MINUTES OF
MEETINGS OF THE COMMISSION
(1)
The
first meeting of the Commission was held at 10.00 A.M. on 23rd
March, 2000 in the Committee Room No.1 of India International Centre to discuss
agenda items as circulated to the members.
The meeting was chaired by Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah and
was attended by all the members. The
list of the participants is at annex.
2. The
Chairperson, at the outset, extended his warm welcome to all the members. In his opening remarks he emphasised the
significance and importance of the work of the Commission and the procedural
aspects which need to be kept in mind.
After the opening remarks of the Chairperson, agenda items were taken up
for discussion.
Agenda Item No.(VI): Procedure for
the meetings etc.
3. The
meeting started with the discussion on the Agenda Item No.(VI) which was taken
up first inasmuch as it related to the procedure for meetings of the
Commission. After some discussion the
members were of the view that for the present a verbatim records/tape recording
of the entire proceedings of each meeting may not be necessary but
comprehensive minutes of the meeting should be prepared and circulated to the
members. It was also decided that,
generally, a notice of two weeks should precede the date of future meetings of
the Commission.
Agenda Items
No. (II):Scope and amplitude of
the terms of reference of the
Commission and agenda
Item No. (III): Identification of the areas and topics to be considered
by the Commission
4. The
meeting thereafter discussed items II and III of the agenda. Taking note of the terms of the reference of
the Commission, it was observed that its terms of reference do not require it
to “re-write” the Constitution as, indeed, the name of the Commission itself
indicated the function is to “review the working of the Constitution” and not
to re-write the Constitution and that the recommendation of the Commission were
essentially advisory in nature.
5. In
regard to the areas where the working of the constitution over the past 50
years needed to be reviewed, it was unanimously felt that the constitutional
aspirations for raising the living conditions of the poor and the deprived and
ensuring them an adequate means of livelihood was one such important area. It
was unanimously emphasised that protection of the constitutional rights of
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes and the
minorities required to be effectively ensured and improved.
6. It
was decided to examine the working of the present provisions of the
Constitution and the applicable laws and practice to consider how the
constitutional objectives in the aforesaid areas could be better achieved.
7. The
meeting identified certain areas of immediate contemporary concern and proposed
to look into those areas in the first instance. The areas identified were:
I. Strengthening
the institutions of Parliamentary democracy and their accountability; the grave
and persisting menace of un-principled defections.
II. Constitution
and pace of socio-economic change and development: promoting literacy;
generating employment; ensuring social security and removal of poverty.
III. Union-State relations:
Working of
Article 356; appointment and removal of Governors.
IV. Decentralisation
and devolution of powers; strengthening of Panchayati Raj Institutions.
V. Fundamental Rights:
Enlargement of
the Fundamental Rights
in Part-III of the Constitution by specific incorporation of the Freedom
of the Media, Right to
Compulsory
Elementary
Education, Right to Privacy and Right to Information.
VI. Effective enforcement of the Directive
Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution in order to achieve
the goals enshrined in the Preamble and for good governance.
VII. Fundamental Duties
under Part-IVA of the Constitution.
VIII. Fiscal and Monetary Policies; size of
government and of government expenditure.
Efficacy of public audit mechanisms.
8. Further, as aforesaid and subject to the terms of the
reference, the meeting decided to invite public suggestions regarding other
areas, if any, that the Commission may be required to examine in the course of
its work of reviewing the working of the Constitution.
9. It was decided to associate reputed
experts and research institutions in each of the above areas to function as
advisory panels. For the purposes of
identifying such experts, resource institutions/persons, the meeting decided to
constitute a sub-committee consisting of the following members:
(i) Hon’ble Justice Shri Jeevan Reddy.
(ii)
Shri Soli J. Sorabjee.
(iii) Shri K.
Prasaran.
(iv) Shri Abid Hussain.
(v) Shri Subash Kashyap.
10. In regard to the procedure and
methodology in evaluating the working of
the Constitution in the areas
identified, it was also decided that a ‘consultation paper’ on each of the aforesaid areas along
with a
Questionnaire formulated in an appropriate format, shall be circulated
to all the political parties; Constitution and Statutory Commissions such as,
National Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes; National
Commission for other Backward Classes; National Commission for Minorities;
National Human Rights Commission; National Commission for Women and other
similar bodies; Trade Unions; Representative Bodies of Trade and Industry; Bar
Associations; Universities and Colleges; Academicians; research institutes;
Media and NGOs. It was also decided to
place the consultation paper and Questionnaire on the Commission’s Website on
the Internet for access to the general public. The Commission also decided that
recommendations or proposals to make shall be put to public debate before
finalising them.
Agenda
Item No.(I): Notification relating to constitution of the Commission.
11. It was noted that the notification
constituting the Commission has been amended to provide that
in case of
the Chairperson, his condition of service shall be the same as
applicable to a serving Chief Justice of India. It was also noted that the said notification has also been
amended to provide that a member of the Commission, who is a Member of
Parliament, shall not be entitled to any remuneration or allowance other than
the allowance as defined in clause (a) of section 2 of the Parliament
(Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959.
The meeting was informed that
the Chairperson has
decided to accept
a notional honorarium of Re. 1 per month. Most of the members also responded by saying
that they would also not claim allowance
of Rs. 1,000/- for attending
the meetings of the Commission.
Agenda
Item No. (V): Accommodation for the office of the Commission
12. In respect of agenda item No.(V), the
meeting was informed that accommodation for the Commission is likely to become
available very soon in Vigyan Bhavan Annexe.
13. The meeting of the Commission requested Hon’ble Justice
Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy to act as spokesperson of the Commission in relation to
the Press. Justice Shri Jeevan Reddy
graciously accepted.
14. It was decided that the next meeting
of the Commission shall be held on 22nd April, 2000 at 10.00
A.M. The meeting would be extended to
the next day, if necessary.
(iii) Commencement of the term of the Commission.
15. In the meeting it was
observed that as certain formalities relating to amendment of the Resolution
constituting the Commission could only be completed with the publication of
Government of India Notification No.A-45012(2)/98-Admn.III (LA) dated the 17th
March, 2000, the Commission could hold its first meeting today only, that is,
23rd March, 2000. In view
of this, the members felt that the term of the Commission may be deemed to have
commenced with effect from the date of its first meeting. It was also decided to apprise the
Government accordingly.
16.
The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
(Dr.
Raghbir Singh)
Secretary
LIST
OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE FIRST MEETING
1.
Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah (In Chair)
2.
Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy
7.
Shri K. Parasaran
8.
Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap
9.
Shri C.R. Irani, Editor in Ch. & MD., Statesman
10.
Dr. Abid Hussain
11.
Smt. Sumitra G. Kulkarni
12.
Dr. Raghbir Singh, Secretary
(2)
The
second meeting of the Commission was held at 10.00 A.M. on 22nd
April, 2000 in the Committee Room ‘C’
of Vigyan Bhawan Annexe. The meeting
was chaired by Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N.Venkatachaliah and was attended by all
the members. The list of the
participants is at Annex-I.
2. The
Chairperson welcomed the members and briefly explained the issues to be
discussed in various agenda items. The meeting thereafter took up agenda items
for discussion.
Agenda Item No. 1: Confirmation
of the minutes of the first meeting
3. The
minutes of the First meeting of the Commission held on 23rd March,
2000 were read and confirmed.
4. The meeting decided to take up Agenda
items 2 and 3 together. With regard to
the report of the Sub-committee, in view of certain procedural formalities, the
meeting decided that the Sub-committee may kindly meet afresh after lunch and
finalise its recommendations. It was
also decided that the terms of reference of the Sub-committee be expanded so as
to include the consideration as to which of the members, having regard to their
expertise in specific areas, are to be associated with the work of Advisory
Panels in an appropriate manner. It was
further decided that the Sub-committee may also make selection of experts or
institutions for the preparation of consultation papers along with
Questionnaires in an appropriate computer-friendly format which will enable the
ledgerising and classification of the data collected in the responses to the
questionnaires. It was also decided to request Shri C.R. Irani to be a member
of the Sub-committee. Agenda Item No.
2 was thereafter deferred and taken up later in the day after the Sub-committee
finalised its recommendations.
4.1.
The report (copy at Annex II) finalized by the Sub-committee
was placed before the Commission for its consideration. The Sub-committee has proposed that the
contents and subject matter of the eight topics be spread over into ten areas
and for each area a Member of the Commission may function as “Member in
charge”. The Sub-committee has also
suggested expert/Advisory Panels in respect of each of the ten areas. The Sub-Committee has also recommended that
the “Member in charge” may, in consultation with the Chairperson, nominate
additional members to his panel. The “Member in charge” will, in consultation with
the Chairperson, also identify research/resource institutions or persons to
prepare the Consultation Paper.
4.2. In respect of item No. 3, the Chairperson emphasized the
importance and significance of Consultation Papers and Questionnaires and the need
for extensive and authentic research back-up for their preparation. The issue was discussed. The Commission
reiterates the decision taken in the first meeting to tap the talent in the
reputed research Institutions/experts for the preparation of Consultation
Papers and Questionnaires. It was noted that the Institute of Social and
Economic Change, Bangalore and some other institutions were doing impressive
research work in their respective areas of specialization and that it would be
useful to utilise the services of such institutions. The Chairperson mentioned
that he had a wide-ranging discussions with the Institute of Social and
Economic Change at Bangalore and had also addressed its faculty as to the scope
and significance of the Commission’s work.
The Commission also proposed to have widest possible participation of
various sections of Indian society in the work of the Commission.
5. Chairperson
informed the Members regarding the progress made so far in setting up of the
Commission’s office. The Members were
informed that vacant possession of the accommodation allotted to the Commission
was obtained and expressed the hope that Commission’s office would be ready in
a couple of weeks.
suggestions from public.
6.
The Commission discussed the mode of inviting suggestions
from public. The earlier decision of the Commission to invite suggestions from
the public though mentioned in the Press Note dated on 23rd March,
2000, had not received sufficient publicity.
It was, therefore, decided that an appropriate advertisement through
electronic and print media be issued to invite public suggestions. Dr. Subhash
C. Kashyap and Shri C.R. Irani were requested to prepare a draft of the
proposed advertisement. The
advertisement, it was felt, should make it clear that the Commission does not
propose to entertain any suggestion affecting the basic structure of the
Constitution, parliamentary system of democracy and Rights of the minorities,
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes under the
Constitution.
7.
Some further areas for consideration of the Commission were
suggested by some members, but no decision was taken in this regard.
Agenda
Item No.7: Other subjects:
(i) CD Rom
on Constitution and Amendments
8. The meeting was informed that
Legislative Department of the Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs has
brought out a CD Rom, which contains all constitutional amendments carried, so
far, along with Statement of Objects and Reasons pertaining to the
amendments. This software was also
capable of tracing any phrase or word used in the Constitution. It was decided that every Member might be
provided with a CD Rom.
(ii) Next
meeting of the Commission.
9. It was decided that the next meeting of
the Commission shall be held on 16th May, 2000.
10. The meeting ended with a vote of thanks
to the Chair.
(Dr.
Raghbir Singh)
Secretary
to the Commission
To
All Members of the Commission
LIST
OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE SECOND MEETING
1. Hon’ble
Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah (In
Chair)
2. Justice
Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy
(3)
The
third meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the office
of the Commission in Vigyan Bhavan Annexe at 10.00 AM on 8th and 9th
July, 2000. The meeting was chaired by
Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah.
The list of the participants is at Annex-I.
2. The Chairperson welcomed the Members
and the meeting thereafter took up the agenda items for consideration.
Agenda Item No. 1: Confirmation of the minutes of the second meeting
3. The meeting took note of the
advertisement of the Commission published in various newspapers and in view
thereof, it felt that the last sentence in para 6 (Item No.5) of the minutes of
the last meeting beginning from “The advertisement……” and ending with “under
the Constitution” be omitted. It
further decided that at the end of para 7 (Agenda Item No. 6), the following
sentence be added.
“The
Commission would take into account the areas suggested by the Members while
considering further areas, if any, that are required to be examined and
considered by it.”
