Unit - II

Directive Principles of State Policy

The Directive Principles of State Policy are guidelines to the central and state governments of
India, to be kept in mind while framing laws and policies. These provisions, contained in Part IV
of the Constitution of India, are not enforceable by any court, but the principles laid down therein
are considered fundamental in the governance of the country, making it the duty of the State. To
apply these principles in making laws to establish a just society in the country. The principles have
been inspired by the Directive Principles given in the Constitution of Ireland and also by the
principles of Gandhism; and relate to social justice, economic welfare, foreign policy, and legal
and administrative matters.
Directive Principles are classified under the following categories: Gandhian, economic and
socialistic, political and administrative, justice and legal, environmental, protection of monuments
and peace and security.
History
The concept of Directive Principles of State Policy was borrowed from the Irish Constitution. The
makers of the Constitution of India were influenced by the Irish nationalist movement. Hence, the
Directive Principles of the Indian constitution have been greatly influenced by the Directive
Principles of State Policy. The idea of such policies "can be traced to the Declaration of the Rights
of Man proclaimed Revolutionary France and the Declaration of Independence by the American
Colonies." The Indian constitution was also influenced by the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
When India obtained independence on 15 August 1947, the task of developing a constitution for
the nation was undertaken by the Constituent Assembly of India, composing of elected
representatives under the presidency of Dr. Rajendra Prasad. While members of Congress
composed of a large majority, Congress leaders appointed persons from diverse political
backgrounds to responsibilities of developing the constitution and national laws.[6] Notably,
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar became the chairperson of the drafting committee, while Jawaharlal
Nehru and Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel became chairpersons of committees and sub-committees
responsible for different subjects. A notable development during that period having significant
effect on the Indian constitution took place on 10 December 1948 when the United Nations
General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and called upon all
member states to adopt these rights in their respective constitution
Article 36 {Definition}
In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" has the same meaning as in Part III
Article 37 {Application of the principles contained in this Part}
The provisions contained in this Part shall not be enforced by any court, but the principles therein
laid down are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country and it shall be the duty of
the State to apply these principles in making laws

 Article 38 {State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people}
The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as
effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all
the institutions of the national life.
The State shall, in particular, strive to minimise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to
eliminate inequalities in status, facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also
amongst groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different vocations.
Article 39 {Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State}
The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing that the citizen, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood;
that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as
best to subserve the common good;
that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and
means of production to the common detriment;
that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women;
that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and the tender age of children are not
abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to
their age or strength;
that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in
conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against
exploitation and against moral and material abandonment.
Article 39A {Equal justice and free legal aid}
The State shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice, on a basis of equal
opportunity, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by suitable legislation or schemes or in
any other way, to ensure that opportunities for securing justice are not denied to any citizen by
reason of economic or other disabilities.
Article 40 {Organisation of village panchayats}
The State shall take steps to organise village panchayats and endow them with such powers and
authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as units of self-government.
Article 41 {Right to work, to education and to public assistance in certain cases}
The State shall, within the limits of its economic capacity and development, make effective
provision for securing the right to work, to education and to public assistance in cases of
unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want
Article 42 {Provision for just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief}
The State shall make provision for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity
relief.
Article 43 {Living wage, etc., for workers}
The State shall endeavor to secure, by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in any other
way, to all workers agricultural, industrial or otherwise, work, a living wage, conditions of work

ensuring a decent standard of life and full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural
opportunities and, in particular, the State shall endeavour to promote cottage industries on an
individual or co-operative basis in rural areas.
Article 43A {Participation of workers in management of industries}
The State shall take steps, by suitable legislation or in any other way, to secure the participation of
workers in the management of undertakings, establishments or other organisation engaged in any
industry.
Article 44 {Uniform civil code for the citizen}
The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil code throughout the territory of
India.
Article 45 {Provision for free and compulsory education for children}
The State shall endeavor to provide, within a period of ten years from the commencement of this
Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of
fourteen years.
Article 46 {Promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes,
Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections}
The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker
sections of the people, and in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and
shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.
Article 47 {Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and
to improve public health}
The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its people
and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties and, in particular, the State shall
endeavour to bring about prohibition of the consumption except for medicinal purpose of
intoxicating drinks and of drugs which are injurious to health
Article 48 {Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry}
The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific
lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting
the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.
Article 48A {Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forests
and wild life}
The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and
wild life of the country.
Article 49 {Protection of monuments and places and objects of national importance}
It shall be the obligation of the State to protect every monument or place or object of artistic or
historic interest, declared by or under law made by Parliament to be of national importance, from
spoliation, disfigurement, destruction, removal, disposal or export, as the case may be.

 Article 50 {Separation of judiciary from executive}

The State shall take steps to separate the judiciary from the executive in the public services of the
State.
Article 51 {Promotion of international peace and security}
The State shall endeavour to promote international peace and security;
maintain just and honourable relations between nations;
foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised
people with one another; and
encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.

Union Executive
THE PRESIDENT: is the head of state and first citizen of India, as well as the Supreme
Commander of the Indian Armed Forces. In theory, the President possesses considerable power.
With few exceptions, most of the authority vested in the President is in practice exercised by the
Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister.

Electoral Procedure (Article54 & 55): the new president is chosen by an electoral college
consisting of the elected members of both houses of the Parliament and the elected
members of the State Legislative Assemblies (Vidhan Sabha). The election is held in
accordance to the system of Proportional Representation by means of Single Transferable
Vote method.

The number of votes assigned to a particular voter from a state assembly is decided as follows.
Total population of the state
Total number of elected members*1000

Term(Article 56) : five years from t he date on which he enters his

office ; may terminate

By resignation in writing addressed to the Vice- President of India

By removal for violation of the Constitution, by the process in
impeachment.

Article 57: confirms that president is eligible for re-election to the office.

