that such living circumstances breed diseases of all ilk. Such diseases take a huge toll on the poor and if it turns out to be an epidemic then on country’s economy.

In the order dated May 14, 2011, the apex court observed, “We see no rationale in not distributing food grains according to the estimate of Union of India. The food allocation should be based on every year's population estimate as carried out by the Planning Commission or the Registrar General, in the absence of any official census figure.” These orders of the apex court has to be implemented in the 35 States/Union Territories, 640 districts, 5,924 sub-districts, 7,935 towns and 6,40,867 villages. As per Census 2011, the provisional population of India is 121 crore. But there is nothing on record to show that Indian National Congress led government has complied with the court’s order so far. The matter will come for further directions on November 2, 2011.

National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector headed by Arjun Sengupta found in its report on “Conditions of Work and Promotion of Livelihoods in the Unorganized Sector” at the end of 2004-05 that 77% of Indians, or 83.6 crore citizens, lived on less than 20 rupees per day. But USA’s central intelligence agency states that as per 2007 estimates 25% of India’s population is below poverty line. Its website mentions this figure as of August 29, 2011.

The 39 page Report of the Expert Group to review the methodology for estimation of poverty authored by Suresh Tendulkar, R Radhakrishna and Suranjan Sengupta for the Planning Commission in November 2009 left the all-India urban poverty estimate unaltered at 25.7%.

It has revised the estimate of poverty in India for 2004-05 to 37.2% from 27.5% and for rural India to 41.8%. Its estimation was based on consumption share of commodities around poverty line class for urban areas in all India. The commodities included consumption of cereal, pulses, milk, edible oil, meat products, vegetables, fresh fruits, dry fruits, sugar, salt, spices, fuel, clothing, footwear, education, medical, entertainment, rent, footwear and conveyance.

Taking note of the above, the apex Court vide its order dated 14.05.2011 direct that:“….According to the Tendulkar Committeee, with the price level of 2011, it is impossible for an individual in an urban area to consume 2100 calories in Rs.20 and an individual in a rural area to consume 2400 calories at Rs.15. The Planning Commission may revise norms of per capita amount looking to the price index of May 2011 or any other subsequent dates”. This appears to be an indictment of the Commission which should be sufficient reason for the concerned officials to step down or recuse themselves from such work in future. The Planning Commission’s affidavit stating “the Poverty Lines recommended by Tendulkar Committee are not anchored in calorie intake norm” seems to be defending the indefensible.

It appears relevant to recollect the historical context of planning process in India. In 1887, the founder of Indian National Congress, A O Hume addressed the dull misery of the starving residents of India saying, “Toil, toil, toil; hunger, hunger, hunger, sickness, suffering, sorrow; these alas, alas, alas are the keynotes of their short and sad existence" in a pamphlet at the Madras Session. Things remain the same even today. Later, speaking on behalf of the party, Mahatma Gandhi said, “Above all the Congress represents, in its essence, the dumb semi-starved millions scattered over the length and breadth of the land in its 7, 00, 000 villages” at the Second Round Table Conference in 193l in London. This party cannot claim to represent the starving millions after the affidavit filed on behalf of its Prime Minister.

In order to address hunger and starvation among other issues, in October 1938, Subhas Chandra Bose formed a National Planning Committee at the national level in his capacity as the President of Indian National Congress during the commencement of World War II. This Committee functioned till 1949 with its sub-committees and made several valuable recommendations under Jawaharlal Nehru’s chairmanship. Later, following a resolution of Congress Working Committee in January 1950 that recommended setting up of a statutory body for planning and its announcement in the Union Budget of February 1950, the Planning Commission was set up by a resolution of Government of India dated March 15, 1950. Those were war time efforts. There is now a need for peace time efforts for genuine democratic planning.

Supreme Court is compelled to act because there is rampant hunger, starvation and malnutrition in the country which has not been addressed by two national political parties who are dishonest to their party constitution. As per Article I and II of the Constitution of the Indian National Congress, Dr Manmohan Singh is a socialist first and the Chairman of the Planning Commission later. This is true about Bhartiya Janta Party as well because Article II of its Constitution pledges allegiance to socialism. The registration document of the party also reveals its ideology as Gandhian Socialism.

It has been argued by Yashwant Sinha, former finance minister that “Planning Commission is the nodal agency for estimating poverty along with the Ministry of Rural Development, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, NSSO under the Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Registrar General of Census under the Ministry of Home Affairs and now the Unique Identification Authority of India housed in the Planning Commission.” Sinha is also a socialist as per his party’s constitution. Has he been pro-poor as a finance minister and currently as Chairman, Parliamentary Standing on Finance?