4. Subject as aforesaid, the minutes of
the second meeting of the Commission held on 22.4.2000 were taken as read and
confirmed.
5. In regard to the decision taken at the
Commission’s second meeting for supply to each member of a CD Rom containing
Constitutional amendments (para 8, Agenda Item No.7) the Secretary pointed out
that, CD Rom presently available contained amendments enacted only upto the
Constitution (Seventy ninth Amendment) Act and it was likely to take a few
months for NIC to update it by including two subsequent amendments and that if
Hon’ble Members so desired, the available CD Rom could be made available to them. It was, decided that the available CD Rom
with hard copies of subsequent amendments be made available to the each Member.
Agenda Item No. 2: Constitution of the ‘Projects And Finance Committee’;
And
Agenda
Item No. 6: Scale and limit of expenditure and guidelines for incurring
expenditure on TA/DA to the Chairperson and Members of the Advisory Panels and
on holding their meetings and payment of professional fees to Research
Institutions/Experts
6. The
meeting took up
Agenda Items 2
and 6 together. They were discussed. It was decided that a Committee called “Projects and
Finance Committee” be constituted.
The Committee was requested, to consider the following :
(i)
Monitoring the quality assurance of the “Consultation
Papers” and “Questionnaires” so as to ensure uniformity and eliminate
possibilities of duplication or repetition resulting from the overlapping areas
in the subjects or topics to which they relate.
(ii)
Making suitable recommendations for the apportionment and
allocation of consolidated funds
earmarked for the following :
(a)
Consultation or professional fees for the preparation of the
‘Consultation Papers’ and ‘Questionnaires’;
(b)
the expenses for the meetings of the Advisory Panels and on
TA/DA of the Chairperson and Members of these panels;
(c)
holding of seminars; and
(d)
other related purposes; and to
(iii) lay down broad
guidelines and procedures for the passage of the ‘Consultation Papers’ and
‘Questionnaires’ through the various stages.
7. The meeting left it to the Chairperson
to decide on the Members of the CommitteeY. The
committee would evolve its own procedure in respect of holding its meetings and
conduct of its business.
Agenda Item No. 3 : Consideration
of the requests for participation in or association with the work of the
Commission
8. The meeting noted that the requests
received for participation in or association with the work of the Commission
broadly fell into two categories – (i) the requests from the individuals;
and (ii) requests from the institutions.
It was decided that all such persons and institutions be requested to
send their considered views and suggestions to the Commission, informing them
that their suggestions would be duly considered by the Commission at the
appropriate time.
9. The meeting, however, took note of the
request of Indian Law Institute, New Delhi in this regard and decided to
suitably associate it with the work of the Commission. It left it to the Chairperson to decide on
the area in which the services of the Institute could be so utilised.
Agenda Item No.4 : Holding
a meeting of the leading Journalists and NGOs to explore possibilities of their
association with the work of the promotion of awareness of the Commission’s
remit
10. It was felt that there was a need to
dispel misconceptions and apprehensions in certain sections of the society with
regard to the nature of exercise being done by the Commission. On the issue of associating leading
journalists and NGOs etc. for promoting awareness of the Commission’s remit,
the meeting, however, after taking note of the views of Shri C.R. Irani as
expressed in his letter dated July 6, 2000 addressed to the Hon’ble Chairperson
and of Shri Sangma who were of the view that the
Commission may take note of possibility of counter productivity of such a step
and after deliberating on its possible implications, came to a view that it
would not be beneficial at this stage, to associate journalists or NGOs with
any awareness campaign.
11. The meeting noted with satisfaction and
appreciation that some of the members particularly Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap and
Shri P.A. Sangma were already contributing towards creating public awareness
about the true nature of the work of the Commission. It felt that the Members of the Commission should themselves, by
making use of the material already made public by the Commission through press
notes etc., endeavour to dispel any misgivings or doubts in the public mind
in regard to the work of the Commission, whenever they had an opportunity to do so. The Press notes and the advertisement of the
Commission have, it was noted, already helped in dispelling some of the doubts
and apprehensions in the minds of certain sections of the public. It was felt that ultimately the work of the
Commission should be allowed to speak for itself. It was felt that the advertisement issued by the Commission
inviting suggestions might also be published through the electronic media at
the prime time in order to achieve greater public participation.
Agenda Item No. 5$: Evolving a broad time frame for the
various stages of the work of the Commission
12. The meeting agreed with the suggestion
of the Hon’ble Chairperson that there was a need to evolve a broad time frame
for completion of the various stages of the work of the Commission and to make
every endeavour to adhere to it. Dr.
Subhash C. Kashyap was requested in the meeting to evolve a time frame. #The
time frame evolved by Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap was considered and it was
unanimously accepted. The time-frame, as accepted, is at
Annex-III. It was clarified that if any
stage in respect of any topic/area was completed earlier to the last date
specified for its completion, action for the next stage for that topic/area
might be initiated immediately on completion of that stage itself. The Hon’ble Chairperson also emphasised on
the need of identifying at this stage itself the persons/bodies/institutions to
whom ‘Consultation Papers’ and ‘Questionnaires’ would have to be sent; the
agencies that would print them; the number of copies that would be required
etc. as it would result in saving of
time.
Agenda Item No.7: Review
of the progress in the preparation of
‘Consultation Papers’ and ‘Questionnaires’
13. The meeting considered the ‘status note’
indicating progress made so far in preparation of ‘Consultation Papers’ and
‘Questionnaires’ in the areas initially identified by the Commission. . It was noted that Institutes/Experts had
already been identified for preparation of the ‘Consultation Papers’ and
‘Questionnaires’ (in all but one area) and the work was in different stages of
completion. Initial drafts on topics
for ‘Pace of Social and Economic Change in India’: ‘The Question of Poverty’,
‘Literacy, Employment and Social Security’ and ‘Enlargement of Fundamental
Rights’ had already been received. The
initial drafts of the papers on other subjects were also expected to be
received shortly. It was decided in the meeting that initial draft of the
consultation paper would be scrutinised by the Member-in-Charge and the Advisory
Panel on the
subject and after modifications and changes as may be considered
necessary were incorporated and draft approved by the Advisory Panels, it would
be placed before “The Projects and Finance Committee” of the Commission which
would ensure uniformity in the quality of the papers and a holistic view of the
issues dealt with in the papers.
Thereafter, it would be considered by the Commission. However, after the ‘Projects and Finance
Committee’ finalises the procedure, that procedure shall be followed.
Agenda Item No. 8$: Holding of regional seminars for
discussing the ‘Consultation Papers’ and ‘Questionnaires’ and public responses
thereto and identification of the Institutions and Agencies to conduct
seminars.
14. It was decided that after the
‘Consultation Papers’ and ‘Questionnaires’ had been prepared and circulated and
the responses thereto obtained, the various issues raised in those papers
should be discussed in a series of five regional seminars and finally at a
national seminar at Delhi. It was
further decided to ensure participation of representatives of a wide
cross-section of the society, viz. people’s representatives, Jurists,
Journalists, Academicians, NGOs, Trade Union leaders, Panchayati Raj
Institutions, Administrators, Industrialists, Leaders of Cooperative Movements
etc. in these seminars. #The Commission also decided to
identify the NGOs/Institutions which would be entrusted with holding of
seminars at this stage itself so that the organisers have sufficient time for
ensuring meaningful and wide participation of different sections of the
society. Shri P.A. Sangma, Dr. Subhash
C. Kashyap and Shri C.R. Irani were requested in the meeting to identify the
nodal agency/institution or agencies/institution for conduct of these
seminars.
Agenda Item No. 9: Consideration of a programme for interaction
and consultation with the Political Parties, the National Commission for the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, the National Human Rights
Commission, the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for
Women.
15. The Commission decided to interact at an
appropriate time with the political parties, the National Commission for the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, the National Human Rights Commission,
the National Commission for Minorities, the National Commission for Women etc.
Agenda# Item
No.10: Consideration of responses
received so far, in response to recent advertisement of the Commission.
16. The meeting noted the procedure that was
being adopted by the Secretariat of the Commission in acknowledging the
suggestions that were being received in response to the advertisement of the
Commission. It noted that till date
over 1100 responses had been received and most of them had already been acknowledged.
It was felt in the meeting that the work of summarising/ ledgerising of the
responses, should also be simultaneously undertaken and completed early.
Agenda Item No. 11: Any other item
Next meeting of the Commission
17. It was decided that the next meeting of
the Commission might tentatively be fixed on 26th and 27th August, 2000.
18. The meeting thereafter ended with a vote
of thanks to the Chair.
(Dr.
Raghbir Singh)
Secretary
to the Commission
To
All the Members of
the Commission.
LIST OF
PARTICIPANTS OF THE THIRD MEETING
1. Shri Soli
J. Sorabjee - Convenor
2. Justice
Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy
3. Shri P. A.
Sangma
4. Dr. Abid
Hussain
5. Dr.
Subhash C. Kashyap
[Constituted
by the Hon’ble Chairperson in pursuance of the authority conferred on him by
the Commission in its meeting held on 8th and 9th July,
2000]
ANNEX III
|
SL. NO. |
PROGRAMME |
TIME-FRAME |
REMARKS |
|
1. |
Preliminary Meetings; setting-up
of Expert Panels on ten subject areas; nomination of Chairpersons and Members
of the Panels |
23-4.2000 to 15.7.2000 |
|
|
2. |
Identifying Resource
Institutions/Persons for preparation of Consultation Papers and
Questionnaires; setting the outlines of work and terms of
remuneration/fees etc. |
23.4.2000 to 20.7.2000 |
|
|
3. |
Convening the Expert Panels for
Consideration of the Consultation Papers and Questionnaires etc; |
1.8.2000 to 1.9.2000 |
|
|
4. |
Consultation Papers and
Questionnaires to be ready. |
15.9.2000 to 15.10.2000 |
|
|
5. |
Processing of responses in
regard to identifying additional areas, if any, for review and commission’s
decision thereon and laying down schedule for preparing consultation papers,
etc. |
1.6.2000 to 30.8.2000 |
|
|
6. |
Scrutiny and approval of the
Consultation Papers and Questionnaires by the Commission |
15.9.2000 to 1.11.2000 |
|
|
7. |
Consultation Papers and
Questionnaires to be distributed and released to the public. |
By 15.11.2000 |
These are to be sent to all MPs,
MLAs, Political Parties,Universities All India Service Officers’
Associa-tion, Trade Unions, Industrial and Commerce Associ-ations and Groups
like FICCI, ASSOCHAM etc; Students’ Organi-sations, Bar Assoc-iations,
Leading Lawyers, import-ant NGOs, Chair-persons and Mem-bers of all National
Commissions, Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts, Speakers and
for-mer Speakers of the Lok Sabha, Deputy Chairper-son of the Rajya Sabha,
Speakers and former Speak-ers of State Assem-blies, Chief Minist-ers and
former Chief Ministers, Governors and former Governors, former Prime
Ministers, Chief Editors of major News-Papers, prominent Journal-ists,
Educationa-lists and Academicians etc;. |
|
8. |
Responses to be received |
By 31.12.2000 |
|
(4)
MINUTES OF THE FOURTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION HELD
ON 26TH AUGUST, 2000
The fourth
meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the office of the
Commission in Vigyan Bhavan Annexe at 10.00 AM on the 26th August,
2000. The meeting was chaired by
Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah.
The list of the participants is at Annex – I.
2. The Chairperson welcomed the Members and the meeting
thereafter took up the agenda items for consideration.
Agenda
Item No. 1: Confirmation of the minutes of the third meeting.
3. The minutes of the third meeting of the Commission held on
8th and 9th July, 2000 were read and confirmed.
Agenda
Item No. 2: Consideration of the recommendations of the Projects and Finance
Committee.
4. The Secretary read out his report on the recommendations
made by the Projects and Finance Committee, a copy of which is at Annex – II.
There was a brief discussion on the report and thereafter the recommendations
of the Committee contained in the Report were accepted.
Agenda
Item No. 3: Review of the progress made in the preparation of ‘Consultation Papers’ and
‘Questionnaires’.
