to those who post from india....

Merlot Daruwala wrote:Yes, all these things are bad but what is achieved by shouting slogans or courting arrest?

What it has achieved so far is that it has forced the government to strengthen the Lok Pal bill. It also increases public awareness of political corruption, which should help deter politicians from practicing at least the most egregious forms of it.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The bill envisages a super-authority outside the constitution, with supervisory powers over the executive and judiciary, backed by an enforcement arm which will be a super-bureaucracy.

I don't follow how it would be outside the constitution. We have an independent Election Commission that supervises the conduct of the executive and of legislators (and candidates to legislative office) during elections. Does that make the EC "outside the constitution" too?

here is my friend's letter to a bunch of us (posted in full after just deleting some names; he didn't even care if i left the names on):

_______________________________________________________________

Dear Friends,

I am writing this email to you as an appeal to action.

Many of you, if not most, are probably aware by now of the
tremendous grassroots movement for combating corruption in India led by
the 74-year old Gandhian, Anna Hazare, even though you all live outside
India. I understand your concerns are being occupied by rather pressing
matters in your adopted country, such as Tea party politics and the
credit downgrade, but do spare a thought for your homeland.


I doubt that you can understand the magnitude of the popular mood
without being in India. I have personally never seen anything like this
in my entire life, and old-timers say that the nation has not witnessed
an awakening like this since Independence.

For those who are not fully aware of what transpired: Four months
ago, Anna Hazare held a fast for several days to force the government to
consider passing a Lokpal bill to bring in accountability in government
and defeat corruption. This movement was accompanied by massive public
support, and this forced the government to agree to Annaji's demand and
to say that they would work with the civil society to draft an
acceptable Lokpal bill.


However, in the intervening 4 months, the government has done
everything in its power to try to get out of this commitment, has
publicly insulted Anna Hazare and the civil society, and thrown the
draft of the lokpal bill that the civil society drafted in the trash.
Instead, the government is introducing in parliament a worthless,
watered-down version of the Lokpal bill. Clearly, this is being done to
ensure that no one of any significance in government (forget the PM, no
MP can be prosecuted under the govt. lokpal bill) can be prosecuted by
the toothless Lokpal - and it also exempts the cop who asks you for a
bribe in lieu of a traffic ticket, the person who demands a bribe from
you for issuing a death certificate, and the babu who demands a bribe to
release the pension money that you are entitled to and have worked your
entire life for.


BUT THE GOVERNMENT MISCALCULATED.


In the last two weeks, there has been a demonization of Anna Hazare
and the civil society by the government that you would have to be in
India to understand or believe. Congress spokesmen have tried to do
character assassination to a level that reveals the venality to which
people will take recourse in order to safeguard their own interests.
They have tried to portray Anna Hazare as a stooge of the RSS or BJP.
This is rather laughable as the BJP is no supporter of the people's
lokpal bill that Anna Hazare is propagating.


But Anna is nobody's stooge. HE IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
PEOPLE. And people were annoyed beyond belief by what the government
was doing. The problem was that they never showed it. But there is a
limit to how much arrogance a ruler can show without getting something
back.


That's when the rallies began. Let me tell you how this has
transformed India. I will start with me. I have never participated in
any political rally in my life, and neither has my wife ____, but
once we saw what the govt. was doing (and the opposition is no better,
mind you - nobody supported Hazare and us), ____ and I decided that
if there were any event in Pune, we would participate.


On August 14, ______ and I walked with 250 other volunteers from
Alka Talkies to Shaniwarwada in Pune in a peaceful candlelight march,
shouting pro-Anna and anti-corruption slogans. The energy of the
participants and the response of the crowds (7 pm in the evening, when
our march did cause some traffic disruption - but no one complained) was
tremendous - people high-fiving, grinning widely at us, saying 'go
ahead! good luck!' Many of the participants were young people - and
this gave me faith in the youth of India. The atmosphere was electric.
That day we knew that India had changed. _____ and I felt
wonderful. Nothing untoward happened, but what amazed me was that only
after the march was over did I realize how many policemen were around us
and that anytime they could have lathicharged us - but fear did not
enter my heart for a second. That is transformation - I have never been
a firebrand - I am your run-of-the-mill, timid middle-class person
- but this movement has changed everything.