While creation of multiple agencies is indeed akin to shifting the responsibility, the real issue is lack of political consensus on ensuring genuine public health, public education and public transport to deal with dehumanizing poverty of fellow citizens. The measures to address social services and make public investments for it emanates from the Constitution of these two principal national parties but their allegiance to their funders stops them from addressing deprivation. If words like “socialist” are empty words that merit no serious attention, then what is the rationale for insincere hullabaloo over words used in an affidavit?

With its repeated failure to address the gnawing felt needs of the poor in the country, the Planning Commission stands exposed. Its scandalous recommendations create a compelling logic to disband the Commission. This can initiate the planning process as envisaged in the Constitution under Eleventh Schedule (Article 243-G) for rural local government and under Twelfth Schedule (Article 243-W) for urban local government for reaching the unreached malnourished compatriots unmindful of whether or not one agrees with CIA’s assessment of India “developing into an open-market economy” with “traces of its past autarkic policies”. The fact remains that almost every act of the Planning Commission echoes the above assessment despite stark poverty in USA.

“What is important is that the food must reach the Hungry," observed Supreme Court of India on August 20, 2001. Will all the opposition parties including the Left and regional parties act together to ensure that?
Gopal Krishna

Civic rights activists released on bail

2011-09-10T05:25:00.000-07:00

Lungertoli Gali (Nala Road), Patna Welcomes Release of 5 Citizens from Jail, they were protesting Against Water logging & Filth

Residents of Langertoli Lane welcomed the release of 5 citizens from Jail who were protesting on August 12, 2011 at Nala Road against dumping of rotten garbage flowing in waterlogged lane. street corner meeting. Angry residents had blocked Nala Road. Ramakant Prasad, Patna, town DSP, Bihar Police unleashed lathi charge on women along with other citizens. Police resorted to brutal lathicharge indiscriminately. Police arrested 14 people, including 9 women and the DSP started beating them severely.

DSP Patna had filed a FIR against Suryakar Jitendra, Anil Kumar, Saroj Kumar Suman, Rahul Singh and Mohan Singh accusing them shouting “Prashashan Murdabad” among other things and had got them sent to jail. They were released on bail today. The judicial officer in expressed surprised at the police action. It’s a strange case of police assaulting citizens as well as filing case against them.

Suryakar Jitendra, State Secretary, Anil Kumar, former Patna District Secretary, Saroj Kumar Suman, Patna District Secretary of All India Democratic Students' Organization (AIDSO) have pledged to continue to protest for civil rights which is part of basic human rights.

Citizens’ March was organized on the streets of Patna All progressive- democratic forces and human right activists to oppose the repressive action of the Bihar Police. It is sure that the Socialist Unity Centre of India (Communist) activists were in the forefront in the protest of local citizens against dumping of garbage and dirty water logging for 10-12 days.

पुलिस अत्याचार के खिलाफ बासुदेव सिंह का पत्र बिहार राज्यपाल के नाम

2011-09-10T04:17:00.000-07:00

Bihar's Water Policies Yet to be Finalized

2011-09-05T02:18:00.000-07:00

Bihar State Water Policy 2010

Bihar Draft Drinking Water & Sanitation Policy, 2010
Bihar's Water Resources Department Water Policy, 2009

Acoording to the Road Map for Development of Power Sector in Bihar – A Report of the Special Task Force on Bihar, Govt. of India, July 2007, Bihar has approx. 600 MW of its own generation capacity, is heavily dependent on the power supplied by Central Generating Stations.

Kapoor, Lalu aide yet to submit receipts related to four foreign trips

2011-08-30T00:19:00.001-07:00

Lalu aide asked to produce receipts 16 years on

State government gives Kapoor 15 days to submit bills related to four foreign trips in 1995

The Bihar state government has asked Dr Mukul Kishore Kapoor, a close aide to former chief minister Lalu Prasad, to submit receipts of expenses he incurred during official visits to Singapore, Thailand, the United States and the United Kingdom 16 years ago.

Kapoor was private secretary then to Prasad — now the national chief of the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD).

The government request was made in a notice issued by the Cabinet Secretariat Department of Bihar and published as an advertisment in newspapers on 28th August.