Qualification (Article 58) :

Citizen of India
Have completed 35 yrs
Be qualified for election as member of the Lok Sabha
Must not hold any office of profit under the Govt. or local authority

Condition Of Office (Article 59): president is not to be a member of either House of

Parliament or of a House of any State Legislature. If he is member of the parliament or
state Legislature, on his election as president, he shall be deemed to have vacated his seat
in the House on the date on which he enters the office of president. He should not hold any
other office of profit.

Emoluments(Article 59):
The President receives a salary of Rs. 1.5 lakh month. However, almost everything that the
President does or wants to do is taken care of by the annual R s 225 million (U S$ 4.6
million) budget that the Government allots for his or her upkeep.
Oath / Affirmation (Article 60): The President or person acting as president is to take an
oath in the presence of the Chief Justice of India or in his absence. The senior most judge
of the Supreme Court.

Impeachment
The President may be removed before the expiry of his/her term through impeachment .A
President can be removed for violation of the Constitution. The process may start in either of the
two houses of the Parliament. The house initiates the process by leveling the charges against the
President. The charges are contained in a notice that has to be signed by at least one quarter of the
total members of that house. The notice is sent up to the President and 14 days later, it is taken up
for consideration.
A resolution to impeach the President has to be passed by a two-third majority of the total
members of the originating house. It is then sent to the other house. The other house investigates
the charges that have been made. During this process, the President has the right to defend
himself/herself through an authorised counsel No President has faced impeachment proceedings.
Hence, the above provisions have never been tested.

Powers and duties

Legislative powers
The president summons both the Houses of the Parliament and prorogues them. He or she can
dissolve the Lok Sabha. These powers are formal, and by convention, the President uses these
powers according to the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister.

President inaugurates the Parliament by addressing it after the general elections and also at the
beginning of the first session each year. Presidential address on these occasions is generally meant
to outline the new policies of the government.

All bills passed by the Parliament can become laws only after receiving the assent of the President.
The President can return a bill to the Parliament, if it is not a money bill, for reconsideration.
When after reconsideration, the bill is passed and presented to the President, with or without
amendments, President is obliged to assent to it. The President can also withhold his assent to the
bill thereby exercising pocket veto.

When both Houses of the Parliament are not in session and if government feels the need for
immediate action, President can promulgate ordinances which have the same force and effect as
laws passed by Parliament. These are in the nature of interim or temporary legislation and their
continuance is subject to parliamentary approval. Ordinances remain valid for no more than six
weeks from the date the Parliament is convened unless approved by it earlier.

Article 53: Executive Powers

The Constitution vests in the President of India all the executive powers of the Central
Government. The President appoints the Prime Minister the person most likely to command the
support of the majority in the Lok Sabha (usually the leader of the majority party or coalition). The
President then appoints the other members of the Council of Ministers, distributing portfolios to
them on the advice of the Prime Minister.

The Council of Ministers remains in power during the 'pleasure' of the President. In practice,
however, the Council of Ministers must retain the support of the Lok Sabha. If a President were to
dismiss the Council of Ministers on his or her own initiative, it might trigger a constitutional
crisis.

The President is responsible for making a wide variety of appointments. These include:

Governors of States
The Chief Justice, other judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts of India.
The Attorney General
The Comptroller and Auditor General

The Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners

The Chairman and other Members of the Union Public Service Commission
Ambassadors and High Commissioners to other countries.

Vice president
The Vice-President of India is the second-highest ranking government official in the executive
branch of the Government of India, after the President. The Vice-President also has the legislative
function of acting as the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

The current Vice-President of India is Hamid Ansari, who was elected on 10 August 2007.
Article 63 of the Constitution of India provides for a Vice-President: "There shall be a VicePresident of India". While the Indian Vice-President could be elected for any number of terms, the
Constitution requires that the Vice-President must be a citizen of India.

Powers and duties

The Vice-President acts as President in the event of death, resignation, or removal of the President
until a new President is chosen by the electoral college for maximum 6 months. During this
period, the Vice President shall not perform the duties of the office of the Chairman of Rajya
Sabha.

He is also the ex-officio chairman of Rajya Sabha. All bills, resolution, motion can be taken in
Rajya Sabha after his consent. However since he is not a member of Rajya Sabha, he has no right
to vote.

The Vice President is the second highest dignitary of India, next to the President of India.
Qualifications

Citizen of India.
More than 35 yrs of age.
Possess the qualification for membership of Rajya Sabha.
Not hold any office of profit under union, state or local authority.

Election
The vice-president is elected by electoral college in accordance with the
system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote
and the vote being secret. Nominated members can also participate in his
election.

Term
The Vice-President holds office for five years. He/she can be re-elected any number of times.
However the term will be cut short if the Vice-President resigns, dies, or is impeached.

Council of Ministers
Council of Ministers forms an important organ of the Executive. The Council of Ministers is
headed by the Prime Minister. And it is the prime duty of the Council of Ministers to advise the
President in exercise of his functions. The Prime Minister is appointed by the President, who also
appoints other ministers on the advice of Prime Minister. The Council is collectively responsible
to the Lok Sabha. It is the duty of the Prime Minister to communicate to the President all decisions
of Council of Ministers relating to administration of affairs of the Union and proposals for
legislation and information relating to them.
The Council of Ministers comprises Ministers who are members of Cabinet, Ministers of State
(independent charge), Ministers of State and Deputy Minister.
OUR PARLIAMENT
Parliament is the supreme legislative body of a country. Our Parliament comprises of the President
and the two HousesLok Sabha (House of the People) and Rajya Sabha (Council of States). The
President has the power to summon and prorogue either House of Parliament or to dissolve Lok
Sabha.
The Constitution of India came into force on January 26, 1950. The first general elections under
the new Constitution were held during the year 1951-52 and the first elected Parliament came into
being in April, 1952, the Second Lok Sabha in April, 1957, the Third Lok Sabha in April, 1962,
the Fourth Lok Sabha in March, 1967, the Fifth Lok Sabha in March, 1971, the Sixth Lok Sabha
in March, 1977, the Seventh Lok Sabha in January, 1980, the Eighth Lok Sabha in December,
1984, the Ninth Lok Sabha in December, 1989, the Tenth Lok Sabha in June, 1991, the Eleventh
Lok Sabha in May, 1996, the Twelfth Lok Sabha in March, 1998 and Thirteenth Lok Sabha in
October, 1999.
Lok Sabha
Lok Sabha, as the name itself signifies, is the body of representatives of the people. Its members
are directly elected, normally once in every five years by the adult population who are eligible to