5. The Chairperson explained the reasons why
the preparation of ‘Consultation Papers’ and ‘Questionnaires’ has been
entrusted to the various Research Institutions of repute in the country and not
to the Research Wing of the Commission.
It was felt that the copyright of the ‘Consultation Papers’ and
‘Questionnaires’ prepared by the Institutes should vest in the Commission so
that the Commission can make necessary modifications in the same before
releasing it to the public. The meeting decided that the Member-in- Charge of
the Advisory Panel may write to the Institute concerned and get a confirmation
from it in writing about the copyright being vested in the Commission. Members
explained the present status of the preparation of ‘Consultation Papers’ and
‘Questionnaires’ relating to the subject under their charge.
Agenda
Item No. 4: Requests for grant of extension of time for sending suggestions.
6. The meeting was informed that requests had been received from
certain State Governments, political parties, associations and individuals
seeking extension of time for sending suggestions in response to the
advertisement of the Commission inviting suggestions from public. The Commission agreed that the suggestions
received after 31st July, 2000, which was stipulated as the last
date in the advertisement, may also be considered.
Agenda
Item No. 5: Paper ‘Public Audit and the Comptroller and Auditor General of
India – Reforming the Institution’ by Dr. B.P.Mathur.
7. The
meeting was informed that this paper had been prepared by Dr. B.P. Mathur,
Director of the National Institute of Financial Management, Faridabad who is a
retired Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General of India. Brief comments were
made on the Paper by the Chairperson and certain Members. Dr. Abid Hussain, who is the
Member-in-Charge of the Advisory Panel to which the subject of the paper
relates, suggested that it would be appropriate that this Paper is considered
by the Advisory Panel so that its content and form could be looked into and
suitably modified to make it more understandable by public. The meeting agreed with the suggestion of
Dr. Abid Hussain.
Agenda
Item No. 6: Uniformity in the design of ‘Consultation Papers’ and
‘Questionnaires’.
8. The
Chairperson emphasized the need to have a uniformity in the design of
‘Consultation Papers’ and ‘Questionnaires’, which are being drafted by
different Institutes. The meeting agreed that there has to be certain amount of
uniformity in ‘Consultation Papers’ and ‘Questionnaires’ and the same have to be
of a very high quality and presentable. It was decided that help of experts in
the field may be taken for the purpose and the experts may be identified by the
Projects and Finance Committee. The meeting agreed that that the format of the
Questionnaires has to be computer friendly so that the responses to the same
could be machine readable. It was also decided that the ‘Questionnaires’ may
have to be accompanied with self addressed envelopes when these are sent to the
individuals for response.
Agenda
Item No. 7: Any other item.
9. Dr.
Abid Hussain suggested that copies of important articles/news items published
in the reputed magazines and newspapers relating to the subject matter
concerning a member may be supplied to him by the Commission’s Secretariat. The meeting agreed to this suggestion.
10. There was some discussion on the issue ‘whether the
Commission may hold discussions with senior political leaders, leading
journalists and NGOs on certain important issues of national interest’.
However, there was no final decision in this regard.
11. The meeting thereafter ended with a vote of thanks to the
Chair.
(Dr. Raghbir Singh)
Secretary to the Commission
To
All the
Members of the Commission
ANNEX-I
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE FOURTH MEETING
1.
Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah (In Chair)
2.
Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy
7.
Shri K. Parasaran
8.
Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap
9.
Shri C.R. Irani
10.
Dr. Abid Hussain
11.
Dr. Raghbir Singh, Secretary
ANNEX II
REPORT OF
THE SECRETARY ON RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PROJECTS AND FINANCE COMMITTEE AND ACTION PROPOSED THEREON
The
‘Projects and Finance Committee’ of the Commission held its first meeting on 27.07.2000. The Committee, inter-alia, has made
the following recommendations:-
(i)
Earmarking of the amounts specified below towards meeting
expenses on finalization of consultation papers etc.:
(a)
Rs.20 lakh to meet
the expenses on preparation of consultation papers and questionnaires in all
the ten areas identified by the Commission;
(b)
Rs.13 lakh for meeting expenses on travel, etc. of the
Chairperson and Members of all the ten Advisory Panels.
(ii)
The ceiling on fee for final preparation of a paper and
questionnaire on a topic be kept at Rs.1 lakh.
Cases involving payment of higher amounts would be considered by the
Committee on merit.
(iii)
The fee payable is to be released to research institutions
in three instalments as under:
(a)
The first instalment of 25% of the total fee payable to be
released when the institution was identified and asked to commence the work;
(b)
The second instalment of 25% of the total fee payable to be
released when the initial draft of the consultation paper and questionnaire
were received from it;
(c)
Balance 50% of the total fee payable to be released after
the consultation paper and the questionnaire were finally approved.
2. With
regard to payments to be made to individual institutions for preparation of
consultation papers and questionnaires, the following recommendations have been
made by the Committee:
(i)
Payment of Rs.1 lakh to the Centre for Policy Research for
final preparation of each of the four consultation paper along with
questionnaire, which that Centre had been asked to prepare.
(ii)
Payment of Rs.1.5 lakh to the Institute of Constitutional
and Parliamentary Studies for final preparation of the consultation paper and
questionnaire on “Party System in India: An Agenda for Reforms”.
3.
Funds to the Centre for Policy Research and the Institute of
Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies on the lines of the recommendations
made by the Committee are proposed to be released after the Commission has
accepted the recommendations of the Committee.
Funds to other institutions would be released in instalments as
recommended by the Committee as soon as the fee payable to them was settled.
(Dr.
Raghbir Singh)
Secretary
21.08.2000
(5)
The
Fifth meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the Office
of the Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, at 10.00 a.m. on 29th
December, 2000. The meeting was chaired
by Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah.
The list of participants is at Annexure.
The Hon’ble
Chairperson extended a warm welcome to the Members and requested the Secretary
to take up the Agenda.
Item 1: Confirmation of the minutes of the fourth meeting
The
minutes of the fourth meeting of the Commission held on 26th August,
2000 were taken as read and confirmed.
Item 2: Consideration
whether the Consultation Papers on “Review of Election Law, Processes and Reform Options” and
“Review of Working of the Political Parties specially in relation to Elections
and Reform Options” which are presently for consideration before the Projects
and Finance Committee could be taken up by the Commission itself as all the
Members of the Projects and Finance Committee are Members of the Commission”.
The meeting discussed the
two Consultation Papers in depth and thereafter authorized the Hon’ble
Chairperson and the Member-in-charge, Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap to finalise the
Papers in the light of the observations made by the members in the meeting.
Item 3: Consideration of the Consultation Paper on “Treaty-making Power
under our Constitution”.
The
discussion on this item began with the Hon’ble Chairperson explaining the
various provisions of the Constitution on the subject and giving a brief
background of the Consultation Paper.
Thereafter, the meeting discussed and approved the Consultation Paper
and it was decided that a questionnaire should be prepared and attached to the
Paper before its release for public debate.
Item 4: Consideration of the Consultation Paper on “Liability of the
State in Tort and Sovereign Immunity”
The Hon’ble Chairperson explained in brief
the background of the Consultation Paper and pointed out that the provisions of
the Paper are relatable to article 300 of the Constitution and may necessitate
a suitable amendment to that Article in view of the developments that had taken
place in the area over 50 years since the commencement of the
Constitution. The Paper was approved
for release for public debate. However,
it was decided that an appropriate questionnaire should be prepared and
appended to the Paper before it is released for public debate.
Item 6: Consideration of the Consultation
Paper on “Immunity of Legislators – What do the words ‘In respect of anything said or any vote given by
him’ in article 105(2) signify?”
The
meeting discussed this Consultation Paper in detail. The members emphasized
that any proposed scheme of change of law should not impinge on the privileges
and rights of the members of legislatures.
The meeting approved the paper subject to certain modifications on these
lines. It was also decided that an
appropriate questionnaire be prepared and appended to the Consultation Paper
before it is released for public debate.
Item 7: Consideration of the Consultation
Paper on “Public Audit and the Comptroller and Auditor General of India – Reforming the Institution”
After
discussing the Consultation Paper in detail, the meeting approved the same and
decided to release it for public debate.
It was,
however, made clear that in respect of all the five Consultation Papers at
items 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, the views expressed or suggestions contained therein
did not reflect the final views of the Commission but the Consultation Papers
were meant for the sole purpose of generating a public debate and discussion.
Item
8: Consideration of the progress
made in regard to the Consultation Paper on “Pace of Socio-Economic Change
under the Constitution”
The
Commission made a comprehensive review of the progress of the work and took
note of the notes on agenda prepared and circulated by the Secretary.
Dr. Abid
Hussain informed the meeting that four Consultation Papers were being prepared
in relation to the Advisory Panel under his charge and these papers would be
finalized by the end of January, 2001.
Shri Soli
J. Sorabjee informed that Consultation Paper on “Enlargement of Fundamental
Rights” was under preparation and would be finalized soon.
The meeting decided that preparation of the
Consultation Paper on “Effectuation of Fundamental Duties” might be entrusted
to the Citizenship Development Society, New Delhi, after consultation with the Member-in-charge, Shri C.R. Irani.
Item 10: Consideration of the Report of the Secretary on the meetings
of various Advisory
Panels and Projects and
Finance Committee
The Commission took note of
and placed on record the Report of the Secretary.
Item 11: Any other item:
The
Hon’ble Chairperson informed the meeting that Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Principal
Scientific Advisor to the Government of India intends to interact with the
members and the Chairperson of the Commission and was also desirous of making a
presentation. It was decided that the
Chairperson could invite Dr. Abdul Kalam to meet with the members of the Commission at the next
meeting of the Commission.
The
Hon’ble Chairperson also informed the meeting that the members of the
Minorities Commission intend to have a meeting with the Members of the
Commission. It was decided that a
meeting with the Members of the Minorities Commission could be fixed to be held
in the forenoon of 1st February, 2001.
The
meeting was informed by the Hon’ble Chairperson that a number of
representations relating to certain matters like the protection of the
interests of the Sindhi Community; the inclusion of Maithili language in the
Eighth Schedule; demands from the various Sections of Akalis; issues relating
to Coorgis of Karnataka State; problems of the Denotified Tribes, etc. have
been received and needed to be examined.
The Commission was of the view that these
representations may be allocated to Members who, after examining the matter and
after such enquiry as they may consider proper, may formulate what, in their
opinion, should be the view they should commend themselves to the Commission
and place them before the full Commission.
The representations/petitions that need to be taken up are the
following:
(i)
Representation dated 25.8.2000 presented by Justice I.S.
Israni on behalf of Sindhi Rights Committee;
(ii)
Representation dated 20.4.2000 received from Shri K.T. Rohra
on behalf of the International Sindhi Forum;
(iii)
Representation dated 13.7.2000 received from Shri Ram Tolani
on behalf of Sindhu Bhartiya Samata Sangathan;
(iv)
Representation dated 26.5.2000 received from Shri J.T.
Wadhwani on behalf of Bhartiya Sindhu Sabha;
(v)
Representation received from Dr. Nanakram Israni, President,
All India Sindhi Samaj;
(vi)
Representation dated 31.7.2000 received from Ms. Mahashweta
Devi, on behalf of De-Notified and Nomadic Tribals Rights Action Group;
(vii)
Representation dated 4.10.2000 received from Shri Tarakanth
Jha on behalf of Mithilanchal Vikas Manch for inclusion of Maithili in the
Eighth Schedule of the Constitution;
(viii)
Representation dated 25.7.2000 submitted by Shri Teja Singh
on behalf of Sardar Kapur Singh Memorial Trust;
(ix)
Memorandum submitted by Shri Prakash Singh Badal, CM of
Punjab, on behalf of Shiromani Akali Dal;
(x)
Representation dated 25.9.2000 received from Maj. General
Narindar Singh on behalf of the Institute of Sikh Studies;
(xi)
Memorandum dated 31.7.2000 submitted by Shri Gurcharan Singh
Tohra, MP, on behalf of Sarb Hind Shiromani Akali Dal;
(xii)
Memorandum submitted on 21.11.2000 by Shri N.U. Nachhappa on
behalf of the Coorg National Council;
(xiii)
Representation dated 28.12.2000 received from Shri N.S.
