![]() Tuesday, Dec 17, 2002 |
| National | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National
By Our Special Correspondent
Piloting the bill, the Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Vasundhara Raje, said the move would provide openness in Government functioning and promised that the effort was not a one-off measure but a "novel and far-reaching experiment" through which the Government would learn as it moved along. With the passage of the Bill, India would be among the 20 or so countries to have legislated a measure which was in the direction of providing transparency, openness and accountability in Government functioning. Responding to members' concern over a conflict with the Official Secrets Act, the absence of an independent appellate authority, excluding jurisdiction of courts and not having a penalty clause on officers who refuse or delay passing on the requisite information sought by citizens, the Minister allayed the fears stating that the Bill was not in conflict with the Act or the oath of secrecy taken by Ministers.She said that the two-tier departmental appellate authority was aimed to address grievances and in addition, the decision was open to challenge in the high courts and the Supreme Court. She said the Government proposed to amend the Conduct Rules for Civil Services so that departmental penalty could be imposed on erring officials. Earlier, members from across the political spectrum welcomed the Bill saying it would usher in transparency and a corruption- free administration. Taking part in the discussion, the Congress leader, Pranab Mukherjee, said the Government should have included a penalty clause to penalise officials who wilfully held back information. He regretted that some of the recommendations of the Standing Committee chaired by him, which had studied the Bill, were not included. He said the Bill also did not provide for giving reasons for not disclosing a particular information. Chandra Kala Pandey (CPI-M) felt the list of exemptions in the Bill for not disclosing information defeated its purpose while R. Chandra Sekar Reddy (Telugu Desam) said the Bill was silent on the appointment of officials who would deal with the issue. P.G. Narayanan (AIADMK) saw the Bill as a vital component in democracy and one that could check a drift in the management of public affairs. Nominated member, Fali S. Nariman, said the Government should exercise caution and expressed apprehension that the right to inspect could lead to logistics problem and create havoc with government files. Another nominated member, Kuldip Nayar, said the Bill did not have enough transparency or accountability. He said already several States had enacted similar legislation which was working well. He also sought to know whether the Government would repeal or amend the Official Secrets Act after the passage of this Bill.Mr. Nayar also felt that since the court of appeals were with the Government, he saw no justification in barring the jurisdiction of courts. He also advocated penalty for delay or refusal to provide information and demanded an independent monitoring body with representatives drawn from various walks of life.
Property Bill
PTI reports: Parliament approved a Bill to amend the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to remove legal lacunae in its implementation regarding lease of immovable property for agricultural or manufacturing or any other purposes. The Transfer of Property (Amendment) Bill 2002, already passed by the Lok Sabha, was approved by a voice vote in the Rajya Sabha after a brief discussion. Replying to the discussion, the Minister of State for Law and Justice, Ravi Shankar Prasad, assured the House that the amendment would enable people to avoid litigation.
Evidence Bill
Parliament approved a Bill seeking to bar cross-examination of a rape victim on her character with the Rajya Sabha approving the measure by a voice vote. Replying to the Indian Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2002, the Minister of State for Law, Ravi Shankar Prasad, said the Government would bring a comprehensive legislation, covering measures to check crime against women, based on the recommendations of a committee. The House also passed the Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, 2002 without discussion.
Competition Bill
The Lok Sabha passed a Bill to provide a new competition policy and a regulatory body to replace Monopoly and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission with the Government asserting under the new dispensation, MNCs would not be allowed to abuse market and indulge in unfair trade due to their size and financial muscle. The Competition Bill, 2001 was passed by a voice vote after the Finance Minister, Jaswant Singh, assured the House that the new measure was aimed at promoting investment and competition and would enable Indian companies to grow in size to become worldclass entities.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Entertainment |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | Home |
Copyright © 2002, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|