vote. The minimum qualifying age for membership of the House is 25 years. The present
membership of Lok Sabha is 545. The number is divided among the different States and Union
Territories .
Rajya Sabha
Rajya Sabha is the Upper House of Parliament. It has not more than 250 members. Members of
Rajya Sabha are not elected by the people directly but indirectly by the Legislative Assemblies of
the various States. Every State is allotted a certain number of members. No member of Rajya
Sabha can be under 30 years of age.
Twelve of Rajya Sabha members are nominated by the President from persons who have earned
distinction in the fields of literature, art, science and social service.
Rajya Sabha is a permanent body. It is not subject to dissolution but one-third of its members retire
every two years. Rajya Sabha was duly constituted for the first time on April 3, 1952 and it held its
first sitting on May 13, that year.
There are at present 245 members in Rajya Sabha, distributed among different States and Union
Territories.
Presiding Officers
Lok Sabha elects one of its own members as its Presiding Officer and he is called the Speaker. He
is assisted by the Deputy Speaker who is also elected by Lok Sabha. The conduct of business in
Lok Sabha is the responsibility of the Speaker.
The Vice-President of India is the ex-officio Chairman of Rajya Sabha. He is elected by the
members of an electoral college consisting of members of both Houses of Parliament. Rajya Sabha
also elects one of its members to be the Deputy Chairman.
Functions of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha
The main function of both the Houses is to pass laws. Every Bill has to be passed by both the
Houses and assented to by the President before it becomes law. The subjects over which
Parliament can legislate are the subjects mentioned under the Union List in the Seventh Schedule
to the Constitution of India. Broadly speaking, Union subjects are those important subjects which
for reasons of convenience, efficiency and security are administered on all-India basis. The
principal Union subjects are Defence, Foreign Affairs, Railways, Transport and Communications,
Currency and Coinage, Banking, Customs and Excise Duties. There are numerous other subjects
on which both Parliament and State Legislatures can legislate.
Under this category mention may be made of economic and social planning, social security and
insurance, labour welfare, price control and vital statistics.
Besides passing laws, Parliament can by means of resolutions, motions for adjournment,
discussions and questions addressed by members to Ministers exercise control over the
administration of the country and safeguard peoples liberties.

Difference between Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha

(1) Members of Lok Sabha are directly elected by the eligible voters. Members of Rajya Sabha are
elected by the elected members of State Legislative Assemblies in accordance with the system
of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote.
(2) The normal life of every Lok Sabha is 5 years only while Rajya Sabha is a permanent body.
(3) Lok Sabha is the House to which the Council of Ministers is responsible under the
Constitution. Money Bills can only be introduced in Lok Sabha. Also it is Lok Sabha which
grants the money for running the administration of the country.
(4) Rajya Sabha has special powers to declare that it is necessary and expedient in the national
interest that Parliament may make laws with respect to a matter in the State List or to create by
law one or more all-India services common to the Union and the States.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Established
Jurisdiction
Composition method
Authorized by

26 January 1950
India
Executive selection (Qualifications imposed)
Constitution of India

Number of positions

31 (30+1)
REPUBLIC OF INDIA

The Supreme Court of India is the highest judicial forum and SWfinal court of appeal as
established by Part V, Chapter IV of the Constitution of India. According to the Constitution of
India, the role of the Supreme Court is that of a federal court and guardian of the Constitution.
Articles 124 to 147 of the Constitution of India lay down the composition and jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court is meant to be the last resort and highest appellate
court which takes up appeals against judgments of the High Courts of the states and territories.
Also, disputes between states or petitions involving a serious infringement of fundamental and
human rights are usually brought directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court of India held
its inaugural sitting on 28 January 1950, and since then has delivered more than 24,000 reported
judgments.
Constitution of the court
On 28 January 1950, two days after India became a sovereign democratic republic, the Supreme
Court came into being. The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament
building. The Chamber of Princes had earlier been the seat of the Federal Court of India for 12
years, between 1937 and 1950, and was the seat of the Supreme Court until the Supreme Court
acquired its present premises in 1958.
The Supreme Court of India replaced both the Federal Court of India and the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council at the apex of the Indian court system.
After its inauguration on 28 January 1950, the Supreme Court commenced its sittings in the
Chamber of Princes in the Parliament House. The Court moved into the present building in 1958.

The Supreme Court Bar Association is the bar of the highest court. The current president of the
SCBA is Mr. Pravin Parekh. Mr. Sanjay Bansal is the present Honorary Secretary of SCBA.
The Supreme Court Building and its Architecture
The main block of the Supreme Court building was built on a square plot of 22 acres and the
building was designed by chief architect Ganesh Bhikaji Deolalikar who was the first Indian to
head CPWD and designed the Supreme Court Building in an Indo British architectural style. He
was succeeded by Shridher Krishna Joglekar. The Court moved into the present building in 1958.
The building is shaped to project the image of scales of justice with the Central Wing of the
building corresponding to the centre beam of the Scales. In 1979, two new wingsthe East Wing
and the West Wingwere added to the complex. In all there are 15 court rooms in the various
wings of the building. The Chief Justice's Court is the largest of the courtroom located in the
centre of the Central Wing. It has a large dome with a high ceiling.
Composition
As originally enacted, the Constitution of India provided for a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice
and seven lower-ranking Judgesleaving it to Parliament to increase this number. In the early
years, a full bench of the Supreme Court sat together to hear the cases presented before them. As
the work of the Court increased and cases began to accumulate, Parliament increased the number
of Judges from the original eight in 1950 to eleven in 1956, fourteen in 1960, eighteen in 1978,
twenty-six in 1986 and thirty-one in 2008. As the number of the Judges has increased, they have
sat in smaller Benches of two or three (referred to as a Division Bench)coming together in larger
Benches of five or more (referred to as a Constitutional Bench) only when required to settle
fundamental questions of law. Any bench may refer the case under consideration up to a larger
bench if the need to do so arises.
The Supreme Court of India comprises the Chief Justice of India and not more than thirty other
Judges appointed by the President of India. However, the President must appoint judges in
consultation with the Supreme Court, and appointments are generally made on the basis of
seniority and not political preference. Supreme Court Judges retire at the age of 65.
In order to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court, a person must be a citizen of India and
must have been, for at least five years, a Judge of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in
succession, or an Advocate of a High Court or of two or more such Courts in succession for at
least ten years, or the person must be, in the opinion of the President, a distinguished jurist.
Provisions exist for the appointment of a Judge of a High Court as an ad-hoc Judge of the
Supreme Court and for retired Judges of the Supreme Court or High Courts to sit and act as Judges
of that Court.
The Supreme Court has always maintained a wide regional representation. It also has had a good
share of Judges belonging to religious and ethnic minorities. The first woman to be appointed to
the Supreme Court was Justice Fatima Beevi in 1987. She was later followed by Justices Sujata
Manohar, Ruma Pal and Gyan Sudha Mishra. Justice Ranjana Desai, who was elevated from the
Bombay High Court is the most recent woman judge in the Supreme Court, so that for the first
time there were two women (Mishra and Desai) simultaneously in the Supreme Court.