Deviprasad on behalf of Kodagu Prajavedike (about Coorgis);
(xiv)
Memorandum submitted on 13.10.2000 by the Chairman, UPSC;
(xv)
Note dated 21.12.2000 received from the Registrar on behalf
of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi;
(xvi)
Representation dated 4.9.2000 submitted by Shri Ramvao
Longkham on behalf of the Sixth Schedule Demand Committee, Manipur.
(xvii)
Representation dated 17th April, 2000, received
from Dr. Mumtaz Ahmed Khan, Chairman, All India Muslim Educational
Co-ordination Committee;
(xviii)
Representation dated
23.6.2000 received from Dr. M.
Ejaz Ali, National Convenor, All India Backward Muslim Morcha.
The
Hon’ble Chairperson informed that a Delhi based organization known as ‘People
First, instituting good governance’ wants to have interaction with the
Commission. It was decided that a
meeting with them might be fixed according to mutual convenience.
The
meeting decided that the Consultation Papers and Questionnaires on the subjects
mentioned at item numbers 2 to 7 should be released on 8th January,
2001 both in paper print and on the website of the Commission for generating
public debate and discussion.
It was
decided to hold the next meeting of the Commission on 31st January,
2001 at 2.30 p.m., and on the subsequent day/days depending on the exigencies
of work.
The
meeting thereafter ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
(Raghbir
Singh)
Secretary
to the Commission
All the Members of the Commission.
ANNEXURE
1.
Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah (In Chair)
2.
Hon’ble Justice R.S. Sarkaria
3.
Hon’ble Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy
4.
Hon’ble Justice Shri Kottapalli Punnayya
5.
Shri Soli J. Sorabjee
6.
Shri K. Parasaran
7.
Dr. Abid Hussain
8.
Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap
9.
Smt. Sumitra G. Kulkarni
10.
Dr. Raghbir Singh, Secretary
(6)
MINUTES OF THE SIXTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION HELD
ON WEDNESDAY, THE 31st
JANUARY, 2001
The
sixth meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the Office
of the Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, at 2.30 p.m. on 31st
January, 2001. The meeting was chaired
by Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah.
The list of participants is at Annexure.
2. The
Hon’ble Chairperson extended a warm welcome to the Members and requested the
Secretary to take up the Agenda.
3. The
Minutes of the Fifth Meeting were taken as read and confirmed subject to the
modification of the Minutes under item No. 6.
Modified version of the confirmed minutes is as under:
“Item
6: Consideration of the Consultation
Paper on “Immunity of Legislators – What do the words ‘in respect of anything
said or any vote given by him’ in article 105(2) signify?”.
The meeting discussed this
Consultation Paper in detail. The
meeting approved for circulation the paper subject to certain
modifications. It was also decided that
an appropriate questionnaire be prepared and appended to the Consultation Paper
before it is released for public debate.”
Item No.
2: Consideration of the progress
made in finalization of the Consulta-
tion Papers.
4. The Commission made a comprehensive
review of the progress in regard to the finalization of the following
Consultation Papers:
i)
Pace of Socio-economic Change under the Constitution.
ii)
Parliamentary Reforms.
iii)
Article 356 of the Constitution.
iv)
Institution of Governor under the Constitution.
v)
Remedies for Misfeasance in Public Office.
vi)
Constitutional Response to Good Governance and
Macro-economic Management.
vii)
Legal Control of Monetary and Fiscal Policy.
5. It was noted that the Consultation
Paper at Sl. No. (i) was discussed in detail in the meeting of the Advisory
Panel held on 30th January, 2001 under the Chairpersonship of Justice Dr. K. Ramaswamy and that the Advisory Panel is likely to
finalize the Consultation Paper in its next meeting to be held during the third
week of February, 2001.
6. The meeting was informed that the
Consultation Papers at Sl. Nos. (ii) to (v) above were at advanced stages of
scrutiny and would be finalized very soon.
7. The meeting was informed that draft
Consultation Paper in respect of topic at Sl. No. (vi) had been received from Shri N.L. Mitra,
former Director, National Law School of India, Bangalore, and would be placed
before the Advisory Panel.
8. In respect of the Consultation Paper at
Sl. No. (vii), the Commission was informed that the initial draft had been
received and the final draft would be forwarded by the Chairperson of the
Advisory Panel very soon.
Item
3: Review of the progress of preparation
of other Consultation Papers
and Questionnaires.
9. Secretary made a presentation about the
progress in respect of other Consultation Papers and Questionnaires. The meeting was informed that the
Consultation Paper & Questionnaire on ‘Municipalities’ was being prepared
by the All India Institute of Local Self Government (Nagarpalika Network), New
Delhi, and the Institute had informed on 29th January,2001 that the
draft would be submitted to the Advisory Panel within a few days.
10. The Consultation Paper &
Questionnaire on ‘Panchayats’ was being prepared by the Institute of Social
Sciences, New Delhi. The Institute has
informed on 30th January, 2001 that the draft would be sent by 15th
February, 2001.
11. The Commission was also informed that the
Consultation Paper and Questionnaire on “Enlargement of Fundamental Rights”
would be finalized by the Advisory Panel within three weeks. Regarding the Consultation Paper and
Questionnaire on “Effectuation of Fundamental Duties”, the meeting was informed
that a communication had been received on 31.1.2001 from the Citizenship
Development Society, indicating their willingness to undertake the assignment. The question of entrustment of preparation
of the Consultation Paper & Questionnaire to the Society and the
consultation fee to be fixed, etc., would be discussed and finalized very soon.
The meeting was also informed that Shri Shiv Visvanathan of the Centre for the
Study of Developing Societies, Delhi, who has been asked to prepare the
Consultation Paper and Questionnaire on “Effectuation of Directive Principles
and Achievement of Preambular Objectives of the Constitution”, met the
Member-in-charge of the Advisory Panel and the Chairperson of the Commission on
31.1.2001 and has promised to send the draft of the Paper within six
weeks. The Projects and Finance
Committee will be requested to take-up the question of the quantum of the
consultation fee.
Items 4 & 5: Consideration of the request of the
Minorities Council, Aligarh
dated 16th January, 2001 requesting for
interaction with the
Commission
and representation dated 13th January, 2001, from Smt. Bader Sayeed, Advocate, Chennai.
12. The Meeting took up item Nos. 4 and 5
together. It was decided that a list of
all the prominent organizations which had submitted representations for
interaction with the Commission be
compiled and submitted before the Commission so that a decision could be taken
thereon.
Item 6: Any other item
13. With the permission of the Hon’ble
Chairperson the following Papers were circulated during the meeting :
(i)
‘Peoples’ Awareness of the Indian Constitution and the
Review Process’ received from the
Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi and
(ii)
‘Working of Parliament and Need for Reforms’ submitted by
Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap .
The
Secretary was requested to forward item (ii) above to Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan
who is finalizing the Consultation Paper on ‘Working of the Legislatures’.
14. The meeting agreed to the suggestion
that Hindi version of the Summary of Consultation Papers may also be made
available for making the public debate/ discussion more meaningful.
15. The Office was asked to tabulate the
responses and suggestions received from the public in response to the
Consultation Papers and Questionnaires and circulate the same amongst Members.
16. It was decided that the next meeting
shall be held in the last week of February, 2001. The Hon’ble Chairperson was authorized to decide about the exact
date of the meeting of the Commission.
The meeting thereafter ended with a vote of thanks to the
Chair.
(Raghbir Singh)
Secretary
To
All the Members of the Commission
ANNEXURE
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE SIXTH MEETING
1. Hon’ble
Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah (In Chair)
6.
Shri K. Parasaran
(7)
MINUTES OF THE SEVENTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION HELD
ON THE 31ST MARCH AND 1ST
APRIL, 2001
The
seventh meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the
Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, at 10 a.m. on 31st March and 1st
April, 2001. The meeting was chaired by
Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah.
The list of participants is at Annexure.
2. The
Hon’ble Chairperson extended a warm welcome to the Members and requested the Secretary
to take up the Agenda.
3. The Minutes of the Sixth Meeting were
taken as read and confirmed.
Item 2: Consideration of
the Consultation Paper on “Pace of Socio- Economic Change under the
Constitution”.
4. The Commission was informed that the Advisory Panel had
thoroughly considered the Consultation Paper in the two meetings held on
16.2.2001 and 29.3.2001 and had approved it in principle; however some
editorial modifications and some elaborations were still to be carried out. All
the Members endorsed that it was a good Paper. Some of the Members expressed
their views on the Paper. It was generally felt that the box at the bottom of
the title page of the Paper needed slight modification and the words “are
not the final views of the Commission but” need to be deleted and
thereafter the contents of the said box should read “The views expressed and
suggestions contained in this Paper are intended for the sole purpose of
generating a public debate and eliciting public responses.” The meeting
agreed that the Secretariat of the Commission would carry out the necessary
modifications consequent to the deliberations of the Advisory Panel and then
circulate the Paper to all the Members of the Commission for their
comments/suggestions, who may convey them to the Secretary within a period of
15 days. These suggestions would be
suitably incorporated in the Paper before the Hon’ble Chairperson finally
approved it for being released for public debate and eliciting public
responses. Subject as aforesaid, the Consultation Paper was approved for
release.
Item 3: Consideration of the Consultation Paper on “The Institution of Governor under the
Constitution and Article 356 of the Constitution”;
5. This
Paper was discussed at the meeting and it was generally agreed that it was well
drafted. However, a few Members
informed that they had not been able to study the Paper in detail. The meeting, therefore, agreed that the
Members may submit their comments/suggestions, if any, on the Paper to the
Secretary within a period of 15 days. These would be incorporated in the paper.
Subject to this procedure, the Consultation Paper was approved for release.
Item 4: Consideration of the Consultation Paper
on “Enlargement of Fundamental Rights”
6. The meeting was informed that this
Paper had been approved by the Advisory Panel in its meeting held on 16.2.2001.
The salient features of the Paper were explained and it was pointed out that
the majority of the rights contained in the Paper were deducible from or merely
emanations of the judgments of the Supreme Court of India and some of them had
already been found in the international covenants, to which India was a
signatory. The meeting discussed the
Paper in detail. A note containing some
comments on this Paper was circulated at the meeting. The meeting agreed that any Member desirous of submitting his comments/suggestions on the Paper might send
the same to the Secretary within a period of 15 days so that it could be
suitably incorporated in the Paper before the Hon’ble Chairperson finally
approved it for being released for public debate and eliciting public
responses. Subject as aforesaid, the Consultation Paper was approved.
Item 5: Consideration of the progress made in
regard to finalization of the Consultation Papers on (i) Parliamentary Reforms
and (ii) Local Self-Government: Municipalities
7. Parliamentary
Reforms: The meeting was informed
that two drafts – one prepared by Centre for Policy Research (Shri A. Surya
Prakash) and second prepared by Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan, of Lok Satta, who is
also a Member of the Advisory Panel have been received. The Hon’ble Chairperson
felt that both the drafts fell short of the requirements as Consultation Papers
which touched certain imperatives that made the parliamentary system in India
meaningful. It was also felt that the
Papers overlapped the Consultation Papers on Electoral Reforms. The meeting decided to request the Secretary
of the Commission to have the fresh Consultation Paper drafted by 22nd
April, 2001 and place the same before the Commission.
8. Decentralisation And Devolution : Consultation Paper on
“Local Self-Government: Municipalities”:
The meeting was informed that the draft Paper prepared by the
Nagarpalika Network of the “All India Institute of Local Self Government” was
discussed in the meeting of the concerned Advisory Panel held on 22.3.2001,
when in addition to the Members of the Advisory Panel, Shri George Mathew,
Director of the Institute of Social
Sciences which was entrusted with the work of preparation of the Consultation
Paper on ‘Panchayats’, was also present as a special invitee. The
Advisory Panel proposed to merge the
papers on ‘Local Self-Government: Municipalities’ and ‘Panchayats’ and trifurcate the same into three papers, namely,
first relating to the election aspects, the second relating to functional
domain and the third relating to
the planning aspects of Panchayats and Municipalities. However, the Secretary explained that at the instance of the Advisory Panel, all
State Governments have been requested to intimate the present status of
implementation of the 73rd and 74th Amendments of the
Constitution, for the purpose of preparation of the Consultation Papers. The Chief Secretaries of the States in the
North-East have also been addressed separately asking for the information about
the working of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and the Panchayats
(Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996.