And then on 16th August, the government arrested Anna Hazare before he even began his fast.

The response to that action has been unlike anything India has seen
since Independence. Every city, town, even village in India has risen
in support of Anna Hazare: Hundreds of thousands of people across
Mumbai, Delhi, Jaipur, Thiruvananthapuram, Bangalore, Chennai,
Ahmednagar, Sholapur, Bhubhaneswar, Ranchi, Shimla, Patna, Raipur, Pune,
Bhagalpur, Chandigarh, Lucknow, Kolkata, Guwahati, Shillong, Jammu,
Rajkot, Bhavnagar, Hyderabad, Coimbatore, Madurai - and this is only a
partial list. You see the images on TV in India and you will be amazed -
THIS IS NOT ABOUT ANNA HAZARE, BUT ABOUT HIS IDEAS. I am grateful that
I am in India at a time like this. THIS IS INDIA'S TAHRIR SQUARE. I
wish I were living in New Delhi - I would be outside Tihar Jail,
shouting for Anna Hazare and Jan Lokpal. AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN A
SINGLE INCIDENT OF VIOLENCE!!! Today I can finally say that Mahatma
Gandhi did not live in vain.


Why I am writing to you (pardon the long preamble) is that you may
be wondering: what can I do from here? If so, I have a suggestion (my 2
cents worth) - send a letter (each one of you) to the Indian embassy in
the USA expressing your disappointment at the government's behavior.
You have every right to be heard as a citizen of India or a person of
Indian origin. If it will help you, I am giving below a draft letter
you may use or modify as per your wish.


Please circulate this as widely as you can so that the Indian
embassy in Washington, DC, is flooded with hundreds of thousands
of letters. I only have the postal address, but it might be more
effective and fast to simply fax the letter to their number before
actually posting it. I recommend faxing because it will have immediate
impact; but do also post it.
_________________________________________________________

p.s: and he enclosed a copy of a letter which after some modification i plan to send to the ambassador.

MAX - that is one heck of a letter! totally impressed. now, i read a few of the posts by AB and MD. i need to now go read up on the original bill that was proposed and then the "watered down" version and the reasoning of that. i find it hard to believe that there is so much cynicism on Anna when his intentions are clearly visible. at least i did not expect that from citizens[this is all over FB]. politicians, yes.

i'm happy to support the movement (at least for now) because the effete intellectuals in india haven't done much more than what i have done (talk a lot and post on the internets). even if there are constitutional difficulties with what hazare and his cohort are proposing, it has made corruption front and center conversation and for that indians should be thankful to him. anything is better than the current state of affairs.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:here is my friend's letter to a bunch of us...

Letter wrote: But Anna is nobody's stooge. HE IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
PEOPLE...

no. he is not a representative of the people. he is a representative of the voice of a disgruntled people. as long as he espouses the same voice and demands reliefs that perforce must lie within the framework of the indian constitution, he will carry on being one. the representatives of the people are the elected members who can sing a different tune after being voted in. the representative voice cannot usurp power from the representative members without a twitter revolution. the twitter revolution that has been looming over us (as has over any nation on this planet -- with the possible exception of china) need not necessarily be a revolution within the democratic framework. a revolution is a revolution. but that bridge has to be crossed when one reaches it. i would not be so easily swayed if i got an email from my friend in US about a tea party twitter revolution underway there. a bit of objectivity is required here gentle sirs and madams.

Max, thanks for posting this. Your friend does a good job of articulating the anger that I have felt with the government for all the ugly tactics that it has used to derail this campaign. My parents have participated in rallies. They are not very political people. They voted Congress for most of their lives. But they are annoyed with how the government has tried to throw mud at Hazare and arrested him for no good reason.