In 2000 Justice K. G. Balakrishnan became the first judge from the dalit community. In 2007 he
also became the first dalit Chief Justice of India. Justices B. P. Jeevan Reddy and A. R.
Lakshmanan were appointed Chairmen of the Law Commission of India, unusually because
neither of them had served as Chief Justice. Justice J. S. Kehar is slated to become the first Sikh
Chief Justice of India in 2017.
Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction under Articles 32, 131-144 of
the Constitution.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
The court has exclusive original jurisdiction over any dispute between the Government of India
and one or more States or between the Government of India and any State or States on one side
and one or more States on the other or between two or more States, if and insofar as the dispute
involves any question (whether of law or of fact) on which the existence or extent of a legal right
depends. In addition, Article 32 of the Constitution grants an extensive original jurisdiction to the
Supreme Court in regard to enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition,
quo warranto and certiorari to enforce them.
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked by a certificate granted by the
High Court concerned under Articles 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of any
judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil and criminal cases, involving
substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court can
also grant special leave under article 136(1) to appeal from a judgment or order of any nonmilitary Indian court. Parliament has the power to enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court and has exercised this power in case of criminal appeals by enacting the Supreme
Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970.
Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned certifies : (a)
that the case involves a substantial question of law of general importance, and (b) that, in the
opinion of the High Court, the said question needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. In
criminal cases, an appeal lies to the Supreme Court if the High Court (a) has on appeal reversed
an order of acquittal of an accused person and sentenced him to death or to imprisonment for life
or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (b) has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from
any Court subordinate to its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused and sentenced
him to death or to imprisonment for life or for a period of not less than 10 years, or (c) certified
that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. Parliament is authorised to confer on the
Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from any judgment, final order or
sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court.
ADVISORY JURISDICTION
The Supreme Court has special advisory jurisdiction in matters, which may specifically be
referred to it by the President of India under Article 143 of the Constitution. There are provisions
for reference or appeal to this Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution, Section 257 of the

Income Tax Act, 1961, Section 7(2) of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969,
Section 130-A of the Customs Act, 1962, Section 35-H of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944
and Section 82C of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968. Appeals also lie to the Supreme Court under the
Representation of the People Act, 1951, Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969,
Advocates Act, 1961, Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Customs Act, 1962, Central Excises and Salt
Act, 1944, Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970, Trial of Offences Relating to
Transactions in Securities Act, 1992, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
and Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Election Petitions under Part III of the Presidential and Vice
Presidential Elections Act, 1952 are also filed directly in the Supreme Court. Under Order XL of
the Supreme Court Rules the Supreme Court may review its judgment or order but no application
for review is to be entertained in a civil proceeding except on the grounds mentioned in Order
XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal proceeding except on the ground
of an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Supreme Court has the power to transfer the cases from one High Court to another and even
from one District Court of a particular state to another District Court of the other state. In such
transfer cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court transfer only those cases if they really lack appropriate
territorial jurisdiction and those cases which were otherwise supposed to be filed under the
JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE
The Constitution seeks to ensure the independence of Supreme Court Judges in various ways.
Judges are generally appointed on the basis of seniority and not on political preference. A Judge of
the Supreme Court cannot be removed from office except by an order of the President passed after
an address in each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that
House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of members present and voting, and presented
to the President in the same Session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or
incapacity. The salary and allowances of a judge of the Supreme Court cannot be reduced after
appointment. A person who has been a Judge of the Supreme Court is debarred from practising in
any court of law or before any other authority in India.

POWERS TO PUNISH CONTEMPT

Under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution the Supreme Court has been vested with power to
punish anyone for contempt of any law court in India including itself. The Supreme Court
performed an unprecedented action when it directed a sitting Minister of the state of Maharashtra,
Swaroop Singh Naik, to be jailed for 1 month on a charge of contempt of court on 12 May 2006.
This was the first time that a serving Minister was ever jailed.
EMERGENCY AND GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
The independence of judiciary was severely curtailed on account of powerful central government
ruled by Indian National Congress.This was during the Indian Emergency (1975-1977) of Indira
Gandhi. The constitutional rights of imprisoned persons were restricted under Preventive detention
laws passed by the parliament. In the case of Shiva Kant Shukla Additional District Magistrate of
Jabalpur v. Shiv Kant Shukla, popularly known as the Habeas Corpus case, a bench of five
seniormost judges of Supreme court ruled in favour of state's right for unrestricted powers of
detention during emergency. Justices A.N. Ray, P. N. Bhagwati, Y. V. Chandrachud, and M.H.
Beg, stated in the majority decision . (under the declaration of emergency) no person has any locus
to move any writ petition under Art. 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any other writ
or order or direction to challenge the legality of an order of detention.