In both the above said communications, the States have been requested to
furnish the information by 30th April, 2001. It was also explained
that unless replies were received from the State Governments, the Advisory
Panel may not be able to finalise the draft of the Consultation Paper. The
meeting agreed that it may not be possible to wait for the responses from all
the State Governments beyond a period of time and the Advisory Panel should
finalise the Consultation Paper at the earliest so that the same was available
to the Commission by 15th May, 2001. It was decided that the Commission endorsed the idea of three
papers instead of two as originally planned, provided that it had no additional
financial implications and the drafts of all the papers were available to the
Commission by 15th May, 2001.
Item 6: Review of the progress of preparation of other Consultation
Papers and Questionnaires; total number of Consultation Papers to be finalized
and approved:
9. The
Secretary submitted a statement indicating the present status of all the Consultation Papers. The meeting took on record the statement and
discussed in detail the progress regarding drafting of each of the Consultation
Papers.
10. Regarding the Consultation Paper on ‘Literacy; Employment and
Social Security’, the meeting was informed that the draft from the Institute
for Social and Economic Change fell short of the requirements. Later Dr. N. C. Saxena, Secretary, Planning
Commission, and member of the concerned Advisory Panel gave some inputs. The meeting emphasized that immediate steps
need to be taken by the Member-in-Charge to ensure that the Consultation Paper
was finally ready by 15th May, 2001.
11. The meeting considered the six proposed Consultation Papers
under the subject ‘Union-State Relations’. The topic was redesignated “Union-
State Relations under the Constitution : Working of the Federal Text”. After a brief discussion, it was agreed that
there was no need to have a separate Consultation Paper on the topic ‘Sarkaria
Commission: 15 Years on’. The meeting noted that it had already considered the
Consultation Paper on the ‘Institution of Governor Under the Constitution and
Article 356 of the Constitution’. The
meeting agreed that there was need to finalise the other Consultation Papers
latest by 15th May, 2001.
12. The meeting was informed that the Citizenship Development
Society, New Delhi, had entrusted the work of drafting the Consultation Paper
on ‘Effectuation of Fundamental Duties’ to a team headed by Shri P.P. Rao and
Justice Shri Shiv Dayal. The draft, it
was mentioned, was likely to be finalized within about a week. The Advisory Panel would be able to meet
thereafter and finalise the Consultation Paper by the end of April, 2001.
13. Regarding the Consultation Paper on ‘Effectuation of
Directive Principles’, the meeting was informed that Shri Shiv Visvanathan of
the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies had promised to send the draft
by 31.3.2001. The meeting agreed that
Shri Visvanathan might be requested to finalise the draft soon so that the
Advisory Panel could meet and discuss it.
14. The progress in the preparation of other Consultation Papers
and Questionnaires was also considered by the Commission.
Item 7: Consideration of
the pattern of release of the report of the Commission - whether it may be
released in instalments – topic wise:
15. There was a detailed discussion on the
subject and different views were expressed.
The meeting came to the
conclusion that even though the report
had to be in several parts and finalized topic-wise in stages, these might all
be released together at the final stage.
Item 8: Consideration
of the requests of prominent organizations for interaction with the Commission:
16. A list of all the prominent
organizations, who have made requests for interaction with the Commission was
circulated to all the Members. The
Hon’ble Chairperson referred to his proceedings dated 3.1.2001 whereby he had
allocated some petitions/representations to the Members/groups of Members for
their consideration and suggesting a course of action to be taken by the
Commission thereon. He suggested that
the representations from the various organizations could similarly be assigned
by the Chairperson to the Members/group of Members for considering the requests
and recommending the course of action thereon.
The meeting endorsed the suggestion.
Item 9: Consideration of
the request from Justice Shri M.C. Jain, Lokayukta, Rajasthan, for conferment
of constitutional status on the Institution of Lokayuktas and Upa-Lokayuktas.
1. The meeting agreed that the issue of
conferment of constitutional status on the Institution of Lokayuktas and
Upa-Lokayuktas was a larger issue and
the Commission would take it up at the appropriate time. It was decided that the papers received in
this regard may be forwarded to the Member-in-charge of the Advisory Panel I.
Item10: Presentation
by Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, Principal Scientific Advisor to the
Government of
India:
18. Dr. A.P. J. Abdul Kalam made a
presentation on the India Millennium Missions 2020 at 11.30 hours on
31.3.2001. After the presentation, Dr.
Kalam also had a brief discussion on the points raised by the Members.
Item 11: General discussion
on the broad objectives and purposes of the review of the working of the
Constitution so as to integrate the exercise with the vision of new India of
future:
19. There was a general discussion. The Members expressed their views indicating the vision,
objectives and purposes of the Constitution which the founding fathers had
envisaged and how far these aims and objectives had been achieved in the
working of the Constitution during the last 50 years. The meeting also discussed the reasons which were responsible for
non-achievement of the aims of the founding fathers – whether these were
institutional inadequacies or the persons manning the institutions had not come
up to the expectations. The Members
were requested to send in writing, their views as this important aspect of the
vision and objectives of the review of the Constitution’s working so that they
could be had in mind while drafting the report.
Item 12: Report of
Secretary about the responses to the Consultation Papers and Questionnaires,
received so far from the State Governments/Political Parties, etc.
20. The Report submitted by Secretary on the item was taken on
record. The meeting desired that all
the responses received in the Commission may be ledgerised and summarized for circulation amongst the Members by the 15th April,
2001.
Item 13: Any
other item, with the permission of the Chair.
(i)
With the permission of the Chair, the Secretary raised the
issue of payment of professional fee for preparation of the Consultation Paper
on ‘Decentralization in the Tribal Context’.
The meeting was informed that, with the approval of the Projects and
Finance Committee, it was decided to pay a fee of Rs. 50,000/- to the
North-East Hill University (NEHU) for this Paper. Prof. Apurva K. Baruah, Deptt. Of Political Science, NEHU was to
prepare the Paper and a sanction order was accordingly issued by the Commission
in favour of NEHU. The meeting was
informed that the Chairperson of the Advisory Panel had recommended that the
sanction order may be modified and made in favour of “North-East Indian Social
Science Congress (NEISSCONG)” which is presided over by Prof. Mrinal Miri, Vice
Chancellor, NEHU, Prof. Baruah being
its General Secretary. The meeting
approved the proposal as the Member-in-charge of the Advisory Panel had
endorsed it.
(ii)
With the permission of the Chair, the meeting
discussed the question of prescribing time limit for all the Advisory
Panels/institutions/experts to finalise the Consultation Papers so that the
Commission was able to consider the same and complete its task within
time. The Meeting decided that
letters of request may be sent to the Members-in-charge, Chairpersons of the
Advisory Panels, resource-institutions/experts to the effect that the
Consultation Papers should be made available to the Commission latest by the 15th
May, 2001 as else it might not be possible for the Commission to keep-up its
time-schedule.
(iii)
The meeting nominated the Secretary as the
Member-Secretary of all the Advisory Panels, in order to facilitate quick finalisation
of the Consultation Papers.
(iv)
The meeting also considered the question of drafting
of the topic wise draft paragraphs of the Report on the Consultation Papers
based on the responses received so far thereon. It was emphasized that this work had to be commenced in right
earnest so that the draft Report was available by 15th September,
2001 for the detailed scrutiny of the Commission. The Secretary was requested to work out a frame work as regards
the classification of topics to be covered by the parts of the final report.
The
meeting thereafter ended with vote of thanks to the Chair.
(RAGHBIR SINGH)
Secretary
To
All
Members of the Commission
ANNEXURE
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE SEVENTH MEETING
1. Hon’ble
Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah (In Chair)
(8)
MINUTES OF THE EIGHTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION HELD
ON THE 8TH AND 9TH
JUNE 2001
The
Eighth meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the
Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, at 10.00 a.m. on 8th and 9th
June, 2001. The meeting was chaired by
Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah.
The list of participants is at Annexure.
2. The
Hon’ble Chairperson extended a warm welcome to the Members and requested the
Secretary to take up the Agenda.
Item: 1. Confirmation of
the minutes of the seventh meeting of
the Commission held on 31st March, 2001 and 1st
April, 2001
3. Dr.
Subhash C. Kashyap pointed out that in the Seventh Meeting, while considering
item No. 5 of the Agenda relating to the progress made in regard to the
finalization of the Consultation Paper on ‘Parliamentary Reforms’, it had been
decided that the Paper submitted by him on the subject in the 6th
meeting on 31.1.2001, should also be taken into consideration while redrafting
the Consultation Paper on ‘Parliamentary Reforms’. This fact had not been brought out in the Minutes.
4. Accordingly,
it was decided that paragraph 7 of the aforesaid Minutes shall be treated as
modified and the following sentence shall be deemed to have been incorporated
in the minutes: -
“While
getting the fresh consultation paper drafted, the Paper submitted by Dr.
Subhash C. Kashyap on the subject, which was circulated during the 6th
meeting of the Commission on 31.1.2001, shall also be taken into account”.
Subject to the above, the Minutes
of the seventh meeting of the Commission were taken as read and confirmed.
Item 2: Consideration of
the Consultation Paper on “Probity in Governance”
5. Before the Consultation
Paper was taken up for consideration, Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap made a point that
there should, as far as possible, be
uniformity in the format of the Consultation Papers. He pointed out that a few
Consultation Papers released earlier had provided for the acknowledgements in
the preface and in some of the others, a reference was made to the composition
of the Advisory Panel also.
6. The meeting
decided that the Consultation Papers should have uniformity and should mention
the names of the Members of the Advisory Panel and the name of its author, in
case the same had not been prepared in-house.
The meeting then took up the Consultation Paper on “Probity in
Governance” and approved the same in principle. It was also decided that an appropriate Questionnaire might also
be prepared and annexed to the Consultation Paper.
7 However,
minor editorial modifications and formatting of the Consultation Paper may be
carried out before the Chairperson finally approved it for being released for
public debate and eliciting public responses.
Shri Soli J. Sorabjee and Shri K. Parasaran were also requested to
discuss some policy issues arising out of the paper before sending it to the
Chairperson.
Item 3: Consideration of
the Consultation Paper on “Effectuation of Fundamental Duties”
8. The
Secretary informed that the Consultation Paper had been discussed thoroughly in
the meeting of the Advisory Panel held on 15.5.2001. The meeting
considered the Paper in
detail. It was decided that the
paragraph 3.3.8 of the Paper needed to be modified by deleting the sub-Para
thereunder mentioning the difference of opinion on whether the contribution of
the Citizenship Development Society, New Delhi to the cause of Citizenship
Development should be included in the Paper or not. The Meeting was of the view that the said aspect need not be
included in the Consultation Paper and this was endorsed by Shri Irani,
Member-in-Charge.
9. The meeting considered paragraph 3.5.1 of the Consultation
Paper regarding the suggestions received for amendment of the Constitution to
ensure full implementation of the Fundamental Duties and decided that the three
suggestions should be re-worded as under:-
(i)
The opening words of article 51A should be reworded as
follows:
“Every
citizen of India shall implement in daily life the following duties”
(ii)
Article 51A should be shifted to Part II (Citizenship) of
the Constitution;
(iii)
Suitable Changes may be carried out to make Fundamental
Duties to form a compendium with Fundamental Rights.
10. Subject to the above, the meeting approved the Consultation
Paper and Questionnaire in principle.
However, minor editorial modifications and formatting of the
Consultation Paper were allowed to be carried out before the Chairperson
finally approved it for being released for public debate and eliciting public
responses.
Item 4: Consideration of
the Progress made in regard to the four Consultation Papers
Appointments
to the Superior Judiciary
11. The meeting was informed that Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy
had prepared the initial draft. The
meeting decided that no separate Consultation
Papers were needed to be prepared
on the topics of judicial delays and judicial reforms but the final report may
have a separate chapter containing all aspects of judicial reforms.
