AAP members meet president to oppose ordinance on convicted politicians

Background

|Earlier cabinet cleared an ordinance that protected the convicted politicians. As clear this ordinance is not only against the public opinion but also exactly contradicts from the Supreme Court's judgement of immediate disqualification of lawmakers convicted for a criminal offence punishable with a jail term of more than two years.|

Today (27,Sept,2013) Aam Aadmi Party delegation comprising of 5 members -- Arvind Kejriwal, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan, Manish Sisodia and Sanjay Singh met met President Pranab Mukherjee and asked him to sent ordinance back to the government for reconsideration.

AAP's stand on ordinance is as follows

• Supreme Court has struck down a section of Representation of People's Act terming it unconstitutional, then how the government can bring the same section through an Ordinance.
•  If the section is unconstitutional then the Ordinance itself has become unconstitutional
• Ordinances were supposed to be emergency measures only.
• There is discontentment among the people over government's attempt to save tainted MPs and MLAs and the President should not give his assent.

Asked what would be there next course of action if the President gives his assent to the Ordinance, Kejriwal said, "We will challenge it in the Supreme Court".

Source: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/aam-aadmi-party-asks-president-pranab-mukherjee-to-refer-back-the-ordinance-to-government/1175150/

http://news.oneindia.in/india/aap-members-meet-president-oppose-ordinance-1313878.html

Supreme Court ordered EC to bring Right to Reject(RTR)

Supreme Court (SC) today gave a landmark order to Election Commission (EC) to provide a ‘none of the above’ option in the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to allow voters to reject all candidates contesting an election in a constituency.

The court upheld the argument of petitioner, the People's Union for Civil Liberties, an NGO, that a voter has the right to record disapproval of all candidates listed.
Election commission sources said this will be done starting with the next set of assembly elections this year.This means voters in Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Mizoram - where Assembly elections are due in November - will have the right to reject option.


The apex court thinks this order will “lead to systemic change in polls and political parties will be forced to project clean candidates.” The court also thinks this will ensure that people get “good governance”.

Bench that gave the order was headed by Chief Justice of India P. Sathasivam.

 According to SC negative voting via RTR  would lead to systemic change in elections and political parties will be forced to project clean candidates.
Justice Sathasivam said, "Democracy is all about choices and voters will be empowered by this right of negative voting. Negative voting will send a clear signal to political parties and candidates as to what the voters think about them." 


DEBATE on the Matter
Right to Reject is still matter of intense debate as will be clear by following points.

• Election Commission had supported this stand. It had recommended that the government amend rules to include this, but that had not been done. 
•  Centre(Government) had opposed the proposal. It contended that an election is meant to elect and not to reject. It also argued that including a rejection button will confuse voters and will not serve any purpose.
• Activists have proposed that if more than 50 per cent of those who vote reject all candidates, there should be a re-election in that constituency.
• The BJP had asked for a detailed debate.
  The Left had sought clarity on what purpose it hoped to serve.
  The AAM ADMI PARTY SUPPORTS RIGHT TO REJECT
• Anna Hazare had campaigned extensively for poll reforms that would include both the right to reject and the right to recall an elected representative if the electorate is dissatisfied with his or her performance.

Source:http://www.ndtv.com/article/cheat-sheet/supreme-court-gives-voters-right-to-reject-all-candidates-in-a-poll-424424

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/randomaccess/entry/right-to-reject-sc-gives-voters-easy-and-effective-option

Federal Structure issue shadowed toothless condition of Lokayuktas

ANALYSIS While many of the  parties like  BJP,  CPM  and Trinamool  are opposing  Chapter 3 from lokpal which is imposing Center's Lokayukta bill on states saying that Lokayukta bill prepared by states will go in vein if  center's  Lokayukta bill is imposed on them. .{ Lokayukta in simple words is state-level Lokpal/corruption watchdog}

But this opposition has almost shadowed following poor facts about State Lokayuktas Bills

1. Out of 28 states only 19 have Lokayukta instituted.
2. Of 19 merely 3 lokayukta are OK(not even good)
3.  Most of the state lokayukta bills can't investigate Governer, Chef Minister and legislatures.
4. Some lokayuktas like of Andhara Pradesh have been restricted to look into Government's procedural lapses and  delays
5. Recommendations made by institution are not accepted actively.
6. In some states even Lokayuktas (investigators) are not appointed

Some pitiful Examples of state lokayuktas

• In W.Bengal the lokayukta only have two group D people as staff!
• In Karnataka, no one is holding the post
•  Gujrat was not appointed with Lokayukta for eight years from 2003 until in 2011 Kamla Beniwal appointed issed an ouder
• In Rajasthan, lokayukta don't have investigation agency of its own

Only Uttrakhand have reasonable Lokyukta.

After all this opposition (who form government in states) are trying to defend such flawed and weak sate made lokayukta bills.
Its true that Feudal system should be respected but using it to defend flaws and corruption is quite different.This shows state government doesn't want to take pains to renew their flawed lokayukta bills or to set up new lokayuktas
This decision of making lokayukta a state defined creation is wrong as it will make Lokayukta different in every state as well as will make it vulnerable to become a state based weak bill leading to difficult usage of bill in multi-state corruption cases|

Points from: India Today (Feb, 20)

Supreme Court justified Lokpal's concept during 2G case

In its verdict 2G case Supreme Court has set a limit of three months for deciding on sanction for prosecution of corrupt public servants. Court said  there should be a set time frame, and added that all matters of sanction should be decided within three months. 
The SC also slammed the Prime Minister’s Office but gave Manmohan Singh a clean chit for the delay in deciding on the prosecution of then telecom minister A Raja in the 2G spectrum case. 

Commenting on verdict Kiran Bedi (member of Team Anna) said that this verdict justifies one of the concept of their Janlokpal regarding time limit.
“Supreme Court has exactly said what we have asking and fighting for, what people have been asking, everything to be time bound.  (1.)But in Jan Lokpal Bill, there was supposed to be no sanction for prosecution.
(2.)If there is evidence, the CBI starts its investigation and nobody interferes in its investigation. This is what the Jan Lokpal Bill was.
(3.) Secondly in Jan Lokpal Bill, it was time bound trial and through number of special courts as needed, so within the maximum period of less than two years, a case is decided,” Bedi told media in Jaipur.

Prashant Bhushan said the verdict would give a boost to the struggle against corruption.

“They have firstly again highlighted how big a menace corruption is in society and we need to tackle it on a war footage. Secondly, even when a private complainant makes a complaint and seeks sanction of the government against a public servant, the government must read the complaint on the same footing as a chargesheet filed by the CBI seeking sanction and must deal with it within the time frame prescribed in Vineet Narayan’s judgement which is within four months,” he added.

Editor's View: Its true that every case related to corruption should be investigated and then decided within appropriate time limit. And Janlokpal Bill contains strong demands of Time Bound independent investigative measures.

Source:http://truthdive.com/2012/02/01/Supreme-Court-vindicated-one-of-our-key-demands-Kiran-Bedi.html
http://www.morungexpress.com/editorial/76096.html