Kapoor was part of an official delegation led by Prasad which visited the four countries in 1995 to attract foreign investment to the state. Their efforts hardly paid off.

The delegation, comprising senior state government officials, visited Singapore and Thailand between July 25 and August 1, 1995. They then visited the United States and the United Kingdom between October 6 and October 21 of the same year.

Kapoor has been given 15 days to submit the required documentation, which the state government says will enable it to adjust the advance taken by him during the time he made the foreign trips.

The notice, signed by Ram Udgar Mahato, deputy secretary to the state government, states that action will be taken should Kapoor fail to comply.

In response, Kapoor said there appeared to be a communication problem with the government as he had already assured them he would produce the required documentation.

The RJD, the principal opposition party in Bihar, questioned the government's rationale of seeking the required bills 16 years after the foreign trips.

The party also questioned the use of newspapers to communicate the position and suggested that the state government was being vindictive towards its rivals.

Lata Rani

http://gulfnews.com/news/world/india/lalu-aide-asked-to-produce-receipts-16-years-on-1.858882

इतिहासकार आर स शर्मा के सम्मान में कोताही पर पत्र

2011-08-29T23:07:00.000-07:00

Agriculture Land Being Converted into Non Agriculture Purposes

2011-08-29T22:31:00.000-07:00

It has been reported in the newspapers of Bihar that new land acquisition rules have been framed for changing agricultural land into non-agricultural land. For setting up power plants up to 25 MW of hydro power, these rules can be applied.

In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 15 of the Bihar Agriculture Land
(Conversion for Non Agriculture Purposes) Act, 2010, (Bihar Act 11 of 2010), the Governor of Bihar has been pleased to make the following rules vide Notification No.-244(8) Ra. dated-15.03.2011under the said Act.

The Bihar Agriculture Land (Conversion for Non Agriculture Purposes) Rules, 2011

Bihar's New land acquisition policy for industries also merits attention in this regard in the context of Draft National Land Acquisition and Resettlement and Rehabilitation Bill 2011 of the central government.

इतिहासकार रामशरण शर्मा की अन्तेय्ष्टि पेज थ्री पर

2011-08-21T23:44:00.000-07:00

बिहार के अख़बारों में आज पेज थ्री की खबर है -महान इतिहासकार ,बिहार के गौरव रामशरण शर्मा पंचतत्व में विलीन हो गए.

वजीर -ऐ -बिहार नीतीश कुमार आदरणीय शर्मा जी घर अतिम दर्शन करने गए तो यह तस्वीर हर हिंदी अख़बार में छपी है. एक भूतपूर्व कामरेड पत्रकार ने महान इतिहासकार के लेखन पर लिखकर अपने कामरेडसिप को प्रमाणित करने की कोशिश की है.

अपने भूतपूर्व कामरेड या किन्ही नगमानिगार ने यह लिखने की हिम्मत नहीं जुटाई कि बिहार गौरव रामशरण शर्मा के निधन के बाद जब वजीरे बिहार ने राजकीय सम्मान के साथ अन्तेय्ष्टि की घोषणा की तो २१ अगस्त को बांस घाट पर अत्येष्टि से पूर्व उन्हें "गार्ड ऑफ ऑनर" क्यों नहीं दिया गया ....?

बांसघाट पर बिहार सरकार के मंत्री श्री पी .के शाही और सत्ता के लिए कांग्रेस से जद ( यू )में आये किसी विभाग के मंत्री श्री रामाश्रय सिंह मौजूद थे. मैंने सरकार के दोनों प्रतिनिधिओं से पूछा -राजकीय सम्मान की घोषणा के बाद "गार्ड ऑफ ऑनर " क्यों नहीं दिया गया.

श्री पी के शाही ने कहा कि मै पता करता हूँ ,कोई चूक हुई है".

तत्काल उनने किसी ब्युरोक्रट्स से मोबाईल पर बात की और मीडिया को बताया कि " गार्ड ऑफ ऑनर " परंपरागत तरीके से दिया जाता रहा है लेकिन यह नियम (विधिसंगत )नहीं है.

सरकार के वाहन से शर्मा जी का शव बांस घाट लाया गया और किसी सरकारी मुलाजिम ने उनके शव पर राष्ट्रध्वज समर्पित किया .जाहिर है कि मुख्यमंत्री श्री नीतीश कुमार ने मृत्यु पूर्व रुबन इमरजेंसी के आई .सी .यू में जाकर व मृत्यु उपरांत शर्मा जी के निवास पर जाकर शर्मा जी का ओपचारिक दर्शन किया था.