The government was playing with fire when it lathi-charged Ramdev's rally. Because Ramdev is such a consummate idiot, he thankfully didn't manage to exploit that opportunity the government gave him. The government learned the wrong lesson from that circus (and from the Arab Spring); they thought "early use of force" would nip the campaign in the bud. They flung mud at Hazare and then arrested him, thereby again overstepping the boundaries of acceptable behavior.

As I have said often in the last couple of months, it is not all surprising that the ruling party employed the cynical and ugly tactics that it did. I was a little surprised to observe highly educated Indians toe that party line, with eager cynicism about the anti-corruption campaign, and a matching lack of skepticism about the government's motives for doing what it was doing (for instance with the midnight lathi-charge.)

The test now is whether this fervor will last days, weeks or months. If the protests continue and people's lives get disturbed, we may see support slipping away. Perhaps it will fizzle out in days. Even if that happens, it will be a partial victory for greater transparency in public affairs in India. I hope it doesn't fizzle out, and a strong ombudsman with authority over the highest levels of government is formed.

PS: Now that I have mentioned my parents in this post, I hereby declare them open for attack by anyone inclined to do so.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:even if there are constitutional difficulties with what hazare and his cohort are proposing

The so-called constitutional difficulties are part of the elaborate web of excuses that the government has spun. Those issues are nowhere near insurmountable. An independent ombudsman who has the ability to investigate the PM or Supreme Court judges is not necessarily against the constitution; it is more or less orthogonal to the constitutional separation of powers. The highest levels of the executive are open to investigation and prosecution in many democracies.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:it has made corruption front and center conversation and for that
indians should be thankful to him.

I agree.

The major concern I have about Hazare is that he is not a capable administrator or manager. It is clear from the allegations that Congress has hurled at him that he is someone who can't exercise control over large groups. So his movement is liable to exploitation by vested interests. The more the movement becomes about Hazare the man or Hazare the leader, the more likely that that scenario will play out. Unfortunately, with his arrest, the government has made it more about the man than about his ideas.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:he is not a representative of the people. he is a representative of the voice of a disgruntled people. as long as he espouses the same voice and demands reliefs that perforce must lie within the framework of the indian constitution, he will carry on being one.

It is very much within the framework of the constitution for people to protest peacefully for the political objective of influencing legislation. It is then up to elected legislators to assess whether they want to be influenced by such a campaign.

charvaka wrote: It is then up to elected legislators to assess whether they want to be influenced by such a campaign.

the elected legislators are neither influenced nor impressed. the congress should stop giving airwaves to anna hazare by its continual flip flops (starting with baba ramdev). hopefully congress has learnt its lesson by now. hopefully the populace should now harden its stand and articulate its grudge more clearly or lose focus, perspective and participation. the populace should know that this is not a majority rule unless they are bent on whipping a cairo revolution out of a fad.

hopefully, to build on AB's joke in the jokes thread, the pm is learning 3G now: sonia g, rahul g and anna ji.

caveat to my above post: i have still not read the watered down lokpal bill nor the bill being pressed by anna. he he. that shows how responsible a citizen i am. but frankly, i've been busy with another interesting news item, a link to which i will post shortly in a new thread.

For Impy and HK, recognizing that you are busy executives and need a quick summary...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Lokpal_Bill#Difference_between_Government_and_activist_drafts

charvaka wrote:The so-called constitutional difficulties are part of the elaborate web of excuses that the government has spun. Those issues are nowhere near insurmountable. An independent ombudsman who has the ability to investigate the PM or Supreme Court judges is not necessarily against the constitution; it is more or less orthogonal to the constitutional separation of powers. The highest levels of the executive are open to investigation and prosecution in many democracies.

so what happens after the investigation? the pm or the supreme court judge is impeached? what s the purpose of the investigation if the accused cannot be constitutionally punished?

From the above source:

Draft Lokpal bill below is the government's watered down version. The Jan Lokpal bill is the version that Anna Hazare and many civil society groups worked together on.

