Skip to main content

Limitations of Lokpal bill

 Limitations of Lokpal bill

Lokpal bill was passed to combat corruption in the nations. This bill was passed after various debates and rejections. This act was introduced in the year 19th century and after eight times refusing the bill, it was finally accepted in the year 2011. 

Lokpal and Lokayukta are statutory bodies under the Lokpal act 2013. These institutions were formed to fulfill the responsibility of the ombudsman, which means an authority designated to investigate complaints made against a particular government agency.

The functions and jurisdiction of such authorities are ;  

  • Prime minister, Union Minister, or member of parliament of union government in groups can investigate by the Lokpal.

  • The Lokpal can't investigate when the allegation is made against the Prime minister concerning foreign relations, external and internal security, etc.

  • The investigation against the prime minister shall be conducted in secret and this investigation begins when the two-third bench launches the investigation.

  • Lokpal can search and seizure power under the civil procedure code to undertake preliminary inquiries and investigations and to take measures to combat corruption.

  • Lokpal has the authority to supervise and instruct any central investigating agency.

  • Lokpal is given the power to suspend any public official who is accused of corruption.

  •  60 days are given to the committee to investigate and submit the report. Before submitting the report it is important to gather feedback from the public servant and competent authority.

  • This act is applied to all people of the government agency .it is applied to society, trust, the body that accepts the foreign gift of more than 10 lakh.

Limitation of Lokpal and Lokayukta 

This act was much needed as in this era corruption was rising day by day. This act is seen as a weapon against corruption. but this act has many limitations. this act doesn't mention the selection process and there are no guidelines for deciding who is an eminent jurist or person of integrity. This act also lacked proper procedure for appealing Lokpal's action.

The biggest problem of this act is that it stipulates, no complaint against corruption can be filed until a period of seven-year has passed from the date on which the alleged offense was committed. Another limitation is that appointing a committee for Lokpal is made up of political party representatives, who can easily manipulate the act. The biggest limitation of the act is that there is no effective system of the judiciary and contesting them.

 To sum up the above article, the Lokpal act is a very important act to cure corruption in India. But there are various limitations to it. These limitations can't be wiped out if our government is involved in the committee or decision-making process.   I view that the judiciary should be involved to take fair decisions and steps.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more