जब आदरणीय शर्मा जी मीडिया कि भाषा में पंचतत्व में विलीन हो रहे थे ,वजीर -ऐ -बिहार उड़नखटोले से बिहार के बढ़ क्षेत्र का दर्शन कर रहे थे.

मुख्यमंत्री जी को यह बताने कि हिम्मत करनी चाहिए कि जिन्हें उनने बिहार गौरव कहा उनकी अंत्येष्टि में राजकीय सम्मान कि घोषणा के बावजूद "गार्ड -ऑफ़ -ऑनर "क्यों नहीं ....?

क्या रामनामी राज्यसत्ता सत्ता ने राम (कथित देवता) का अस्तित्व नकारने वाले आदरणीय रामशरण शर्मा का मृत्यु उपरांत राजनितिक पूर्वाग्रह से ग्रसित होकर अपमान किया है ...?

नीतीश कुमार जी ,ज्ञान की सम्पदा सबसे बड़ी ताकत होती है और अगर आपने ज्ञान परंपरा के प्रतीक के साथ मजाक की नोटिस नहीं ली तो आपकी छवि धुल में मिल जाएगी.

पुष्पराज

Why Singhvi & others should not be part of the Parliamentary Committee

2011-08-21T21:07:00.000-07:00

Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice is chaired by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi. Singhvi was nominated to this committee on 26th July, 2011. It is a strategic nomination by the Indian National Congress. This Committee is to deliberate on Lokpal Bill which was referred to it on 8th August, 2011. On 21st August, 2011, the Committee put out an advertisement of the Lokpal Bill, 2011 inviting comments from public till 3rd September, 2011.

There is a clear conflict of interest among some Hon'ble members of this Committee and the sensitive issues of anti-corruption Bill (Lokpal Bill).

For instance, if Singhvi were to be a judge and he had already represented a client in the past judicial propriety (perhaps legislative propriety as well) would have required him to recuse himself from hearing the case of his client. This is a classic case of conflict of interest.

Composition of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice

1 1 Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi Chairman Rajya Sabha
I.N.C. RJ
2 2 Shri Parimal Nathwani Member Rajya Sabha
Ind. JHK
3 3 Shri Ram Vilas Paswan Member Rajya Sabha
L.J.S.P BR
4 4 Shri Amar Singh Member Rajya Sabha
Ind. UP
5 Shri Ram Jethmalani Member Rajya Sabha
Nom. NOM.
6 Shri Balavant alias Bal Apte Member Rajya Sabha
B.J.P. MH
7 5 Shri O.T. Lepcha Member Rajya Sabha
S.D.F. SK
8 Smt. Chandresh Kumari Member Lok Sabha
I.N.C.
9 Shri Lalu Prasad Member Lok Sabha
R.J.D.
10 Shri D.B. Chandre Gowda Member Lok Sabha
B.J.P.
11 Shri Shailendra Kumar Member Lok Sabha
S.P. Uttar Pradesh
12 Dr. Kirodi Lal Meena Member Lok Sabha
Ind.
13 Shri Harin Pathak Member Lok Sabha
B.J.P. Gujarat
14 Shri N.S.V. Chitthan Member Lok Sabha
I.N.C. Tamil Nadu
15 Smt. Deepa Dashmunsi Member Lok Sabha
I.N.C.
16 Jyoti Dhurve Member Lok Sabha
B.J.P.
17 Dr. Monazir Hassan Member Lok Sabha
J.D.(U)
18 Shri Devji M. Patel Member Lok Sabha
B.J.P.
19 Shri S. Semmalai Member Lok Sabha
A.I.A.D.M.K.
20 Shri Vijay Bahadur Singh Member Lok Sabha
B.S.P.
21 Dr. Prabha Kishore Taviad Member Lok Sabha
I.N.C.
22 Shri Manish Tewari Member Lok Sabha
I.N.C.
23 Shri R. Thamaraiselvan Member Lok Sabha
D.M.K.
24 Shri P. T. Thomas (Idukki) Member Lok Sabha
I.N.C.
25 Kumari Meenakshi Natrajan Member Lok Sabha
I.N.C.
26 Vacant Rajya Sabha
-
27 Vacant Rajya Sabha
-
28 Vacant Rajya Sabha
-
29 Vacant Lok Sabha
-
30 Vacant Lok Sabha
-
31 Vacant Lok Sabha
-
1 Nominated w.e.f. 26/07/2011

2 Nominated w.e.f. 21/09/2010

3 Nominated w.e.f. 21/09/2010

4 Nominated w.e.f. 21/09/2010

5 Nominated w.e.f. 21/09/2010

It is noteworthy that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice presented its report on “The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Person Making tjavascript:void(0)he Disclosure Bill, 2010”, or The Whistleblower Bill, on June 9, 2011 with its recommendations, which are expected to be enacted soon. The Bill seeks to institutionalise a system to register disclosures from whistleblowers on any allegation of corruption by a public servant and to protect the complainants from any consequences arising due to public interest disclosures.