Draft Lokpal Bill 2010	Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's Ombudsman Bill)
Lokpal will have no power to initiate suo motu action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public. It can only probe complaints forwarded by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.	Lokpal will have powers to initiate suo moto action or receive complaints of corruption from the general public.
Lokpal will only be an Advisory Body with a role limited to forwarding reports to a "Competent Authority".	Lokpal will have the power to initiate prosecution of anyone found guilty.
Lokpal will have no police powers and no ability to register an FIR or proceed with criminal investigations.	Lokpal will have police powers as well as the ability to register FIRs.
The CBI and Lokpal will be unconnected.	Lokpal and the anti corruption wing of the CBI will be one independent body.
Punishment for corruption will be a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of up to 7 years.	Punishments will be a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of up to life imprisonment.

i deleted my post. i am not sure if the pm can be put to trial while in office.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:

charvaka wrote:The so-called constitutional difficulties are part of the elaborate web of excuses that the government has spun. Those issues are nowhere near insurmountable. An independent ombudsman who has the ability to investigate the PM or Supreme Court judges is not necessarily against the constitution; it is more or less orthogonal to the constitutional separation of powers. The highest levels of the executive are open to investigation and prosecution in many democracies.

so what happens after the investigation? the pm or the supreme court judge is impeached? what s the purpose of the investigation if the accused cannot be constitutionally punished?

I read the bill when it was still being drafted. My understanding based on that reading is: if the Lokpal establishes that there is a plausible case against the PM or a judge, they can file an FIR and initiate criminal proceedings. It would go through the normal constitutionally established process of a criminal trial. The Lokpal bill does not provide for an extra-constitutional impeachment proceedings. In the hypothetical scenario that the Lokpal finds that there is a prima facie case against the PM, I would expect the PM's party to dump him while a criminal investigation occurs.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i deleted my post. i am not sure if the pm can be put to trial while in office.

Immunity from prosecution based on high office is a bad idea. AFAIK (I could be wrong, but I don't think I am), the constitution of India does not provide any such immunity.

charvaka -- i am fully in agreement with the demands the jan lokpal bill makes. nothing unconstitutional there. but the parliamentarians (which includes the opposition) have made this an issue of including the pm (and cms) in the bill. though i am embarrassed asking you this question (you who live thousands of miles away from my native country and you who are perhaps too preoccupied with the tea party), let me ask: why are the parliamentarians calling it unconstitutional? are they collectively fooling us?

charvaka wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i deleted my post. i am not sure if the pm can be put to trial while in office.

Immunity from prosecution based on high office is a bad idea. AFAIK (I could be wrong, but I don't think I am), the constitution of India does not provide any such immunity.

no it doesn't. narasimha rao was put on trial while in office (i think). i was going to start another thread on impeachment but i think i'll simply post a link here. this yesterday's proceeding in the rajya sabha was fascinating: http://www.telegraphindia.com/1110818/jsp/frontpage/story_14391843.jsp

and today:

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_legal-luminaries-excel-in-rajya-sabha-debate-on-sen-s-impeachment_1577272

edit. errata: narasimha rao was put to trial as former pm not as serving pm.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:charvaka -- i am fully in agreement with the demands the jan lokpal bill makes. nothing unconstitutional there. but the parliamentarians (which includes the opposition) have made this an issue of including the pm (and cms) in the bill. though i am embarrassed asking you this question (you who live thousands of miles away from my native country and you who are perhaps too preoccupied with the tea party), let me ask: why are the parliamentarians calling it unconstitutional? are they collectively fooling us?

There is nothing unconstitutional about including the PM and CMs in the Lokpal Bill. Of course, politicians who are in those positions, or see themselves there in future, as well as senior judges, don't want that.