The stated: detention without trial is an anathema to all those who love personal liberty... A dissent
is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later
decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting Judge believes the court to have
been betrayed.
It is believed that before delivering his dissenting opinion, Justice Khanna had mentioned to his
sister: I have prepared my judgment, which is going to cost me the Chief Justice-ship of India."
When the central Government is to recommend one of Supreme court Judges for the post of Chief
Justice in January 1977,Justice Khanna was superseded despite being the most senior judge at the
time and thereby Government broke the convention of appointing only the senior most judge to
the position of Chief Justice of India. In fact, it was felt that the other judges may have gone along
for this very reason. Justice Khanna remains a legendary figure among the legal fraternity in India
for this decision.
The New York Times, wrote of this opinion: "The submission of an independent judiciary to
absolutist government is virtually the last step in the destruction of a democratic society; and the
Indian Supreme Court's decision appears close to utter surrender."
During the emergency period, the government also passed the 39th amendment, which sought to
limit judicial review for the election of the Prime Minister; only a body constituted by Parliament
could review this election.[10] The court tamely agreed with this curtailment (1975), despite the
earlier Keshavanand decision. Subsequently, the parliament, with most opposition members in jail
during the emergency, passed the 42nd Amendment which prevented any court from reviewing
any amendment to the constitution with the exception of procedural issues concerning ratification.
A few years after the emergency, however, the Supreme court rejected the absoluteness of the
42nd amendment and reaffirmed its power of judicial review in the Minerva Mills case (1980).
As a final act during the emergency, in what Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer has called "a stab on the
independence of the High Court", judges were moved helter-skelter across the country, in
concurrence with Chief Justice Beg.
POST-1980: AN ASSERTIVE SUPREME COURT
Fortunately for Indian jurisprudence, the "brooding spirit of the law" referred to by Justice Khanna
was to correct the excesses of the emergency soon enough.
After Indira Gandhi lost elections in 1977, the new government of Morarji Desai, and especially
law minister Shanti Bhushan (who had earlier argued for the detenues in the Habeas Corpus case),
introduced a number of amendments making it more difficult to declare and sustain an emergency,
and reinstated much of the power to the Supreme Court. It is said that the Basic Structure doctrine,
created in Kesavananda, was strengthened in Indira Gandhi's case and set in stone in Minerva
Mills.
The Supreme Court's creative and expansive interpretations of Article 21 (Life and Personal
Liberty), primarily after the Emergency period, have given rise to a new jurisprudence of public
interest litigation that has vigorously promoted many important economic and social rights
(constitutionally protected but not enforceable) including, but not restricted to, the rights to free

education, livelihood, a clean environment, food and many others. Civil and political rights
(traditionally protected in the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Indian Constitution) have also
been expanded and more fiercely protected. These new interpretations have opened the avenue for
litigation on a number of important issues. It is interesting to note that the pioneer of the expanded
interpretation of Article 21, Chief Justice P N Bhagwati, was also one of the judges who heard the
ADM Jabalpur case, and held that the Right to Life could not be claimed in Emergency
RECENT IMPORTANT CASES
Among the important pronouncements of the Supreme Court post 2000 is the Coelho case (I.R.
Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu (Judgment of 11the January, 2007). A unanimous Bench of 9 judges
reaffirmed the basic structure doctrine. An authority on the Indian Constitution, former AttorneyGeneral Soli Sorabjee commented on the judgment, "The judgment in I.R. Coelho vigorously
reaffirms the doctrine of basic structure. Indeed it has gone further and held that a constitutional
amendment which entails violation of any fundamental rights which the Court regards as forming
part of the basic structure of the Constitution then the same can be struck down depending upon its
impact and consequences. The judgment clearly imposes further limitations on the constituent
power of Parliament with respect to the principles underlying certain fundamental rights. The
judgment in Coelho has in effect restored the decision in Golak Nath regarding non-amendability
of the Constitution on account of infraction of fundamental rights, contrary to the judgment in
Kesavananda Bharatis case.
Another important decision was of the five-judge Bench in Ashoka Kumara Thakur v. Union of
India; where the constitutional validity of Central Educational Institutions (Reservations in
Admissions) Act, 2006 was upheld, subject to the "creamy layer" criteria. Importantly, the Court
refused to follow the 'strict scrutiny' standards of review followed by the United States Supreme
Court. At the same time, the Court has applied the strict scrutiny standards in Anuj Garg v. Hotel
Association of India (2007)
In Aravalli Golf Course and other cases, the Supreme Court (particularly Justice Markandey
Katju) has expressed reservations about taking on an increasingly activst role.
In extraordinary situations where corruption in allotment of mobile licenses has caused an
estimated astronomical loss of Rs 1,76,000 crores, a Bench comprising Justices G S Singhvi and A
K Ganguly told CBI to inform who the beneficiaries and conspirators in parking funds in foreign
bank accounts were. The government refused to disclose details of about 18 Indians holding
accounts in LGT Bank, Liechtenstein, evoking a sharp response from a Bench comprising Justices
B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar to Make up your mind whether you can make the disclosure.
The Solicitor General of India replied that it will be done at the appropriate stage.
CORRUPTION AND MISCONDUCT OF JUDGES
The year 2008 has seen the Supreme Court in one controversy after another, from serious
allegations of corruption at the highest level of the judiciary, expensive private holidays at the tax
payers expense, refusal to divulge details of judges' assets to the public, secrecy in the
appointments of judges', to even refusal to make information public under the Right to Information
Act. The Chief Justice of India K.G.Balakrishnan invited a lot of criticism for his comments on his
post not being that of a public servant, but that of a constitutional authority. He later went back on