Disclosure in the act is defined as ‘any complaint made in writing or electronic mail against a public servant on matters related to an attempt to or commission of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; wilful misuse of power which leads to demonstrate loss to the government or gain to the public servant; or attempt or commission of a criminal offence by a public servant.' The bill designates the Central and State Vigilance Commissioners (CVCs) to investigate the disclosures.

सरकारी लोकपाल का लटकता इतिहास

2011-08-17T11:03:00.000-07:00

सरकारी और जन नहीं, आमजन लोकपाल की बात की जाए

http://mohallalive.com/2011/08/16/gopal-krishna-react-on-lokpal-movement/

सरकारी लोकपाल का लटकता इतिहास
http://www.janjwar.com/2011-05-27-09-06-02/67-editorial/1856-sarkari-lokpal-ka-latkata-itihas-

ईमानदारी की ताबीज़ और सरकारी-गैर सरकारी कदम ताल
http://bargad.org/2011/08/15/

लोकपाल, जनलोकपाल और आम जनलोकपाल
http://visfot.com/home/index.php/permalink/4791.html

Police atrocity on civil democratic struggle in Bihar

2011-08-15T04:25:00.000-07:00

· Five AIDSO activists including its state secretary Suryakar Jitendra beaten up in police custody

· DSP insulted and hits women

Residents of Langertoli Lane registered their protest on Aug 12 at Nala Road against dumping of rotten garbage flowing in waterlogged lane. Street corner meeting was going on at about 10’ 0 clock. Angry people blocked Nala Road. Ramakant Prasad, Town DSP, reached suddenly on the spot and tried to snatch mike from Anamika, State Vice President, AIDSO, and pushed her towards police van. She was then addressing the people gathered there. DSP hit Sadhana Mishra, District Secretary, SUCI (Communist) severely by throwing her on the Road. Common people burst their anger and the mob became furious. Police was resorting lathicharge indiscriminately and unarmed people were being beaten up chasing on the roads and lanes. DSP started throwing the pieces of burning tires on the body of girls standing on forefront of the protesters. Some hairs and scarf (Dupatta) of Pinki, MA from Political Science, was burnt. She got injury on upper part of her hand. DSP threw pieces of burning tires even on Sadhana Mishra. The palm of Nikolai Sharma, Office Secretary, AIDSO, Patna, cut deeply and he had got 8 stitches. Police continued indiscriminate lathicharge for half an hour from Nala Road to Langertoli Lane. Police arrested 14 people, including 9 women who were providing leadership to protest demonstration at 10: 45 am. DSP Ramakant Prasad started beating up severely Suryakar Jitendra, State Secretary, Anil Kumar, Former Patna District Secretary, Saroj Kumar Suman, Patna District Secretary of AIDSO in police custody asking why were they doing ‘Netagiri’. When he became tired in beating them he ordered the fellow police personals to continue it. When Sadhana Mishra protested in high voice this barbaric act of DSP, he abused her badly and pulled and moved her hair fiercely. He pulled her spectacle and threw on the wall. (Pulling the hairs of Sadhana Mishra DSP told why he should not beat her. Should he kiss her?) Under the leadership of DSP Patna police continued beating 5 people for half an hour. DSP released women in the evening. But Suryakar Jitendra, Anil Kumar, Saroj Kumar Suman, Rahul Singh and Mohan Singh were sent to jail.

Citizens’ March was organized on the streets of Patna against severely lathicharge on local residents protesting against people’s problems, severely beating up students leaders and misbehave with women leaders. The dignitaries who took part in Citizens’ March were eminent Economist Prof. Nawal Kishore Chaudhary, Prof. Vinay Kumar Kanth, Arvind Sinha, Rupesh, Chakraborty Ashok Priyadarshi, Ashish Ranjan, Poonam, Nand Kishore Singh, Narendra Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Ajay Kumar Sinha, Anish Ankur, Sarfaraj, Shreekant, Baldeo Jha, Jay Prakash, Girija Ranjan Singh, Bal Govind Singh, Ajay Prasad, Arun Kumar Singh and Sadhana Mishra.