The valid concern about the Lokpal Bill drafted by Team Hazare IMO is that it leaves some questions unanswered regarding its quasi-judicial powers. They had a "contempt of court" provision which gives Lokpal the power to hold people in contempt of it, just as a High Court does. They have a provision for trial within a year of corruption cases. In order to implement that provision, either special courts would be needed, or the normal courts need to significantly beef up funding and capacity so they can take that additional caseload. IMO, these are all administrative details, not "fundamental structure of the constitution" issues. Politicians and judges are citing using the constitution as a bogeyman, just like the government played the "communal harmony" card with Ramdev and the "foreign hand" card with Hazare.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:though i am embarrassed asking you this question (you who live thousands of miles away from my native country and you who are perhaps too preoccupied with the tea party)

Despite Merlot's frequent attempts to paint me as out of touch with India, let me just say that I retain a high level of interest in Indian politics. On Google News, they recently started giving badges out to people based on their interests in specific topics. I got my India silver, gold, platinum and ultimate badges a long time before I got the corresponding US-politics related badges. And that was when the debt ceiling and downgrade crap was in full swing in the US. (I know it's totally futile, but I did make my own little gesture of protest as a citizen, after the midnight lathi-charge, and when Hazare was arrested on Monday. I sent a letter to the ambassador and to my MLA and MP in India.) I don't want to quote Iqbal and all, but please don't be embarrassed on this count...

yes i agree with you. it is possible to accommodate the demands of team anna within the constitutional framework, but still, my question, though a bit unrelated (but related to the two links in a related development that i provide above) goes unanswered: can the trial courts put to trial the pm, the cm and the judges of the courts?

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:
i would not be so easily swayed if i got an email from my friend in US about a tea party twitter revolution underway there. a bit of objectivity is required here gentle sirs and madams.

it wasn't the intent of my post to promote my friend's position when i posted his letter here. i was just amazed that a fellow i know as very retiring and apolitical all my life has been riled up enough to say something political much less participate in a rally! and if merlot's and brick's voices are all i heard (and my dad too by the way who has reacted quite cynically), i'd have thought that the educated classes are as cynical as ever, and that hazare is entirely the media's creation. that certainly doesn't seem to be the case.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:can the trial courts put to trial the pm, the cm and the judges of the courts?

AFAIK, the courts can try the PM, CMs and judges on various offenses. For example, if a CM or a judge committed murder, he would still be tried in a criminal court. For judges, conviction would not automatically remove them from office; that's where impeachment comes in. For the PM and CMs, removal from office would come from a no-confidence motion in Parliament / Assembly.

charvaka wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:can the trial courts put to trial the pm, the cm and the judges of the courts?

AFAIK, the courts can try the PM, CMs and judges on various offenses. For example, if a CM or a judge committed murder, he would still be tried in a criminal court. For judges, conviction would not automatically remove them from office; that's where impeachment comes in. For the PM and CMs, removal from office would come from a no-confidence motion in Parliament / Assembly.

I am not so sure. After the Allahabad high court, IndiraG rammed a law through HER parliament, exempting PM, President,and the Speaker. I dont remember if the Janata party succeeded in revoking that exemption.

Yes, Theoretically anyone can be TRIED, but only after jumping through several hoops. Remember the recent Yeddyurappa scandal drama and need for Governors approval (to be approved by the President) before he could be charged ?

In fact, if any charges have to be tried against any Judicial or even an IAS/IPS officer, approvals from several levels up. That is one reason why only one SITTING politician was ever convicted - you asked hit puzzle sometime back. Think that was someone in the pre-haryana Punjab in the early 50s.

CAN YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT NO OTHER politician is corrupt legally - reason not easy to charge and prosecute. Wait for Kani mozhi to com out of Tihar in 3 years (like vaiko), and take over DMK and ADMK.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:I am not so sure. After the Allahabad high court, IndiraG rammed a law through HER parliament, exempting PM, President,and the Speaker. I dont remember if the Janata party succeeded in revoking that exemption.