this stand. The judiciary has come in for serious criticisms from both the current President of India
Pratibha Patil and the former President APJ Abdul Kalam for failure in handling its duties. The
Prime Minister, Dr.Manmohan Singh, has stated that corruption is one of the major challenges
facing the judiciary, and suggested that there is an urgent need to eradicate this menace.
The Cabinet Secretary of the Indian Government has recently introduced the Judges Inquiry
(Amendment) Bill 2008 in Parliament for setting up of a panel called the National Judicial
Council, headed by the Chief Justice of India, that will probe into allegations of corruption and
misconduct by High Court and Supreme Court judges. However, even this bill is allegedly a farce,
just meant to silence and suppress the public. As per this Bill, a panel of judges themselves will be
judging the judges,this inquiry can be initiated against the Chief Justice of India or against retired
judges by the order of President,Cabinet Secretary and Parliament then they are suspended.
SENIOR JUDGES
Supreme Court Bench, Justice B N Agrawal, Justice V S Sirpurkar and Justice G S
Singhvi :"We are not giving the certificate that no judge is corrupt. Black sheep are
everywhere. It's only a question of degree."
Supreme Court Judge, Justice Agarwal:"What about the character of politicians, lawyers
and the society? We come from the same corrupt society and do not descend from heaven.
But it seems you have descended from heaven and are, therefore, accusing us."
Supreme Court Bench, Justice Arijit Pasayat, Justice V S Sirpurkar and Justice G S
Singhvi :"The time has come because people have started categorising some judges as very
honest despite it being the foremost qualification of any judge. It is the system. We have to
find the mechanism to stem the rot"
"Has the existing mechanism become outdated? Should with some minor modification, the
mechanism could still be effective?"
Supreme Court Bench, Justice Justice G S Singhvi :"The rot has set in." The judges
appeared to be in agreement with senior advocate Anil Devan and Solicitor GeneralG. E.
Vahanvati who, citing the falling standards, questioned the desirability of keeping the
immunity judges have from prosecution.

ANTI-DEFECTION LAW
The anti-defection law was passed by parliament in 1985. Twenty-five years down the road, it is
pertinent to trace the several modifications and to evaluate how well the law has worked.
The 52nd amendment to the Constitution added the Tenth Schedule which laid down the process
by which legislators may be disqualified on grounds of defection. A member of parliament or state
legislature was deemed to have defected if he either voluntarily resigned from his party or
disobeyed the directives of the party leadership on a vote. That is, they may not vote on any issue
in contravention to the partys whip. Independent members would be disqualified if they joined a
political party. Nominated members who were not members of a party could choose to join a party
within six months; after that period, they were treated as a party member or independent member.

The law also made a few exceptions. Any person elected as speaker or chairman could resign from
his party, and rejoin the party if he demitted that post. A party could be merged into another if at
least two-thirds of its party legislators voted for the merger. The law initially permitted splitting of
parties, but that has now been outlawed.
Experience so far
In the 24 years of this law, complaints have been made against 62 Lok Sabha MPs. Of these, 26
were disqualified. It is pertinent to note that ten of these disqualifications were after the trust vote
of July 2008 (over India-US civil nuclear co-operation). Four cases were made against Rajya
Sabha MPs (two in 1989 and two in 2008) and all were upheld. In state legislatures, up to 2004,
out of 268 complaints, 113 were upheld.
Challenges and Interpretations
The anti-defection law raises a number of questions, several of which have been addressed by the
courts and the presiding officers.
Does the law impinge on the right of free speech of the legislators? This issue was addressed by
the five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 1992 (Kihoto Hollohan vs Zachilhu
and others). The court said that the anti-defection law seeks to recognise the practical need to
place the proprieties of political and personal conductabove certain theoretical assumptions. It
held that the law does not violate any rights or freedoms, or the basic structure of parliamentary
democracy.
What constitutes voluntarily resigning from a party? Various judgements and orders indicate
that a member who publicly opposes the party or states his support for another party would be
deemed to have resigned from his party. News reports may be used as evidence for this purpose.
Can the decision of the presiding officer be challenged in the courts? The law states that the
decision is final and not subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court struck down part of this
condition. It held that there may not be any judicial intervention until the presiding officer gives
his order. However, the final decision is subject to appeal in the High Courts and Supreme Court.
Issues for consideration
Should the law be valid for all votes or only for those that determine the stability of the
government (such as the confidence and no-confidence motions)? The main intent of the law was
to deter the evil of political defections by legislators motivated by lure of office or other similar
considerations. However, loss of membership is hardly a penalty in cases ahead of the scheduled
time of general electionsas seen last year. It also loses significance if the House is likely to be
dissolved. On the other hand, the voting behaviour may be affected even on issues not related to
the stability of the government. A member may be unable to express his actual belief or the
interests of his constituents. Therefore, a case may be made for restricting the law to confidence
and no-confidence motions. The Dinesh Goswami Committee on electoral reforms (1990)
recommended this change, while the Law Commission (170th report, 1999) suggested that
political parties issue whips only when the government was in danger.

Should the law apply only to pre-poll alliances? The rationale that a representative is elected on
the basis of the partys programme can be extended to pre-poll alliances. The Law Commission
proposed this change with the condition that partners of such alliances inform the Election
Commission before the elections.
Should the judgement be made by the presiding officers? Several MPs had raised this issue at the
time of passage of the law. The Supreme Court upheld the law in the Kihoto Hollohon judgment.
The Goswami Committee, the Election Commission and the Venkatachaliah Commission to
Review the Constitution (2002) have recommended that the decision should be made by the
president or the governor on the advice of the Election Commission. This would be similar to the
process for disqualification on grounds of office of profit.
Should there be any additional penalties on defectors? The Venkatachaliah Commission
recommended that defectors should be barred from holding any ministerial or remunerative
political office for the remaining term of the House. It also said that the vote of any defector
should not be counted in a confidence or no-confidence motion.
There is no ambiguity in the legality of current provisions related to these issues. Any change
would require legislative action. There is, however, need for public debate on the working of the
anti-defection law.

LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA

Years ago, Mahatma Gandhi said that Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable
products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today. Now days Corruption has its deep roots in
Indian Society. People who work on right principles are unrecognized and considered to be foolish
in the modern society. Earlier, bribes were paid for getting wrong things done, but now bribe is
paid for getting right things done at right time. In todays scenario, if a person wants a government
job he has to pay lakhs of rupees to the higher officials irrespective of satisfying all the eligibility
criteria. In every office one has either to give money to the employee concerned or arrange for
some sources to get work done. There is not a single forum or organizations of the citizens of India
unaffected from Corruption.
A 2005 study conducted by Transparency International in India found that more than 62% of
Indians had first-hand experience of paying bribes or influence peddling to get jobs done in public
offices successfully.[1] [2] In its 2008 study, Transparency International reports about 40% of
Indians had first-hand experience of paying bribes or using a contact to get a job done in public
office. In 2012 India was ranked 94th out of 176 countries in Transparency Internationals
Corruption Perceptions Index.
The basic idea of the Lok Pal is borrowed from the office of ombudsman, which has played an
effective role in checking corruption and wrong-doing in Scandinavian and other nations. A
Lokpal is a proposed ombudsman (Legal Representative) in India. The word is derived from the
Sanskrit word lok (people) and pala (protector/caretaker), or caretaker of people.

Ombudsman: Meaning and Importance

Ombudsman offices are form of watchdog on government, investigating and resolving citizens
complaints. Ombudsman means a public official who acts as an impartial intermediary between
the public and government or bureaucracy, or an employee of an organization who mediates
disputes between employees and management. An indigenous Danish, Norwegian and Swedish
term, Ombudsman is etymologically rooted in the Old Norse word umbosmar, essentially
meaning representative. In its most frequent modern usage, an ombudsman is an official, usually
appointed by the government or by parliament but with a significant degree of independence, who
is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints
reported by individuals.
The institution of ombudsman originated in Scandinavian countries. The institution of
Ombudsman first came into being in Sweden in 1713 when a Chancellor of Justice was
appointed by the King to act as invigilator to look into the functioning of war-time government.
Thereafter, a new beginning was made in 1809, when it was laid down that the Ombudsman would
be made thereafter by the legislature.[8] Other Scandinavian countries followed the model of
Sweden almost after a century. Amongst other countries, New Zealand was the first country
outside Scandinavian to institute an Ombudsman in 1962.[9] It has been adopted in a number of
countries, such as Finland, 1919; Denmark, 1954; Norway, 1960; Mauritius, 1966; Guyana, 1966;
United Kingdom, 1967; Australia, 1976. Today there are Ombudsman offices in over 80 countries
at the national provincial and local level.Office of Ombudsman was established under the
provisions of constitutional law in Austria, Burkina Faso, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands,
Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. While in other countries[12] belonging to Anglo-Saxon legal
traditions, the office is generally regulated under ordinary statute law.
Ombudsman in India
In a welfare State like India, citizens have a variety of interactions with the Government in its
myriad forms as a service provider, a regulator, as a provider of social and physical
infrastructure etc. Meeting the expectations of the citizens is a challenging task for any
Government. In India, the Ombudsman is known as the Lokpal or Lokayukta. The concept of a
constitutional ombudsman was first proposed by the Law Minister Ashoke Kumar Sen in
parliament in the early 1960s. The term Lokpal and Lokayukta were coined by Dr. L. M. Singhvi
as the Indian model of Ombudsman for redressal of public grievances.[16] The office of the
LokPal is the Indian version of the office of an Ombudsman who is appointed to inquire into
complaints made by citizens against public officials. The Lok Pal is a forum where the citizen can
send a complaint against a public official, which would then be inquired into and the citizen would
be provided some redressal. Lokpal is an officer who investigates complaints of citizens of unfair
treatment meted out to them by Government Departments and suggests remedy thereof, if he finds
that a complaint is justified.
Historical Aspect
After independence when increasing practice of corruption, maladministration and misuse of
authority and resource couldnt be curbed by existing measures under the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, need for an agency independent of the executive,
legislative and judiciary, to look into citizens grievances and cases of corruption have been widely
felt The LokPal Bill provides for constitution of the LokPal as an independent body to enquire into

cases of corruption against public functionaries, with a mechanism for filing complaints and
conducting inquiries etc.[19] Dr. L.M. Singhvi moved a resolution in the Lok Sabha on 3 April
1964, reiterating his demand for setting up an officer of Parliament known as Peoples Procurator.
The resolution was discussed in detail by all sections of the House but was withdrawn on the
assurance of the Government that it would look into the matter. In pursuance of this assurance, the
Government constituted a Special Consultative Group of Members of Parliament on
administrative reforms, in early 1965, which favoured a high powered inquiry commission on
administrative reforms. Accordingly, an Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) was
appointed in January 1966, for making recommendations on the reorganization of the
administrative system of the country.[20] First Administrative Reforms Commission in its
report submitted in 1966 suggested that:
The special circumstances relating to our country can be fully met by providing for two special
institutions for the redress of citizens grievances. There should be one authority dealing with
complaints against the administrative acts of Ministers or Secretaries to the government at the
center and in the states. There should be another authority in each state and at the centre for
dealing with complaints against the administrative acts of other officials The setting up of
these authorities should not, however, be taken to be a complete answer to the problem of redress
of citizens grievances. They only provide the ultimate set-up for such redress as has not been
available through the normal departmental or governmental machinery and do not absolve the
department from fulfilling its obligations to the citizen for administering its affairs without
generating, as far as possible, any legitimate sense of grievance. Thus, the administration itself
must play the major role in reducing the area of grievances and providing remedies wherever
necessary and feasible When this machinery (in-built departmental machinery) functions
effectively, the number of cases which will have to go to an authority outside the Ministry or the
Department should be comparatively small in number The ARC while preparing its report had
three ends in view:
i.
Evolution of a suitable grievance procedure for the individuals to invoke in complaints of
maladministration;
ii.
Creation of a mechanism which would reduce corruption in the administrative services;
and
iii.
Setting up a mechanism which would take cognizance of complaints of favoritism and
nepotism against Central and State Ministers.
Lokpal:
The Lokpal Bill was for the first time presented by Mr Shanti Bhushan during the fourth Lok
Sabha in 1968, and was passed there in 1969. However while it was pending in the Rajya Sabha,
the Lok Sabha was dissolved, and so the bill was not passed at that time. Subsequently, lokpal bills
were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985 (again by Ashoke Kumar Sen when serving as Law Minister
in the Rajiv Gandhi cabinet), 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, yet they were never
passed.[23] Each time, after the bill was introduced to the house, it was referred to some
committee for improvements a joint committee of parliament, or a departmental standing
committee of the Home Ministry and before the government could take a final stand on the issue,
the house was dissolved again.[24]