We appeal to progressive- democratic forces and human right activists to oppose the repressive action of the Bihar Police. It is sure that the SUCI (Communist) activists were in the forefront in the protest of local citizens against dumping of garbage and dirty water logging for 10-12 days. Why police targeted only the SUCI (Communist) workers? Should it be allowed the state machinery of Nitish Kumar to suppress the democratic struggles of the progressive forces?

Ashish Ranjan (9973363664) Nand Kishore Singh (9931857997) Pushpraj (9431862080)

BiharWatch

मेधा पाटकर टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया पटना कर्मियों के समर्थन में

Medha Patkar criticises Bihar govt for creating displacement

Medha Patkar speaks on Development, Democracy and People's Movement in Patna

मैं बाबा नागार्जुन को खोज रहा हूँ...एक कविता

बिहार में मेधा पाटकर, मुख्यमंत्री से मुलाक़ात की भी संभावना

प्रेतलीला का वक्‍त हो चला है: अरुंधती रॉय

प्रेस - आमंत्रण: आधार पर संसदीय समिति की रिपोर्ट व जनसँख्या रजिस्टर परियोजना का अर्थ

Invitation for a Round Table in Patna on Aadhaar/UID/NPR/MNIC & Parliamentary Report

Mere Worrying About Water Crisis Not Enough

From Bimaru to booming?

Protest Against Team Anna's High handed campaign

पटना में मजीठिया लागु करो को लेकर डाक बंगला चौराहा और टाइम्स ऑफ़ इंडिया दफ्तर के सामने रोषपूर्ण प्रदर्शन

Bhojpuri speaking Purvanchal state to comprise of 22 districts?

UP's 11 crore voters to vote for 403 seats

UID का सच

Press Conference on the explosive report of the Standing Committee on the Unique Identification (UID)/Aadhaar Number & National Population Register

मुंबई छोड़ दी मैने

Fourth Estate's Failure Gives Birth to Lokpal?

Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice on Lokpal Bill

Kisan Sansad Demands Withdrawal of LARR Bill & FDI in Retail

Prabhat Khabar Debates UID/Aadhaar & NPR project

Withdraw Aadhar scheme: Achuthanandan

Withdraw Aadhar scheme:

Achuthanandan

DRAFT BIHAR LOKAYUKTA BILL, 2011

Chief Secretary's BIADA Report refers to Allotment for Nibhi's Asbetsos Plant

CBC News - The National - In Depth & Analysis - Canada's Ugly Secret

India Proposes UN Committee for Internet Governance

66th Session of the UN General Assembly

New York. October 26, 2011.

Agenda Item 16: Information and Communications

Technologies for Development (ICT): Global Internet Governance

Statement by India

The United Nations Committee for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP)

Excerpts from the Tunis Agenda

Communist Party of China delegation visits Patna

Post 2014, a non-UPA, non-NDA Govt?

महंगाई धीमी मौत की तरह है: हाई कोर्ट

महंगाई धीमी मौत की तरह है: हाई कोर्ट

Communist Party of India (Marxist) Protests Against Advani's Jan Chetana Rath Yatra

बिहार केंद्रीय विश्वविध्यालय मामले में नीतीश कुमार के नाम पत्र

Once a chief minister of Bihar had stopped a yatra: Modi

Rs 26: Garibi Hatao in the Congress-BJP Way

लोकप्रिय मूर्तिकार -रंगकर्मी वीरचन्द्र पर जानलेवा हमले के विरुद्ध बिहार के कलाकार

Civic rights activists released on bail

पुलिस अत्याचार के खिलाफ बासुदेव सिंह का पत्र बिहार राज्यपाल के नाम

Bihar's Water Policies Yet to be Finalized

Kapoor, Lalu aide yet to submit receipts related to four foreign trips

इतिहासकार आर स शर्मा के सम्मान में कोताही पर पत्र

Agriculture Land Being Converted into Non Agriculture Purposes

इतिहासकार रामशरण शर्मा की अन्तेय्ष्टि पेज थ्री पर

Why Singhvi & others should not be part of the Parliamentary Committee

सरकारी लोकपाल का लटकता इतिहास

Police atrocity on civil democratic struggle in Bihar