Dhiman wrote:So? ... Whats the point? Please explain
The fact that under the criminal law as it exists today, all alleged crimes need to be "admitted" by a court of law before prosecution proceedings can begin...The judge (or bench) decides based on the preliminary complaint and investigation whether there is a prima facie case - its only after that the case is admitted and the process begins...What I have proposed for the PM is something pretty similar, the difference being that the SC bench will validate a complaint as having prima facie evidence/validity for the Lokpal to act on, rather than a court trial...
Dhiman wrote:PM and government already have an army of Lawyers to protect them. The common man doesn't, PM and government are rich enough to buy any protection they need.
The issue isnt about the "common man" vis a vis the PM...Its about vested interests, that have more than enough money at their disposal cranking up pressure on a particular PM by starting to file reams of complaints...As a random example, remember VP Singh and St Kitts, that imaginary "corruption" case against him? It durfaced surprisingly when he as FM initiated "tax raids" (used ot be an FM pet tool those days) against certain business groups, in fact specifically a certain group...
The suggestion perhaps also goes some way in alleviating the fears of people like Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee, who dont want the PM to be in the ambit at all...
Dhiman wrote: mean 1) didn't the supreme court recently complain regarding government being lax in providing proper funding to the court system, 2) 20 million court cases pending some dragging on years end and years out, 3) large number of vacancy of judges in the court system
There is not one arm of the govt that does not complain about lack of funding...Obviously if we had US levels of resources, we would also have US levels of infrastructure, not just in courts...But to conclude from that that the govt uses funding as a lever to get its own way with institutions is stretching it beyond credulity..No one from these places, not RBI, not EC, nor indeed the judiciary has ever said that...
For Lokpal, the bill already lays down:
1. The fact thatLokpal will have its own plans on apointment of employees.
2. All salaries and expeenses will be charged to the Consolodtae Fund of India..
3. There is a Lokpal Fund under full discretion of the Lokpal
4. Plans for "special judges" submitted by Lokpal need to be cleared within 3 months..
It is actually an amazingly flexible structure at the discretion of the Lokpal - not sure how "funding squeeze" can be applied, even if someone were to take that view...
devesh wrote:CVC, RBI, EC are all bodies with specific purpose. they have a specific mandate. a specific agenda. and are limited to a specific role. RBI performs the role of a Central Bank. and the role of a Central Bank is very well defined in modern times. every major country has a central bank. EC is also a body specifically formed to run elections. they have a specific mandate, and once again, every democratic country has a dedicated Election running process. so, the purpose of this also is very clear.
Lokpal is a completely different game. it will have authority over vast numbers of departments and ministries. it is responsible for "anti-graft," which can be in any place/ministry/state, etc. its mandate allows it to exercise power over a much larger arena. the hesitancy about Lokpal is that it is being supported and framed by people who have been associated with extreme P-secs and NAC. this gives cause to worry that Lokpal will become another NAC, which specifically targets "communal" forces as per their whims and fancies. I simply don't trust any "independent" body that is appointed by MMS. when MMS is involved, it means that Maino is making the real decisions. and we all know what kind of people Maino likes to have, based on her staffing of NAC.
Not every country has an Election Commission like we have in India, with the kind of powers vested in it...As a democracy, elections are the single most imnportant activity in the polity - and the powers vested in the EC in India is quite unprecedented in the "free world"..
Regardless, its starnge that you think laying down monetary policy and regulating the banking sector touch (or affect) less number of people than an anti-corruption body...And of course, a lot of Central bankers will thank you profusely for saying that their role is "well defined"...What about higher judiciary? They too can inteervene in "any department" that they want to, and not only on "crimes", corruption or otherwise, but everything else...They have in the recent past intervened on food policy, security, pollution, bandhs - all matters purportedly in the exective domain...Why shouldnt SC judges be "directly" elected then?
Lokpal does not have "authority" over "any place/ministry", its mandate is also restricted to corruption complaints and cases...So someone doesnt like NREGS (an NAC favourite!), it cannot approach Lokpal for justice! BTW, they can theoretically aprpoch the SC! In that sense, the mandate of Lokpal is as defined as a lot of other such offices...
About you not having faith in any MMS appointee, my friend, then you need to vote him out..Because as PM, he has the authority to appoint his Cabinet, and a whole raft of other constitutional authorities...
Dont understand this "NAC" analogy - lets take some random examples..What is so "ideological" about the appointment of YV Reddy, or Duvvuri Subbarao? Stretching your fears, we should have had en masse intrusion of "islamist motivated monies" (something energetically inisisted upon, without any data or understanding of banking by some people in a differenet discussion) into Indian banking, isnt it?
Lastly, Sonia Gandhi might be an influential politician, but by awarding her with an "ism", you have just elevated her to being an ideologue - her supporters wont mind actually!
But I do, purely from an academic perspective..