In 2002, the report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution urged
that the Constitution should provide for the appointment of the Lok Pal and Lokayuktas in the
states but suggested that the Prime Minister should be kept out of the purview of the authority. In
2004, the UPA governments National Common Minimum Programme promised that the Lok Pal
Bill would be enacted.] The Second Administrative Commission, formed in 2005, also
recommended that the office of the Lok Pal be established without delay.
In January 2011, the government formed a Group of Ministers, chaired by Shri Pranab Mukherjee
to suggest measures to tackle corruption, including examination of the proposal of a Lok Pal Bill.
Governments Lokpal Bill : Salient features
Lokpal and its role
The bill proposes to establish autonomous and independent institutions called Lokpal at the central
level and and Lokayukta for states. These shall have powers of superintendence and direction for
holding a preliminary inquiry, causing an investigation to be made and prosecution of offences in
respect of complaints under any law for the prevention of corruption.
Structure

The Lokpal will consist of a chairperson and a maximum of eight members of which fifty
percent shall be judicial members.

Fifty percent of members shall be from amongst Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe
(ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC), minorities and women.

It has an inquiry wing for conducting the preliminary inquiry and a separate independent
prosecution wing. Officers of the Lokpal will include the secretary, director of prosecution,
director of inquiry and other officers.
Process of selection
The selection of chairperson and members of Lokpal shall be through a selection committee The
Selection Committee shall comprise of the Prime Minister, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Leaders of
the Opposition in both houses, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, one
sitting judge of the Supreme Court, and one sitting Chief Justice of the High Courts both
nominated by the Chief Justice of India, an eminent jurist nominated by the central government
and a person of eminence in public life with knowledge of public administration, policy making,
anti-corruption policy, vigilance and finance.
Jurisdiction:
Prime minister has been brought under the purview of the Lokpal with specific exclusions. Lokpal
cannot hold any inquiry against the prime minister if allegations relate to international relations,
external and internal security of the country, public order, atomic energy and space. Any decision
of Lokpal to initiate preliminary inquiry or investigation against prime minister shall be taken only
by the full bench with a 3/4th majority. Such proceedings shall be held in camera. Its jurisdiction
to include all categories of public servants including Group A, B, C and D officers and
employees of government. On complaints referred by Lokpal, the Central Vigilance Commission
(CVC) will send its report in respect of Group A and B officers back to Lokpal for further

decision. With respect to Group C and D employees, the CVC will proceed further in exercise
of its own powers under the CVC act subject to reporting and review by Lokpal. All entities
receiving donations from foreign sources in the context of the Foreign Contribution Regulation
Act (FCRA) in excess of Rs.10 lakh per year are brought under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal.
Lokpal will not be able to initiate suo moto inquiries.
Other significant features of the Bill:
No prior sanction shall be required for launching prosecution in cases enquired by Lokpal or
initiated on the direction and with the approval of Lokpal. There are Provisions for confiscation of
property acquired by corrupt means, even while prosecution is pending. Lokpal to be final
appellate authority on all decisions by public authorities relating to provision of public services
and redressal of grievances containing findings of corruption. Lokpal to have power of
superintendence and direction over any investigation agency including Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) for cases referred to them.
Some of points that are different from what were raised in the Jan Lokpal Bill:
What the Nation asked and what the leaders have approved
What Jan Lokpal Bill had demanded

What Lokpal And Lokayuktas Bill,2011 gives

The "Whistleblower" should be protected.

Hence the Lokpal should have the power to
take necessary action to provide protection
to a whistleblower as per various
provisions of the Act.

No
Whistleblower
protection.
Instead,
a
whistlerblower may face imprisonment up to one year
and a fine up to Rs. 1 lakh,if it is established he has
made false and frivolous complaints.

Merger of anti-corruption branch of CBI

into Lokpal and the Central Government
should not have any control over the
transferred part.

Director of CBI will be appointed by a collegium

comprising of the Prime Minister, Leader of
Opposition in Lok Sabha and Chief Justice of India.
Also the CBI officers investigating cases referred by
Lokpal can be transferred without its approval.

The bill must have provision for a Citizen's

Charter

The government now wants to bring a separate bill

for Citizen's Charter but no time frame has been
announced.

The Chairperson and members shall be

appointed by the President on the
recommendation of a seven-member
committee, consisting of two Supreme
Court judges, two High Court judges, one
nominee of Comptroller And Auditor
General,Central
Vigilance
Commissioner,Central
Election
Commissioner, Prime Minister and Leader
of Opposition.

The Chairperson and Members shall be appointed by

the President after obtaining the recommendations of
a Selection Committee consisting of (a) the Prime
Minister -chairperson;(b) the Speaker of the House of
the People - member;(c) the Leader of Opposition in
the House of the People -member;(d) the Chief
Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court
nominated by him - member; (e) one eminent jurist
nominated by the President as recommended by the
chairperson and members referred to in clauses (a)
to (d).

Conclusion:
The main objective behind the institution of Lokpal is to give strength to citizens so that they can
raise their voice against corruption without any fear. The existing devices like CVC and CBI for
checks on elected and administrative officials have not been effective, as the growing instances of
corruption cases suggest. All these have necessitated the creation of Lokpal with its own
investigating team.
Therefore, there is a need for a mechanism that would adopt very simple, independent, speedy and
cheaper means of delivering justice by redressing the grievances of the people. But our Country is
famous for its beautiful numerous laws and its poor execution. Most of the laws have been proved
fail to achieve its goal. No law or institution would have been helped to remove deep roots of
corruption from our country without its proper execution.
It is rightly said by Publius Comelius Tecitus that the more corrupt the state, the more laws.