Tweet
‘Dissent’ in Lokpal panel ‘negates’ Singhvi on CBI
The working of CBI received a lot of criticism from most members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Lokpal Bill with eminent lawyer Ram Jethmalani even terming it as “shameless instrument of evil political design of the ruling Government.” However, their demand to make CBI independent was negated in the report leading to strong dissent.
Panel Chairman Abhishek Manu Singhvi has claimed that there was a “balance and equilibrium” achieved between the trinity of Lokpal, CBI and CVC to check corruption, but the dissent note submitted by many members indicated a different picture.
Citing CBI’s failure to arrest Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Bofors case despite having information about his involvement in the scam and then loosing the legal battle for his extradition in Malaysia, Jethmalani pleaded that CBI director's appointment should be totally immunised from the Government’s interference and influence.
He expressed total dissatisfaction over the fact that the report proposes that CBI, which is the main anti-corruption agency, be left it to the administrative control of the Government, with only some vague and weak supervisory jurisdiction of the Lokpal.
The Government will control it through its power of postings, transfers, promotion and disciplinary control, he said.
Six other BJP members —Kirti Azad, Bal Apte, DB Chandre Gowda, Harin Pathak, Arjun Ram Meghwal and Madhusudan Yadav — have demanded that the appointment of CBI director should be taken out of the purview of the Central Government and be made by a Statutory Collegium comprising of Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chairperson Lokpal. It should choose best available police officer as CBI director, they said.
Shailendra Kumar of Samajwadi Party demanded that CBI director's selection should be made in the same manner as that of Lokpal and the former should work under the latter-a demand similar to team Anna. CPI(M) leader A Sampath's suggestion was that the CBI Director should be selected by the Selection Committee constituted for selecting Lokpal.
BJD member Pinaki Misra said that it was "most regrettable" that the committee reversed its November 30 decision to free the CBI director's appointment from the control of the government and attributed the move to "motivated by the vested interests" at the centre.
Using handpicked officers and pick and choose of anti corruption drive to suit political convenience has led to "severe erosion in the credibility of the entire anti-corruption drive, he said.
Significantly, three Congress members- Meenakshi Natarajan, PT Thomas and Deepa Dashmunshi-also demanded that the investigation into corruption cases by CBI shall be subject to "superintendence and control of the Lokpal." However, their dissent note has no mention of the appointment process of CBI director.
The working of CBI received a lot of criticism from most members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Lokpal Bill with eminent lawyer Ram Jethmalani even terming it as “shameless instrument of evil political design of the ruling Government.” However, their demand to make CBI independent was negated in the report leading to strong dissent.
Panel Chairman Abhishek Manu Singhvi has claimed that there was a “balance and equilibrium” achieved between the trinity of Lokpal, CBI and CVC to check corruption, but the dissent note submitted by many members indicated a different picture.
Citing CBI’s failure to arrest Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi in the Bofors case despite having information about his involvement in the scam and then loosing the legal battle for his extradition in Malaysia, Jethmalani pleaded that CBI director's appointment should be totally immunised from the Government’s interference and influence.
He expressed total dissatisfaction over the fact that the report proposes that CBI, which is the main anti-corruption agency, be left it to the administrative control of the Government, with only some vague and weak supervisory jurisdiction of the Lokpal.
The Government will control it through its power of postings, transfers, promotion and disciplinary control, he said.
Six other BJP members —Kirti Azad, Bal Apte, DB Chandre Gowda, Harin Pathak, Arjun Ram Meghwal and Madhusudan Yadav — have demanded that the appointment of CBI director should be taken out of the purview of the Central Government and be made by a Statutory Collegium comprising of Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and the Chairperson Lokpal. It should choose best available police officer as CBI director, they said.
Shailendra Kumar of Samajwadi Party demanded that CBI director's selection should be made in the same manner as that of Lokpal and the former should work under the latter-a demand similar to team Anna. CPI(M) leader A Sampath's suggestion was that the CBI Director should be selected by the Selection Committee constituted for selecting Lokpal.
BJD member Pinaki Misra said that it was "most regrettable" that the committee reversed its November 30 decision to free the CBI director's appointment from the control of the government and attributed the move to "motivated by the vested interests" at the centre.
Using handpicked officers and pick and choose of anti corruption drive to suit political convenience has led to "severe erosion in the credibility of the entire anti-corruption drive, he said.
Significantly, three Congress members- Meenakshi Natarajan, PT Thomas and Deepa Dashmunshi-also demanded that the investigation into corruption cases by CBI shall be subject to "superintendence and control of the Lokpal." However, their dissent note has no mention of the appointment process of CBI director.