Parliamentary
Reforms
12. The meeting was informed that Prof. Aswini K. Ray of the
Department of Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, had undertaken
the work on this Paper.
Effectuation of Directive
Principles
13. It was noted that the draft Consultation
Paper on the topic received from the
Centre for Developing Societies, New Delhi, was not up to the expectations of
the Commission. The meeting decided
that in view of the time constraints, it would not be advisable to undertake a
redrafting of the Paper. Therefore, the
meeting decided not to take any further action on the said Paper.
14. The meeting noticed that many elements
of the Directive Principles had already been covered in the Consultation Paper
on ‘Pace of Socio-Economic Change under the Constitution’, which was released
for generating public debate and eliciting public response by the Commission
11.5.2001. The meeting, therefore,
decided that while drafting the final Report, all the elements of the Directive
Principles might be taken into consideration.
15. Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy was
requested to draft the said report and for the purpose he could take the
required assistance from Justice Shri M. Jagannadha Rao, Vice-Chairman of the
Law Commission who is also a Member of the Advisory Panel on “Enlargement of
Fundamental Rights”, and of Shri Raju Ramachandran, Member of the Advisory
Panel on “Effectuation of Directive Principles”.
16. As Smt. Sumitra G. Kulkarni,
Member-in-charge of this subject could not attend the meeting, it was decided
that before action on the above lines is initiated, her consent be obtained.
17. The meeting discussed the Consultation
Paper in detail. It was noticed that
article 139A of the Constitution of India provided, inter alia, for transfer of
cases to the Supreme Court if the cases involving same or substantially the
same question of law are pending before two or more High Courts. The meeting decided that the Consultation
Paper should contain an alternative suggestion that if a case challenging a
central legislation on grounds of lack of legislative competence was pending
even before a single High Court, there should be a provision for withdrawal of
the case to the Supreme Court, as such an issue would bear upon the larger
question of distribution of legislative powers between the Union and the
States.
18. Subject to the above, the meeting
approved the Consultation Paper in principle. However, minor editorial
modifications and formatting of the Consultation Paper were allowed to be
carried out including a reference to the nature of issues arising in cases
under Article 131 now pending before the Supreme Court before the Chairperson
finally approved it for being released for public debate and eliciting public
responses.
Item 5: Review of the progress of preparation of other
Consultation Papers and Questionnaires
19. The statement indicating the status of the progress made in
each Consultation Paper, submitted by the Secretary, was taken on record.
20. The meeting took notice of delay in the finalisation of the
Consultation Papers on the topics relating to the Advisory Panel on Legal
Control of Fiscal and Monetary Policies.
It was decided that draft final reports might be prepared on the
following three topics: -
(i)
Legal Control of Monetary and Fiscal Policy;
(ii)
Standards in Public Life: For a corruption free governance;
(iii)
Reforms in Administrative System.
For the purpose, the
Member-in-charge (Dr. Abid Hussain) will hold a meeting on 12.6.2001 with the
various experts including Dr. E.A.S. Sarma, on the subject.
21. The meeting noticed the discussions held by Dr. K.V. Raman,
Director, P.V. Rao Centre for Sustainable Food Security, Chennai, with the
Hon’ble Chairperson and Shri K. Parasaran on 23.5.2001 at Bangalore. It was decided to request Dr. Raman to
prepare draft final reports on the two topics, namely, ‘Literacy’ and ‘Social
Security’. The meeting also decided to
pay an amount of Rs. 60,000/- to Dr. Raman for preparation of each draft
report, as suggested by the Secretary pursuant to discussions had with Dr.
Raman.
Item 6: Report of Secretary about the responses to the
Consultation Papers and Questionnaires, received so far from the Central/State
Governments/Political Parties, etc.
22. The Report
submitted by Secretary on the item was taken on record.
Item 7: Holding
of Seminars on the Consultation Papers
23. The meeting noticed that a Committee of Shri P.A. Sangma, Dr.
Subhash C. Kashyap and Shri C.R. Irani, constituted by the Commission in its
third meeting held on 8th and 9th July, 2000, had
suggested the names of the IIPA, New Delhi, and the ICPS, New Delhi, for
holding of the Seminars.
24. In view of the fresh offers and the discussions held by the
various representatives of National Law Schools and Central Universities, etc.,
the meeting decided that the following ten institutions may organize seminars
and provide the necessary feed back to the Commission:
1. National
Law School of India University, Bangalore
2. West
Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkatta
3. National
Law School of India University, Bhopal
4. National
Law School of India University, Hyderabad
5. Centre for
Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi
6. Mangalore
University, Mangalore
7. Central
Law College, Salem
8. Guru Nanak
Dev University, Amritsar
9. North East
Hill University, Shillong
10. Banaras
Hindu University, Varanasi
25. The meeting agreed that the Commission’s contribution towards
each seminar would be Rs. 40,000/-. The
institution itself will incur the rest of the expenditure for organizing the
seminar. The seminars will be in the
form of ‘informed public debates’ i.e., public will also be involved in
controlled conditions to have public interactive sessions for discussing the
various consultation papers released and the subjects identified by the
Commission. The meeting also decided
that major emphasis should be laid in the seminars on Electoral, Judicial, and
Parliamentary Reforms, being the subjects, which are of larger public interest It was also decided to suggest to the
Universities that emphasis should also be on public interaction and the events
should be made in the nature of public inter-active sessions or informed public
debates.
26. The meeting also noticed that out of the ten institutions
mentioned above, four had already agreed and had been requested to proceed with
the arrangements for the seminars in the month of July, 2001 and the necessary
financial sanctions had also been issued.
27. The draft format for the Final Reports was placed before the
Meeting. After considering the same,
the meeting decided to constitute a committee consisting of Shri K. Parasaran,
Dr. Abid Hussain, and Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap to look into it and suggest the
final format for consideration of the Commission.
28. The Meeting continued on 9th June, 2001 also and
the additional agenda items were taken up as under:
Item 1. To consider whether the remaining consultation papers
which are at various stages of finalisation may now be prepared in the shape of
the draft final report.
29. The meeting was informed about the delay in finalisation of
the remaining Consultation Papers (other than those Consultation papers
released by the Commission on 8.1.2001 and 11.5.2001 and those to which
approval in principle was granted by the Commission on 8.6.2001) and the
limited time available for preparation of the final reports. In the circumstances, the meeting decided
that instead of preparing the Consultation Papers, finalizing them and
releasing the same for public debate and discussion and eliciting public
responses on the topics, draft final reports on the relevant topic be prepared
and placed before the Commission for consideration. The meeting also decided that the above decision would not apply
to the four Consultation Papers relating to the Advisory Panel on
“Decentralization and Devolution; Empowerment & Strengthening of Panchayati
Raj Institutions” and the Consultation Paper on “Appointments to the Superior
Judiciary”, all of which should be finalized at the earliest and released in
the traditional form as Consultation Papers as per the earlier procedure.
Item 2: Consideration
of the letters dated 6.6.2001 received from Justice Shri J. Eswara Prasad,
Chairman, Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property.
30. The meeting considered the letter containing proposals for
amendment of section 2(2) (c) of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange
Manipulators (Forfeiture
of Property) Act, 1976. It was decided that the topic contained in
the proposal would be suitably discussed in the Consultation Paper on “Probity
in Governance”. The second letter
containing proposal for amendment of article 348(1)(a) of the Constitution was
deferred to be taken up at the next meeting.
The
meeting thereafter ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
(RAGHBIR
SINGH)
Secretary
To
All Members of the Commission
ANNEXURE
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE EIGHTH MEETING
1. Hon’ble
Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah (In Chair)
2. Justice
Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy
5. Shri K.
Parasaran
6. Dr.
Subhash C. Kashyap
7. Shri
C.R. Irani
8. Dr. Abid
Hussain
9. Dr.
Raghbir Singh, Secretary
(9)
MINUTES OF THE NINTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION HELD
FROM THE 20TH TO 22ND JULY 2001
The
Ninth meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the
Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, at 11.00 a.m. on 20th, 21st
and 22nd July, 2001. Hon’ble
Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah chaired the meeting. The list of participants is at Annexure.
2. The
Hon’ble Chairperson extended a warm welcome to the Members and requested the
Secretary to take up the Agenda.
Item: 1. Confirmation of the minutes of the Eighth meeting of the Commission held on 8th and 9th
June, 2001
3. The modified
Minutes of the Eighth Meeting of the Commission held on 8th and 9th
June, 2001 were taken as read and confirmed.
Item 2: Review of the
progress of public interactive sessions/seminars being organized by the
National Law Schools/Universities
4. Secretary explained that the Commission
had identified ten Universities/institutions during the eighth meeting for
organizing seminars. Thereafter, Aligarh Muslim University also agreed to
organize a seminar. An amount of Rs. 40,000/- being the contribution of the
Commission for each seminar has already been released in respect of seven
institutions. In respect of the remaining institutions, the amounts will be
sanctioned as soon as confirmations are received. The meeting was also informed
that the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, Kolkata
conducted public interactive seminar on 7th and 8th July,
2001. The official report from the University has not yet come. Reportedly, it
achieved a high degree of success in presenting the work of the Commission in
proper perspective.
Item 3: Review of the Progress
made in regard to the four Consultation Papers
(i)
Local Self-government: Municipalities
(ii)
Panchayats
(iii)
Decentralization in the Tribal Context
(iv)
73rd Amendment of the Constitution, where
applied in the North-East
5. The meeting was informed that the draft
Consultation Papers had been received on the topics mentioned at (i) and (ii)
above and the same were discussed in the third meeting of the Advisory Panel held
on 20.6.2001. Shri P.A. Sangma,
Member-in-charge of the Advisory Panel, informed the meeting that he would make
all efforts to ensure that the Advisory Panel finalizes the Consultation Papers
by 30.7.2001.
Item 4: Consideration of the Background Papers on
(i) Concurrent Powers of Legislation under List III of the Seventh Schedule;
and (ii) Article 262 and Inter-State Disputes Relating to Water
6. The meeting discussed these Papers in
detail and approved the same in principle subject to editorial modifications
and formatting. It was agreed that
these would not be required to be released for discussion and public debate,
being background papers. When the draft
final report on the subject of Union-State Relations comes up for discussion,
these background papers, to the extent the Commission may approve, could be
integrated into the basic theme of the report and would again be discussed.
Item 5: Review of the progress in drafting of the
Background Papers.
7. The meeting was informed of the present
status of drafting of all the background papers. The meeting agreed that in view of the limited time available
with the Commission for completing its task, all the background papers should
be ready latest by 10th August, 2001.
Item 6 & 7:
Review of the progress in drafting of Volumes I and II of the Final
Report
8. The meeting was informed of the present
status of drafting of Volumes I and II of the Final Report. A time schedule for preparation of the draft
final report containing the contents, estimated length of the topic,
Consultation/Background Papers to be reflected in writing the topic, the name
of persons to prepare the report on each topic and the date of completion of
drafting of the report on the topic was circulated at the meeting. The meeting generally agreed with the broad
design and proposed contents of the two volumes. Regarding the estimated length
of the topics, it was agreed that the limits mentioned could be varied
depending on the requirements. The
meeting decided that in the column indicating the name of the persons
responsible for the preparation of the report, only the names of
Members-in-charge of the subject be mentioned and the names of other persons
who would assist in drafting them, should find a place in the column under the
heading ‘Remarks’. It was agreed that each Member-in-charge should take the
responsibility for the draft final report relating to the topic under his area.
The
meeting decided that there was need to have uniformity of approach in the
structure of the various chapters of the final report since the drafts are to
be prepared by different Members. After
a brief discussion, it was agreed that a chapter on each topic should first,
mention the relevant constitutional provisions in brief; secondly, discuss as
to how the same have worked during last fifty-one years - whether any problems
have arisen in their working; thirdly, evaluate what the various options
available to tackle the said problems are and finally, make the
recommendations.
Item 8: Consideration
of the letter dated 6.6.2001 received from Justice Shri J. Eswara Prasad,
Chairman, Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property.