You are thinking of the 39th amendment to the Constitution of India. It only prevents the courts from hearing matters regarding the election of the President, Vice President PM and the Lok Sabha Speaker. In other words, the courts are barred from hearing petitions about election malpractices involving people in those positions. The courts can hear petitions regarding other charges against those officials. The only blanket exemption under the constitution is for the President. Anything that the president does "in the exercise of his powers" is beyond judicial scrutiny. The PM does not have that exemption.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote: i'd have thought that the educated classes are as cynical as ever, and that hazare is entirely the media's creation. that certainly doesn't seem to be the case.

no that is not the case. but the govt. is partly to blame for antagonizing the general public (by its strong arm tactics) and thereby making even apathetic folks like me take notice: after reading the jan lok pal and lok pall bills, i am firmly of the opinion that anna must be supported.

Max,

My colleague fasted for this in Chennai and he said a total of 200-300 supporters fasted with him the first day.

200 in a city of around 5 million is a meagre number. We got more people for demonstrating against Aarakshan in front of ega theatre.

Read this. At least in TN and Kerala , no one except a few of the well to do facebook / twitter crowd seems worked up.

http://thatstamil.oneindia.in/news/2011/08/17/why-no-massive-support-anna-agitation-south-india-aid0091.html

Ponniyin Selvan wrote:
Read this. At least in TN and Kerala , no one except a few of the well to do facebook / twitter crowd seems worked up.

http://thatstamil.oneindia.in/news/2011/08/17/why-no-massive-support-anna-agitation-south-india-aid0091.html

is there an English version available? I just see the summary in English.

The inclusion / exclusion of PM is the least important issue IMO. The larger problem is that the JLPB envisages the Lok Pal to be the investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner, all rolled into one. Its orders can't be reviewed or quashed by any other court (Section 27), which goes against the basic principle of justice.

It can issue directives to the executive or the judiciary (Section 8(4) demanding "changes in their work practices, administration or other systems" but is answerable to no other arm of government which again goes against the principle of checks and balances.

This kind of draconian powers in the hand of one person who's not answerable to anyone is setting the stage for abuse of power and victimization of the defendants.

And then there is the cost of running such a powerful supervisory machinery - overseeing 4 million central govt employees and another 8 million state govt employees will call for a super-bureaucracy of a few hundreds of thousand employees.

How on earth will they control the corruption amongst the employees of such a large organization?? The internal vigilance arm will itself require a few thousand employees.

The even larger cost, which nobody talks about, is how any creative thinking within the government or decision-making will come to a complete standstill for fear of prosecution by this police body. One of the reasons why government decision-making is slow is because government servants are risk-averse and nobody sticks their necks out (unless it's sufficiently personally lucrative). A Lok Pal which will double-guess their decisions and hold them responsible for any perceived loss to the exchequer will only lead to further risk aversion even amongst the honest.

Considering the recent history of retrospectively applying the latest auction bid rates on spectrum allocated years ago to compute lost revenues (eg: 2 lac crores cited by CAG in the 2g scandal), and powers with the Lok Pal to recover such amounts from the accused (section 19), which senior bureaucrat will ever risk taking any decision? Whoever loses out in any bid or auction is most certainly going to complain to the Lok Pal (just like they do now to the CVC) and for the sin of taking a decision that went against the plaintiff (or sometimes even if there's no plaintiff at all), that bureaucrat is going to see his office and home raided, his bank accounts and other assets frozen and in general treated like a criminal for the duration of the case. And if he's convicted, irrespective of guilt, he'll be reduced to lifelong penury over some perceived loss to the govt.

(To be continued)

this might need a constitutional amendment, but what about a grand jury type mechanism that exists in england and the US to make decisions on MPs and other prominent politicians who hold elected office?

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The inclusion / exclusion of PM is the least important issue IMO.

Most actors in this debate are not treating it as such. It is clear that the government views it as a very important issue.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:The larger problem is that the JLPB envisages the Lok Pal to be the investigator, prosecutor, judge and executioner, all rolled into one. Its orders can't be reviewed or quashed by any other court (Section 27), which goes against the basic principle of justice.

This kind of draconian powers in the hand of one person who's not answerable to anyone is setting the stage for abuse of power and victimization of the defendants.

