NEW DELHI: The UPA-II's stand - that the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, 2011, did not encroach upon the legislative domain of the states as establishing Lokayukta was optional - did not meet the approval of two former Chief Justices of India, though both said the Centre did not breach the constitutional concept of federalism by introducing the proposed legislation through Article 253 to meet its international obligations.
The two former CJIs, Justice J S Verma and V N Khare, on Tuesday said Section 64 of the Bill provided that "as from the commencement of this Act, there shall be established in a state, by notification in the Official Gazette, ...a body to be called the Lokayukta". This means, the states had no option but to set up the anti-corruption constitutional body within their territory.
What will happen to those states that have been set up Lokayuktas? Both ex-CJIs said those states have to bring their laws on Lokayukta in conformity with the Central law by introducing proper amendments in the legislatures. This view of the ex-CJIs would bolster the opposition ammunition against the Bill and accuse the UPA government of trying not only to take away the legitimate right of the states to enact law on issues which squarely fell within the List II but also attempting to foist a body of its choice on the states where Lokayuktas existed.
However, Justices Verma and Khare voted in favour of the government's decision to fulfill its international obligations by introducing the Bill through Article 253 route, a mechanism strongly objected to by the opposition that accused the Centre of usurping the powers of the state legislatures. The opposition wanted the government to respect the federal structure of governance mandated under the Constitution by bringing the Bill under Article 252, which provided that Parliament could legislate on issues or subjects over which it did not have jurisdiction only after receiving requests in the form of resolutions passed by two or more state legislatures.
Justice Verma said the government rightly resorted to Article 253, which empowered the Centre to enact a law for the entire country in fulfillment of obligations arising from ratification of United Nations Convention Against Corruption in May.
Did it breach federal system of governance and should the Bill have been brought under Article 252? Justice Verma said Indian system of governance was a federal structure with a unitary bias. "The framers of the Constitution had in mind the requirement under Article 252 when the provided for Article 253, which supersedes the State List," he said.
There was no novelty in resorting to Article 253, he said. "Even Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, under which National Human Rights Commission was set up came through the Article 253 route. But, because option was given in there, so many states have not set up state human rights commissions till date," Justice Verma said. Justice Khare agreed with him and said: "If option was given under the Bill, then there would be many states which will not set up Lokayukta."
The two former CJIs, Justice J S Verma and V N Khare, on Tuesday said Section 64 of the Bill provided that "as from the commencement of this Act, there shall be established in a state, by notification in the Official Gazette, ...a body to be called the Lokayukta". This means, the states had no option but to set up the anti-corruption constitutional body within their territory.
What will happen to those states that have been set up Lokayuktas? Both ex-CJIs said those states have to bring their laws on Lokayukta in conformity with the Central law by introducing proper amendments in the legislatures. This view of the ex-CJIs would bolster the opposition ammunition against the Bill and accuse the UPA government of trying not only to take away the legitimate right of the states to enact law on issues which squarely fell within the List II but also attempting to foist a body of its choice on the states where Lokayuktas existed.
However, Justices Verma and Khare voted in favour of the government's decision to fulfill its international obligations by introducing the Bill through Article 253 route, a mechanism strongly objected to by the opposition that accused the Centre of usurping the powers of the state legislatures. The opposition wanted the government to respect the federal structure of governance mandated under the Constitution by bringing the Bill under Article 252, which provided that Parliament could legislate on issues or subjects over which it did not have jurisdiction only after receiving requests in the form of resolutions passed by two or more state legislatures.
Justice Verma said the government rightly resorted to Article 253, which empowered the Centre to enact a law for the entire country in fulfillment of obligations arising from ratification of United Nations Convention Against Corruption in May.
Did it breach federal system of governance and should the Bill have been brought under Article 252? Justice Verma said Indian system of governance was a federal structure with a unitary bias. "The framers of the Constitution had in mind the requirement under Article 252 when the provided for Article 253, which supersedes the State List," he said.
There was no novelty in resorting to Article 253, he said. "Even Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, under which National Human Rights Commission was set up came through the Article 253 route. But, because option was given in there, so many states have not set up state human rights commissions till date," Justice Verma said. Justice Khare agreed with him and said: "If option was given under the Bill, then there would be many states which will not set up Lokayukta."
No comments:
Post a Comment