9. The issues arising out of the letter
regarding inclusion of “National
Appellate Tribunals and Commissions” after “Supreme Court and in every High
Court” in article 348(1)(a) were discussed. The meeting decided that the issue
basically related to the Government’s policy on official language. No specific
decision was taken.
Item 9: Consideration
of the letter dated 26.6.2001 received from Justice Shri M.C. Jain, Lokayukta,
Rajasthan, regarding the Model Lokayukta Bill.
10. The meeting decided that the issues
raised in the letter were relatable to the topic of ‘Probity in governance’ as
well as the area of ‘Union-State
Relations’ and as such these should to be taken up for discussion while
considering draft final reports on these subjects.
Item 10: Consideration
of the letter received from The India Country Office of UNICEF regarding
“Enlargement of Fundamental Rights”.
11. The letter was taken note of by the
meeting and it was decided that the issues raised in the letter could be
considered by the Commission while considering the draft final report on the
topic relating to “Enlargement of Fundamental Rights.”
Items 11 & 12: Consideration
of the letters dated 18th June, 2001 from Shri Syed Shahabuddin and
dated 20th June, 2001 from Shri Dawa Lama, M.P.
12. The issues brought out in these two
letters relating to the rights of religious minorities were considered by the
meeting. The Chairperson explained the background of the matter in brief. Shri
Soli J. Sorabjee, the Member-in-charge of the subject ‘Enlargement of
Fundamental Rights’ informed the meeting the reasons why the Advisory Panel had
not discussed the subject in the Consultation Paper on the topic that had been
approved by the Commission and released for public debate and discussion on 11th
May, 2001. However, as Shri Syed Shahabuddin was to be invited to meet the
Commission, the matter could be discussed further.
Item 13: Report of
the Secretary about the responses to the Consultation Papers and
Questionnaires.
13. The report submitted by the Secretary on
the item was taken on record. A gist of the responses to the Consultation
Papers and Questionnaires received so far from the Central/State Governments/UT
Administrations and Political Parties etc. was circulated to the Members during
the meeting.
Item 14:
Interaction with prominent persons.
14. A list of the prominent persons proposed
to be invited for interaction with the Commission was circulated in the
Meeting. The meeting felt that there was need to prescribe some broad norms
informing the preparation of the list of invitees. It was, however, agreed that
the list might include the names of former Presidents, former Prime Ministers,
former Chief Justices of Supreme Court, former Speakers, former editors of the
national dailies, Chairpersons of the statutory Commissions. It was also agreed
that former Governors, whose number may be in the neighborhood of three, based
on their seniority, be invited. Similarly three to five senior serving
Governors could also be invited.
Item 15: Any other item, with the
permission of the Chair.
15. No item was taken up under this agenda item.
Item 16: Letter received from Shri P.A. Sangma in the matter of
entitlement of persons of foreign origin to hold public offices.
16. The various issues raised in the letter of Shri Sangma were
discussed by the meeting.
Item 17: Letter
received from the Counselor, High Commission of India, Nairobi, suggesting
visit of the Chairperson and other Members of the Commission to Nairobi.
17. The meeting discussed the letter under consideration. The
meeting authorized the Hon’ble Chairperson to take appropriate decision in the
matter.
Item 18: Review of the progress in the disposal of
representations from organizations and bodies in respect of various issues.
18. The meeting was informed that in pursuance of the decision of
the Commission taken in its fifth meeting held on 29.12.2000, the Hon’ble
Chairperson had, vide his proceedings dated 3.1.2001, allocated certain
representations to the Members/Group of Members for examination and
recommending to the Commission the course of action to be taken thereon. The
Hon’ble Chairperson requested the concerned Members to take action on priority
basis so that action could be completed on the representations. If the Members
so desired, they could hear the representationists before taking a view
thereon.
Item 19: Consideration of the
cover design for the final Report;
19. The meeting decided to request Shri C.R. Irani to have a few
samples of cover design for the final report prepared and place the same for
consideration of the Commission. Shri Irani agreed to do so and requested the
Secretary to send a few samples that were submitted before the Commission so
that he could have an idea of the content part of it.
Item 20: Constitution of an
“Editorial Committee” for processing of
final Report on day-to-day basis.
20. The Meeting agreed to request Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap to Chair
the Editorial Committee proposed to be constituted. It was left to the Hon’ble
Chairperson to decide about the other Members/Experts to be included in the
Committee in consultation with Dr. Kashyap.
Item 21: Consideration of the
proposal to fix dates for two meetings each month for at least four days each
in the months of August, September and October 2001.
21. The Hon’ble Chairperson explained the need to have regular
meetings in the next three months in order to complete the task in hand. The
Meeting left it to the Hon’ble Chairperson to decide the dates and duration of
the meetings.
The meeting thereafter ended with
a vote of thanks to the Chair.
(RAGHBIR SINGH)
Secretary
To
All Members
of the Commission
ANNEXURE
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE NINTH MEETING
1. Hon’ble
Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah
(In Chair)
2. Justice
Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy
(10)
MINUTES OF THE TENTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION HELD
FROM THE 23rd TO 25th
AUGUST 2001
The
Tenth meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the
Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, at 10.00 a.m. from 23rd to 25th
August 2001. Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N.
Venkatachaliah chaired the meeting. The
list of participants is at Annexure.
2. The
Hon’ble Chairperson extended a warm welcome to the Members and requested the
Secretary to take up the Agenda.
Item: 1. Confirmation of the minutes of the
Tenth meeting of the Commission held
from 20th to 22nd July, 2001
3. The
meeting decided that the minutes under Item 16 might be substituted with the
following:
“There was
a brief discussion on the issue raised in the letter of Shri Sangma. Further discussion on the issue was deferred.”
Subject to the above, the Minutes
of the ninth Meeting of the Commission held from 20th to 22nd
July 2001 were taken as read and confirmed.
Item 2: Review of the
progress in the preparation of the following Papers on Judiciary:
(i)
Consultation Paper on ‘Procedure for appointment of
Judges of Supreme Court and High Courts’;
(ii)
Background Paper on ‘Financial Autonomy of the
Judicial Branch of the State’.
4. The
meeting was informed that the Consultation Paper on item No. (i) above has been
drafted and the same has been circulated amongst the Members of the Advisory
Panel on 25th July, 2001.
The meeting was also informed about the progress in the drafting of the
Paper on Item (ii) above. The meeting desired that the two Papers should be
finalized before the next meeting and placed before the Commission for
consideration at the next meeting.
5. The
Members were generally of the view that the two Papers would not cover a
comprehensive review of the working of the Judiciary in the country, such as the
quality of the trial systems, judicial delays, cost of litigation,
docket-explosion, the quality of judgments, lack of uniform procedures in the
High Courts, etc. It was decided that
there was need to prepare a Paper covering all these aspects.
6. The
meeting accordingly decided that Prof. N.R. Madhava Menon or, if for any reason
his services are not available, some one else with comprehensive knowledge of
the working of the judicial branch may be requested to prepare a Paper covering
all the above mentioned aspects also taking into account all the existing
Reports/studies available on the subject in the country. The meeting left it to Shri K. Parasaran and
Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap to discuss with Prof. Madhava Menon and persuade him to
undertake the work.
7. The
meeting also indicated that the above Paper should encompass ‘Systemic and
Procedural Reforms’ of Judiciary and Shri K. Parasaran and Dr. Subhash C.
Kashyap were requested to supervise the work and thereafter prepare a draft
final report on the topic.
Item 3: Consideration
of the following Consultation Papers on
‘Decentralisation and Devolution; Empowerment and Strengthening of
Panchayati Raj Institutions’:
(iii)
Panchayats
(iv)
Municipalities
(v)
Empowerment and Strengthening of Local
Self-Government in Cantonments
8. The
meeting discussed these three Consultation Papers in detail and approved the
same in principle. However, the
requisite editorial modifications and
formatting were authorized to be carried out before the Chairperson finally
approved these for being released for public debate and eliciting public
response.
(vi)
Literacy
(vii)
Employment and Social Security
9. The
meeting discussed these Papers in detail and approved the same in
principle. However, the requisite
editorial modifications and formatting of the same were allowed to be carried
out before the Chairperson finally approved these for being released as
Consultation Papers for public debate and eliciting public response.
Item 5. Review of the progress in the preparation of
other Background Papers
10. The progress in drafting of all the remaining background
papers was intimated to the meeting.
The meeting desired that the following background papers might be
finalized and placed before the Commission in its next meeting for approval:
(i)
Parliamentary Reforms
(ii)
Standards in Public Life and Reforms in Administration
(iii)
Constitutional Response to Good Governance and Macro
Economic Management
(iv)
Legal Control of Monetary and Fiscal Policy
11. The meeting was informed that the draft of the Paper on
‘Barriers to Inter-State Trade and Commerce’ had been received from Prof. M.P.
Singh only a day earlier. The meeting
desired that this Paper might be referred to the Advisory Panel concerned for
consideration at the earliest.
12. The meeting was informed that the Paper on ‘Financial
Relations amongst the Union and States was being prepared by Shri P.N. Mittal,
a retired Member of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and the draft was likely
to be received shortly.
Item 6: Review of the progress of public interactive
sessions/seminars being organized by the National Law Schools/Universities
13. The meeting was informed that the seminars had already
been conducted/proposed to be conducted as per the following programme:
(i)
West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences,
Kolkatta on 7-8 July, 2001
(ii)
Mangalore University, Mangalore on 30-31 July, 2001
(iii)
NALSAR University, Hyderabad 25-26 August, 2001
(iv)
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh 6-7 September, 2001
The other Universities had again
been requested to expedite the seminars. The meeting was also informed that in
addition to the National Law Schools/ Universities identified earlier, Assam
University, Silchar had also agreed to organize the seminar and it was proposed
to pay the Commission’s contribution (Rs. 40,000) to them for the proposed
seminar. The meeting endorsed the proposal. The meeting also desired that the
Secretariat should follow up with the North East Hill University for organization
of the seminar and there would be no objection if there were more than one
seminar in the NE region of the country.
Item 7: Consideration of the Cover Design for the Final Report
14. The meeting discussed the Cover Design for the Final Report
as prepared and sent by Shri C.R. Irani and desired to have some more designs,
particularly in relation to the colour combination as well as the content and
size of the font.
Item 8: Review
of the progress in drafting of Volume I of the Final Report
15. A draft compilation of
volume I of the Final Report was circulated at the meeting with the
request that suggestions, if any, may be made after the Members went through
the draft, so that the same could be improved.
Item: 9: Review of the Progress
in drafting of Volume II of the Final Report
16. The meeting discussed the format and broad contents of Volume
II of the Final Report. The Hon’ble Chairperson suggested that a small chapter
on ‘Secularism’ might be added at an appropriate place in the Report. The
meeting agreed to the suggestion.
Item 10: Report of the Secretary about the responses
to the Consultation Papers and
Questionnaires, received so far from the Central/State Governments/Political
Parties, etc.
17. The report of the Secretary on the subject was taken on
record. A summary of the suggestions and responses to the Consultation Papers
and Questionnaires received up to 17th August, 2001, duly
ledgerised, was circulated amongst the Members during the meeting.
Item 11: Review of
the progress made in interaction with prominent persons
18. The meeting reviewed the progress made.
The meeting deliberated upon the desirability of using a tape recorder for
recording the interaction with the prominent persons for facilitating preparation
of the record of discussions. There was no consensus on the issue. The meeting
decided that the draft of summary of discussions prepared by the Secretariat
should first be sent to the dignitary concerned for his approval. After such
approval of the draft, the same should be circulated amongst the Members of the
Commission and can be appropriately used for the purposes of the Report.
Item 12: Any other item, with the permission of the Chair.
19. With the permission of the Chair, a copy of the letter dated
6th August, 2001 received from Professor Iqbal A. Ansari, Secretary
General of the Minorities Council, New Delhi forwarding there with his note of
the discussion of the interaction with the Commission in the meeting held on 22nd
July, 2001 was circulated. The meeting
was of the view the note of discussion sent by Prof Ansari contained his
version of the discussions. The meeting, however, decided that a reply might be
sent to Prof. Ansari acknowledging his letter and informing him that the Secretariat
of the Commission had prepared their own record of the discussions for being
placed before the Commission.
