INDIA
People protesting in favour of the Lokpal Bill
would be carried out through an independent and transparent process. The prosecution by the CBI agency with reference to matters referred to it by the Lokpal would also be overlooked by the Lokpal. Consequently, there was no element of governmental interference in dealing with matters of corruption. Shri Jaitley (BJP) said the
debate was an extension of the debate held on 29 December 2011. He said the Samjwadi Party’s contention that people would be afraid to take decisions was unfounded and, in fact, people would be afraid of taking wrong decisions. The fight against
corruption could be carried out within the federal structure of the country, and search and seizure would be without prior permission as this would help in checking corruption. Shri Satish Chandra Misra
(BSP) welcomed the Bill and said his party was against corruption. He suggested that after the Bill was passed, the government should send the Act as a model to all the States, asking them to consider and adopt this within a one-year period. Shri Sitaram Yechury (CPI-M) said corruption had two sides - supply and demand, and it would be difficult to stop corruption without
tackling the supply side. Funding of political parties by corporate houses was also responsible for corruption and should be banned through amendment in the law. Referring to the Opposition leader’s view that bringing all the private agencies, etc. into the ambit of the Lokpal would be unmanageable and it would be a gross interference in the democratic rights and privacy of such agencies. He suggested that the public-private partnerships and the corporate sector needed to be under the purview of the Lokpal. Shri Sukhendu Sekhar Roy (AITC) referring to the provision
that “the chairperson or a member shall not be a member of Parliament or a member of the Legislature of any Sate” wanted to know why only judges would be appointed to head such bodies. Shri Shivanand Tiwari (JD-U) welcomed the Bill commented that legislation alone would not be able to check corruption. Dr V. Maitreyan (AIADMK) suggested excluding the Prime Minister, since the Prime Minister was already covered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and any misconduct on the part of the Prime Minister could be investigated otherwise. Similarly, the Chief Minister of any State
The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue One | 61
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72