Corruption allegations against Dr. YSR and Mr. Naidu
Special Court immediately needed
Special Judges should be appointed by the Government
Assets of corrupt public servants should be confiscated
Given the ongoing allegations and counter-allegations between Dr YS Rajasekhar Reddy and Chandrababu Naidu, Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan demanded that the State government must immediately constitute a Special Court to probe the issue of disproportionate assets. He strongly emphasized that this is not a private affair between the current and former Chief Ministers of Andhra Pradesh. Lok Satta Party demanded that the investigation must be totally free from political pressures and a Special Independent Prosecutor with impeccable credentials should be appointed by the Chief Justice of High Court. Dr.JP also demanded that the State government should promulgate an ordinance for confiscation of assets of corrupt public servants.
Under section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (1988), all Ministers, MLAs, elected representatives at State and local levels clearly fall under the definition of ?public servants?. Citing historical precedent for considering elected representatives as public servants, he referred to the famous HG Mudgal case, where the sitting MP was forced to resign for tabling questions in the Parliament (then known as the Provisional Legislature) for personal remuneration.
Additionally, under the section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, possession of disproportionate wealth or pecuniary resources by a public official or by someone on his/her behalf is a crime. This Act mandates that public officials receive income from lawful sources only and they must also declare it to lawful authorities. Punishment for violation is imprisonment from one to seven years and fine.
Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan demanded that the State government must immediately constitute a special court for investigating corruption allegations against public servants under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The section 3(1) enables the State government to appoint as many judges as necessary. Given these powers, the current debate over whether the probe be handled by a sitting or retired judge is merely sidetracking the issue.
To eliminate the influence of political pressures, he also demanded that a special prosecutor with impeccable credentials should be appointed by the Chief Justice of High Court to probe the issue. Constituting an Inquiry Commission would be a time-consuming process as the findings of such commissions cannot be acted upon directly and would have to be placed in the court of law for further trial.
Lok Satta Party also demanded that if a public servant or her/his family members are charged with holding disproportionate assets then the burden-of-proof must lie with that public servant.
He also called for immediate implementation of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which precludes the person who acquired the property in the name of another person from claiming it as his/her own.
What is of utmost urgency is the need for people with unalloyed integrity. The recent mudslinging between the governing and the main opposition party in Andhra Pradesh has brought one thing to the forefront, i.e. the undeniable truth about the looting of public money by whosoever is in power!
ReplyDeleteThe sub-issue of whether to appoint a retired or sitting judge is definitely an attempt to sidetrack the core issue, by distracting attention. At the some time the concern from certain quarters, about the integrity of the special judge to be appointed in this regard, is warranted.
It is beyond doubt that judicial reform is perhaps the most urgent reform among the umpteen required in India. Why is it that the judiciary cannot or does not take suo moto action in corruption cases involving the high and mighty, whom the state and central machinery are practically little equipped, to deal with? Why doesn’t the Chief Minister come under the purview of the Lok Ayukta, who needs to be appointed from the very few spotlessly untainted judges with integrity?
Once the case, has been thoroughly and cleanly dealt with, the need to attach and sieze ill-gotten wealth is paramount. Various acts like the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988; could reasonably aid this concern, if implemented in the right spirit.
Regards,
Amar P
Unfortunately, it is a sad state of affairs. Corruption is prevalent everywhere, cops being corrupt affects the law and order machinery, politicians being corrupt affects the development of state and the Babus being corrupt affects the administration and planning. What is the solution?
ReplyDelete1)Make the ACB more independent, enact new laws to award stringent punishment
2)Politicians caught in corruption should be made ineligible to stand in elections. Make it a maximum of 3 terms only a M.P or M.L.A can serve
3)Remove the I.A.S system, instead hire MBA's, CAs and PHDs for these positions
4)Remove the I.P.S system and let the officers move up the rank from within the police force
thanks
Hakeem Baig
Hi,
ReplyDeleteIt is very disheartening that you have been saying that u will give posts for Backwardclasses. Giving posts for backward classes does not provide for the upliftment of the respective classes.Rather u shuld concentrate on the upliftment by showing why the government policies and funds are not percolated to the targetted classes.
I request Loksatta to outline its strategy to 'prevent' corruption in AP through its party website.
ReplyDelete(1)All the Political Parties pointing each other for their Corruption.
ReplyDelete-In this we definitely know the corruption has been taken place.
(2)All Political Leaders criticize each other for their corruption.
-In this we definitely know some thing definitely happened.
(3)If one un fortunate incident is happened, or any decission is taken by one party (ofcource in power), if they have been criticized by opposition party, what the power party will say, all we know as in the previous power by the opposition party the same thing was done (it will be explained with mathematical terms), so this party has the authority to do this, eventhough it would cause some problem to public.
(4) The price of the goods are increased by this government. The Opposition party will critisize.
-But they clearly know that in their period also they did the same.
These all the very less number in this type of issues.
Here the point is -- We are the public, we know all the things, but we can react not immediately, but for a time in five years.
God will save us, we will think like that and get satisfied.
Prevention is better than cure.
ReplyDeleteLet us focus on how to 'prevent' corruption...