Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Day after, Singhvi says: God, Devil lie in details... task challenging by DK Singh

Day after, Singhvi says: God, Devil lie in details... task challenging by DK Singh

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Aug 28, 2011   modified Modified on Aug 28, 2011

A day after Parliament passed a resolution conveying the “sense of the House” on the Lokpal Bill, the Parliamentary Standing Committee which is examining the Bill said today that it has a “challenging task” ahead.

Asked what the Parliament’s resolution meant for the Lokpal Bill, which is under consideration of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, and Law & Justice, its chairman, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, told The Indian Express: “The standing committee now has a treasure chest of inputs. Certainly, the most important among them, apart from the government’s Bill, diverse other draft Bills, innumerable representations and evidence of witnesses which will be taken is the sense of both Houses of Parliament conveyed through the resolution and proceedings. The standing committee has to look at its implementability, its constitutionality, and its feasibility.”

Asked if the resolution bound the committee to incorporate the three contentious points in the Bill, as desired by Anna Hazare, Singhvi said: “Since both God and Devil lie in details, we have the challenging task of searching for the divine but excluding the devilish.

The issues and principles are clear, but to what extent, in what manner and with what content they can be operationalised in a draft Bill is a task before the committee.”

Meanwhile, Team Anna member Shanti Bhushan said the resolution was “a very satisfying outcome”. “The two Houses have given a direction to the Standing Committee about what they feel on this issue. Ultimately the matter would come back to the Houses and they have already made clear what they think on this,” he said.

Saying that the resolution was binding, he said: “The Parliament is supreme. It has given an almost unanimous resolution. I have already said that this is the most beautiful outcome of the Anna agitation.”

The resolution passed by Parliament yesterday stated that it agreed “in principle” on the three issues of setting up Lokayuktas in states, a citizens’ charter, and bringing lower bureaucracy under the Lokpal through appropriate mechanism.

But during the proceedings in the Lok Sabha, members showed no unanimity on these three points. “We are in favour of Lokayukta, but let (state) governments have their own discretion whether they should be (in the Lokpal Bill) or not,” said Sudip Bandopadhyay of the Trinamool Congress.

“We have fought for state autonomy. We don’t want anything against it. This is for states to decide whether to have the Lokayukta or not, “said T K S Elangovan of the DMK, who also opposed placing lower bureaucracy under the Lokpal.

Basudeb Acharia of the CPI(M) was in favour of a model Act, which could be adopted by all states. “Federal structure should not be disturbed,” he said.

As for a citizens charter, the CPI(M) maintained that there should be a separate law to address public grievances.

The Indian Express, 29 August, 2011, http://www.indianexpress.com/news/day-after-singhvi-says-god-devil-lie-in-details...-task-challenging/838573/


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close