It is relatively easy to fix the aspects you mention. Section 27 can be modified to provide greater judicial oversight. The Lokpal is intended as the investigator and prosecutor, with cases then going to the courts for trial. The only change would be a time limit for adjudicating cases where the FIR is filed by the Lokpal. Even the version as it stands now has some checks and balances, but I think they should be strengthened. On balance, the Jan Lokpal Bill is a lot closer to where it needs to be than the watered-down official version.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this might need a constitutional amendment, but what about a grand jury type mechanism that exists in england and the US to make decisions on MPs and other prominent politicians who hold elected office?

We don't have trial by jury in India, so that would be a big change indeed.

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this might need a constitutional amendment, but what about a grand jury type mechanism that exists in england and the US to make decisions on MPs and other prominent politicians who hold elected office?

We don't have trial by jury in India, so that would be a big change indeed.

But under the Jan Lokpal Bill there is a provision for a seven-member bench that does what a grand jury typically does in the US -- establish whether there is enough evidence.

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this might need a constitutional amendment, but what about a grand jury type mechanism that exists in england and the US to make decisions on MPs and other prominent politicians who hold elected office?

We don't have trial by jury in India, so that would be a big change indeed.

India did. But especially after the Nanavati trial, they stopped.

charvaka wrote:

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this might need a constitutional amendment, but what about a grand jury type mechanism that exists in england and the US to make decisions on MPs and other prominent politicians who hold elected office?

We don't have trial by jury in India, so that would be a big change indeed.

But under the Jan Lokpal Bill there is a provision for a seven-member bench that does what a grand jury typically does in the US -- establish whether there is enough evidence.

that's what prompted me to suggest it. not conduct a trial per se, but establish if the evidence exists for a trial to proceed.

Was reading this lawyer's opinion:



On the other hand, in its essential woolliness, the Jan Lokpal Bill is a bubble-and-squeak legislation, full of yesterday’s leftovers. It still speaks of nominees being “persons with impeccable integrity and a record of public service particularly in the field of fighting corruption.” Fighting corruption is not a “field” of endeavour, an occupation or a profession (or it might be subjected to service tax). And who would these persons be, and where might we find them? Would they include hirsute yogis with a penchant for cross-dressing?

It is also a truly frightening document. Not only does it demand a budget of not less than 0.25% of India's revenue, but it arrogates to the Lokpal enormous powers, investigative, prosecutorial and punitive, against everyone in public life, from the PM and the higher judiciary to the neighbourhood beat cop.

The CBI reports to the Lokpal. The Lokpal investigates, prosecutes, and it imposes penalties directly – including life imprisonment. To give an idea of the kind of power it demands, look at Section 8: the Lokpal has the authority to sanction phone taps and communication interceptions against everyone. If the present government has lost its moral, ethical and constitutional compass, the draftsmen of the Jan Lokpal Bill seem to have forgotten the grammar of liberty.
The government’s repeated bleating about parliamentary supremacy in legislation is rightly criticized as hyper-technical tripe. Only a fool would deny that societal demands often force a law into being: labour laws, women’s rights, and the Right to Information act were all driven by social pressure. But this is very different from saying that a mass movement will decide the frame of any particular law.

That is entirely within the province of Parliament, and Parliament is not meant to merely wink and nod at everyman’s stab at drafting legislation. If the Hazare brigade insists on its draft being made law and threatens unrest if it is not, then it is simply blackmail.

However noble their cause, we should beware the men who would be Caesar. And we should be careful what we wish for. We might get it.

Hellsangel wrote:

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this might need a constitutional amendment, but what about a grand jury type mechanism that exists in england and the US to make decisions on MPs and other prominent politicians who hold elected office?

We don't have trial by jury in India, so that would be a big change indeed.

India did. But especially after the Nanavati trial, they stopped.

Are you sure? AFAIK, trial by jury was stopped in India way back soon after the British brought their legal system to India. They couldn't get convictions on matters like sedition or when Bengali men attacked Englishmen, etc., so they did away with trial by jury, and instituted trial by a judge.

charvaka wrote: The Lokpal is intended as the investigator and prosecutor, with cases then going to the courts for trial.

