Economic Times:Soma Banerjee:Wednesday,24August 2011.
Aruna Roy, member of the National Advisory Council and member of the National Campaign for People's Right to Information, speaks to ET on the current debate over Lokpal and the need for pre-legislative process.
On the inclusion of the Prime Minister:
We are saying that the corruption cases should be looked into against the PM as well but with certain safeguards as we do feel the office of the PM needs to be protected. So we are saying that a reference is made to the Chief Justice of India, who can get the full bench of Supreme Court to deliberate. If there is prima facie ground for investigation then the lokpal can go into it. Anyone can move the petition against the PM to the Lokpal. But we believe that the PM cannot be held responsible for things he is not directly responsible. No vicarious responsibility. Only if there is a direct case of direct involvement can there be a case.
On the PM's role in the 2G scam:
The supreme court will have to decide whether it was vicarious. If the PM has called for a file and has signed it, it is clear that there is direct knowledge. If there is a noting then the court will ascertain if the PM was involved.
On fixing public grievances:
We have suggested a separate law and body to deal with it. The people who are investigating high-value scams, where there is no direct evidence of money transfer or favours being done, need a special skill set. They would be different from the people who would take up an issue like how corruption takes place in filling potholes or fixing a road. We are suggesting a very decentralized, close-to-people mechanism of redressing grievances. So it would be there at every ward. If it is not addressed it can be taken up at the district, and then at the state level. They will have the powers to penalise and prosecute. The structure will be similar to RTI-state information commissions and the central commission.
Civil society as part of the legislative process:
There is a pre-legislative process where the civil society or other stakeholders should play a very important role. We have been working on this since last year. We have been struggling to establish with the government that the pre-legislative process should be broad-based with transparency and accountability. This should be established as a process. Before the government actually starts making the law it must put it all out in the public domain where people's views can be sought. Once the comments come in, the government has the liberty and responsibility and the right to then formulate a law. Then it goes out of the public domain to the cabinet and then into Parliament. So public inputs are taken before the process of law making begins. Once it is introduced in Parliament you have the standing committee where you can depose with your suggestions.
NCPRI vs Team Anna:
We had a problem that instead of demanding a discussion with whole of India (In NAC we have been fighting for people's participation in the process), here the struggle was to get five cabinet ministers into the process so that the cabinet could be by-passed. We did not want that to happen as we believe that the cabinet has been entrusted with a job to frame people-friendly laws. We cannot take away the framework of the constitution. Any one dominant group, whether it is us or IAC, cannot decide the future of the country. For that we need a more broad-based set of consultations which can be done through the standing committee. We have seen huge changes in both the RTI Act and NREGA. We have now applied and we want to depose. The joint committee did not call us though we wrote to them and were assured by both Shanti Bhushan and Pranab Mukherjee. There is a need for a pre-legislative and a legislative process.
On the inclusion of the Prime Minister:
We are saying that the corruption cases should be looked into against the PM as well but with certain safeguards as we do feel the office of the PM needs to be protected. So we are saying that a reference is made to the Chief Justice of India, who can get the full bench of Supreme Court to deliberate. If there is prima facie ground for investigation then the lokpal can go into it. Anyone can move the petition against the PM to the Lokpal. But we believe that the PM cannot be held responsible for things he is not directly responsible. No vicarious responsibility. Only if there is a direct case of direct involvement can there be a case.
On the PM's role in the 2G scam:
The supreme court will have to decide whether it was vicarious. If the PM has called for a file and has signed it, it is clear that there is direct knowledge. If there is a noting then the court will ascertain if the PM was involved.
On fixing public grievances:
We have suggested a separate law and body to deal with it. The people who are investigating high-value scams, where there is no direct evidence of money transfer or favours being done, need a special skill set. They would be different from the people who would take up an issue like how corruption takes place in filling potholes or fixing a road. We are suggesting a very decentralized, close-to-people mechanism of redressing grievances. So it would be there at every ward. If it is not addressed it can be taken up at the district, and then at the state level. They will have the powers to penalise and prosecute. The structure will be similar to RTI-state information commissions and the central commission.
Civil society as part of the legislative process:
There is a pre-legislative process where the civil society or other stakeholders should play a very important role. We have been working on this since last year. We have been struggling to establish with the government that the pre-legislative process should be broad-based with transparency and accountability. This should be established as a process. Before the government actually starts making the law it must put it all out in the public domain where people's views can be sought. Once the comments come in, the government has the liberty and responsibility and the right to then formulate a law. Then it goes out of the public domain to the cabinet and then into Parliament. So public inputs are taken before the process of law making begins. Once it is introduced in Parliament you have the standing committee where you can depose with your suggestions.
NCPRI vs Team Anna:
We had a problem that instead of demanding a discussion with whole of India (In NAC we have been fighting for people's participation in the process), here the struggle was to get five cabinet ministers into the process so that the cabinet could be by-passed. We did not want that to happen as we believe that the cabinet has been entrusted with a job to frame people-friendly laws. We cannot take away the framework of the constitution. Any one dominant group, whether it is us or IAC, cannot decide the future of the country. For that we need a more broad-based set of consultations which can be done through the standing committee. We have seen huge changes in both the RTI Act and NREGA. We have now applied and we want to depose. The joint committee did not call us though we wrote to them and were assured by both Shanti Bhushan and Pranab Mukherjee. There is a need for a pre-legislative and a legislative process.
.JPG)
.JPG)