Which section specifies this bit abt using existing courts for trial? From what I could make out, the Lok Pal will have its own judges to hand out the sentences as well - a bit like the military tribunals.

charvaka wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this might need a constitutional amendment, but what about a grand jury type mechanism that exists in england and the US to make decisions on MPs and other prominent politicians who hold elected office?

We don't have trial by jury in India, so that would be a big change indeed.

India did. But especially after the Nanavati trial, they stopped.

Are you sure? AFAIK, trial by jury was stopped in India way back soon after the British brought their legal system to India. They couldn't get convictions on matters like sedition or when Bengali men attacked Englishmen, etc., so they did away with trial by jury, and instituted trial by a judge.

Independent India, with its lofty ideals of an enlightented citizenry did have jury trials until the Nanavati case.

merlot unkil join the chat yo

charvaka wrote:Are you sure? AFAIK, trial by jury was stopped in India way back soon after the British brought their legal system to India. They couldn't get convictions on matters like sedition or when Bengali men attacked Englishmen, etc., so they did away with trial by jury, and instituted trial by a judge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_jury#India

i'll read about the nanavati case, but is this the one that found mention in rushdie's midnight children?

Tracy Whitney wrote:merlot unkil join the chat yo

Sorry, been out of the loop. I don't see any link to a chat...

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:i'll read about the nanavati case, but is this the one that found mention in rushdie's midnight children?

answering my own q. yes.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

charvaka wrote:

Hellsangel wrote:

charvaka wrote:

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:this might need a constitutional amendment, but what about a grand jury type mechanism that exists in england and the US to make decisions on MPs and other prominent politicians who hold elected office?

We don't have trial by jury in India, so that would be a big change indeed.

India did. But especially after the Nanavati trial, they stopped.

Are you sure? AFAIK, trial by jury was stopped in India way back soon after the British brought their legal system to India. They couldn't get convictions on matters like sedition or when Bengali men attacked Englishmen, etc., so they did away with trial by jury, and instituted trial by a judge.

Independent India, with its lofty ideals of an enlightented citizenry did have jury trials until the Nanavati case.

Oh, did they bring back jury trials after independence? I am fairly certain that Indian revolutionaries were not tried by juries before independence. It's a pity they took them away after the Nanavati trial.

As I have always maintained India has all the necessary laws to protect its citizens.

The problem is enforcement judicial honesty and efficiency. That and that alone will solve most problems. The corrupt officials would rather have a case filed against them in a court with the confidence they would be long dead and gone by the time, the case came up for hearing.

Think and think well.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

charvaka wrote: The Lokpal is intended as the investigator and prosecutor, with cases then going to the courts for trial.

Which section specifies this bit abt using existing courts for trial? From what I could make out, the Lok Pal will have its own judges to hand out the sentences as well - a bit like the military tribunals.

that is draconian and totally unacceptable. at the most they can have quasi judicial powers and their sentences should be appealable in higher courts. i suppose it is just a stance for bargaining and will be whittled away by team anna once the other demands have been reasonably met. i understand that today team anna has agreed to exempt higher court judges from the ambit of this bill.

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i suppose it is just a stance for bargaining and will be whittled away by team anna once the other demands have been reasonably met.

Yeah, the draft should be viewed as just that -- a draft to be discussed and negotiated. There are good elements in it and bad.

Merlot Daruwala wrote:

Tracy Whitney wrote:merlot unkil join the chat yo

Sorry, been out of the loop. I don't see any link to a chat...

in this thread (a self-reference), click "coffeehouse for desis" as circled red below:



then look at the bottom of the page.

charvaka wrote:

Huzefa Kapasi wrote:i suppose it is just a stance for bargaining and will be whittled away by team anna once the other demands have been reasonably met.

Yeah, the draft should be viewed as just that -- a draft to be discussed and negotiated. There are good elements in it and bad.

And that is what Team Baburao is refusing to do. From day one, it's been my way or the highway. The fast is now to push his draft thru parliament.