20. It was generally agreed that the next meetings of the
Commission might be held from 6th to 12th September and
from 17th to 30th September, 2001. However, the Hon’ble Chairperson
was authorized to fix the actual dates for the meetings after ascertaining the
convenience of the members. The
Chairperson stressed the importance of the presence and participation of all
the Members at the future meetings, which were crucial to the quality of the
Final Report.
The meeting thereafter ended with
a vote of thanks to the Chair.
(RAGHBIR SINGH)
Secretary
To
All Members of the Commission
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE TENTH MEETING
1. Hon’ble
Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah (In
Chair)
2. Justice
Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy (not
present on 25th August)
8.
Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap
(11)
MINUTES OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
HELD ON 15TH, 17TH AND 18TH SEPTEMBER, 2001
(AS REVISED IN 12TH MEETING)
The
Eleventh meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the
Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, at 10.30 a.m. on 15th, 17th
& 18th September 2001.
Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah chaired the meeting. The list of participants is at Annexure.
2. The
Hon’ble Chairperson extended a warm welcome to the Members and requested the
Secretary to take up the Agenda.
Item 1. Confirmation of
the Minutes of the Tenth Meeting of the
Commission held from 23rd to 25th August 2001;
3. The
Minutes of the Tenth Meeting of the Commission held from 23rd to 25th
August 2001 were taken as read and confirmed.
Item 2. Consideration of
the following Consultation Papers on Judiciary:
(viii)
Superior
Judiciary;
(ix)
Financial
Autonomy of the Indian Judiciary.
4. The Meeting discussed these two
Consultation Papers in detail. Dr.
Subhash C. Kashyap desired to know as to whether the concerned Advisory Panel
had approved the Consultation Papers.
He also desired to know as to whether the Projects and Finance
Committee, which had been constituted to consider all the Consultation Papers
before their submission to the Commission, had approved the Consultation
Papers. The Secretary informed the
meeting that the Consultation Papers had the approval of the Advisory Panel but
in view of the time constraint and the Papers being in-house preparations,
these had not been placed before the Projects and Finance Committee. The Hon’ble Chairperson decided that the
Papers be placed before the Projects and Finance Committee in the first
instance and only after its approval the Consultation Papers be placed before
the Commission.
5. The Consultation Papers were,
accordingly, placed before the P&F Committee immediately. The Papers as
approved by the P&F Committee on 18.9.2001 were again placed before the
meeting of the Commission.
6. Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap stated that
according to the earlier decision of the Commission three complete and
integrated Consultation Papers were required to be prepared on the working
of - (i) The Executive, (ii) The
Legislature and (iii) The Judiciary but so far no such complete and integrated
Consultation Paper had been prepared on any of the three topics. The two Consultation Papers relating to the
Judiciary under consideration of the Commission did not, according to the
Member, give the complete picture regarding the working of the Judiciary during
the last 51 years. If these papers were
released for eliciting public responses it might invite criticism that the
Commission had omitted to consider the various other important aspects about
the working of the judiciary.
7. The Chairperson explained that Prof.
N.R. Madhava Menon was requested to prepare a Paper on many other aspects
relating to the working of the judiciary. This project was to be under the
guidance of Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap and Shri K. Parasaran. In the very nature of things, the issues
relating to the appointments, transfer and removal of judges of the Supreme
Court and the High Courts, the financial autonomy of the superior courts have
their own distinct features and that at least, at the stage of invoking a
public debate, they need to be dealt with distinctly.
8. Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap made the
following suggestions about the judiciary for being taken up for discussion by
the Commission at the appropriate time: -
(i)
Intensive training and orientation programmes should be
organized for the members of the Judiciary at all levels at the time of their
entry.
(ii)
There should be refresher courses for upgradation of
training and orientation programmes at regular intervals during the service for
judicial officers from the lowest to the highest courts.
(iii)
Similar training camps need to be organized for the lawyers
for improving their professional skills and responsibilities.
(iv)
There should be regulation of fee of the lawyers on the
basis of their classification as categories, say A, B, C, etc.
(v)
Cash payment of professional fees to the lawyers should be
made illegal.
(vi)
Limits should be prescribed on adjournments in courts.
(vii)
The Judgments given by the Courts should not be unduly
lengthy. Plurality and prolixity of judgments should be discouraged.
(viii)
There should be only one judgment, whether unanimous or by a
majority. There need not be any concurring or dissenting judgments.
(ix)
Written arguments should be permitted and encouraged.
(x)
The judges should not make laws or amend the Constitution by
interpreting the same. The function of working of the Constitution and applying
its provisions has been entrusted to various functionaries such as Speaker,
Police and Magistrates, in addition to the Judges.
(xi)
There should not be any summer or winter vacations for
courts as these are colonial legacies.
(xii)
A minimum of 220 days of working of the courts should be
ensured in a calendar year.
(xiii)
Fixed time schedules should be prescribed for clearing the
arrears of cases.
(xiv)
There should be time bound disposal of the cases.
(xv)
The age limit for retirement should be increased for the
judges of High Court and Supreme Court uniformly, say 70 years or 75 years and
simultaneously judges should not be allowed to take up any paid appointments
after their retirement.
(xvi)
There should be increased use of alternative modes of
resolution of disputes.
(xvii)
Lawyers should encourage out-of-court settlement of
disputes.
(xviii)
There should be better use of the latest technological
devices in the working of the courts.
(xix)
The court procedures have to be made more citizen friendly.
(xx)
The accountability to people applies as much to the
judiciary as to the legislators.
(xxi)
Neither the Parliament nor the Supreme Court is supreme
under our Constitution as the duties and powers of each organ have been defined
and delimited under the Constitution.
In case of any doubt about the supremacy, it has to be vested in
Parliament, which represents the will of the people.
9. Smt. Sumitra G. Kulkarni also made a
suggestion for consideration that cases involving women, children and persons
of the weaker sections should be adjudicated by special courts and should be
decided within a period of six months.
10. It was generally agreed that all the
issues pertaining to the working of the judiciary would be discussed while
considering the draft final report. The meeting agreed that in view of the
importance of the issues raised in the two Papers and the need for eliciting
public responses, it would be appropriate to release them for public
debate. Thereafter, the meeting
approved the two Papers in principle.
However, the requisite editorial modifications and formatting were
authorized to be carried out before the Chairperson finally approved these for
being released for public debate and eliciting public response.
Item 3. Review of the
progress in the preparation of other Background Papers.
11. The progress in drafting of the Background Papers was
intimated to the meeting. The meeting
decided that there should not be any further delay in finalisation of the
remaining Papers.
Item 4. Review of the
progress of public interactive sessions/seminars being organized by the
National Law Schools/Universities.
12. The meeting was informed that the seminars/public interactive
sessions have already been conducted at six places and the programme at the
following three places had also been finalized: -
(i)
Centre for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi (20.9.2001)
(ii)
Central Law College, Salem (6-7 October 2001)
(iii)
Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar (13-14 October 2001)
13. It was decided that all the Central Universities/Law
Schools may be asked to send the reports on the seminars to the Commission at
the earliest so as to enable the Commission to take them into consideration at
the time of finalisation of its recommendations. The meeting considered the proposal received from the Dean,
Faculty of Law, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra for organizing a seminar at
Aligarh. Since the Aligarh Muslim
University had already conducted a seminar at Aligarh, the meeting decided that
the Commission might not sponsor any further seminar at Aligarh.
Item 5 & 6 Consideration
of draft Volume I of the Final Report, circulated to Members during the Tenth Meeting of the Commission held from
23.8.2001 to 25.8.2001 and
Review
of the Progress in drafting of Volume II of the Final Report.
14. Items 5 & 6 were taken up for consideration
together. A revised draft Volume I of
the Final Report was circulated at the meeting. The meeting decided to nominate
Shri K. Parasaran and Dr. Abid Hussain as Members of the Editorial Committee to
be chaired by Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap.
The drafting Committee was requested to meet at the earliest during the
week to start its deliberations.
Meeting also decided that a request may be sent to all the Members
in-charge to send the drafts of the respective portions of Volume II of the
final Report by 2nd October 2001.
Item 7. Report of the Secretary about the
responses to the Consultation Papers and Questionnaires, received so far from
the Central/State Governments/Political Parties, etc.
15. The report of the Secretary on the subject was taken on
record. A summary of the suggestions
and responses to the Consultation Papers and Questionnaires received upto
14.9.2001, duly ledgerised, was circulated amongst the Members at the meeting.
Item 8. Review of the
progress made in interaction with prominent persons.
16. The meeting was informed of the progress made in interaction
with prominent persons. It was also
intimated that the summary of discussions sent by the Secretariat to Shri P.V.
Narasimha Rao and Shri I.K. Gujral, former Prime Ministers, had been received,
duly approved by them and were circulated amongst the Members at the meeting.
Item 9. Consideration of the payment of professional
fee to Shri P.M. Bakshi for drafting of Consultation Papers/Background Papers
and for rendering assistance in preparation of certain parts of the draft Final
Report.
Item 10. Consideration of
the payment of professional fee to Shri S.S. Sohoni and Prof. Aswini K. Ray for
preparation of Background Papers on “Parliamentary Reforms”.
Item 11. Consideration of
payment of professional fee to Shri S.S. Sohoni for preparation of a Paper on
‘Secularism’.
17. The Meeting took up items 9, 10 and 11
together for consideration. After
detailed discussions, the meeting decided that these matters be placed before
the Projects and Finance Committee again for consideration and decision.
Item 12. Consideration
of the letter dated 14.8.2001 received from Ministry of Agriculture, Department
of Agriculture & Cooperation regarding inclusion of “Management of
disasters and emergencies, natural or man-made” in List III of the Seventh
Schedule to the Constitution of India.
18. The meeting took notice of the
proposal received from the Ministry of Agriculture and decided that it might be
considered at the time of consideration of the draft final Report on the
subject. Shri Sangma suggested that Shri Sharad Pawar, Member of Parliament who
is heading a body constituted by the Central Government on Disaster Management
could be requested to give his valuable views in the matter. The suggestion was
approved.
Item
13. Any other item, with the
permission of the Chair.
19. The Commission considered the communication dated 11.9.2001
received from the Department of Legal Affairs regarding proposal of the Ford
Foundation for a grant by it of US$ 1,50,000 to the Commonwealth Human Rights
Initiative, New Delhi, (CHRI) was brought to the notice of the meeting for
consideration. The Commission felt that
the matter under consideration was a proposal of a foreign Non-Governmental
foundation to afford financial assistance to another Non-Governmental
organization, viz, CHRI in the latter’s endeavours to review the working of the
Constitution. The Commission was of the view that it would be inappropriate for
the Commission to offer any comments on the proposal. Indeed the Government of
India had set up the present Commission to do that work. The meeting decided
that a reply might be sent to the Department of Legal Affairs accordingly.
20. The meeting was informed of the letter dated 10.9.2001 from
M/s J.M. Jaina & Brothers, New Delhi, offering their services for printing,
publishing and marketing of the Consultation Papers and Report of the
Commission. The meeting considered the
offer and decided that no action need be taken as the printing and publishing
of the Report was to be decided by the Government and the Commission is
expected to send the Report, generated through Computers, to the Government at
the appropriate time.
21. Smt. Sumitra G. Kulkarni desired that copies of all the
important representations received from the organizations in the North-East
should be sent to her.
The
meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair.
(RAGHBIR SINGH)
Secretary
Tele: 302 2079, 302 2080
To
All Members of the Commission
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE ELEVENTH MEETING
1. Hon’ble
Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah (In Chair)
2. Justice
Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy (not present on 15th September)
(12)
MINUTES OF THE TWELFTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION HELD
ON 1ST OCTOBER, 2001
The
Twelfth meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the
Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi at 10.30 a.m. on 1st
October, 2001. Hon’ble Justice Shri
M.N. Venkatachaliah chaired the meeting.
The list of participants is at Annexure.
2. The
Hon’ble Chairperson extended a warm welcome to the Members and requested the
Secretary to take up the Agenda.
Item 1. Confirmation of the Minutes of the Eleventh Meeting of the Commission held on 15th, 17th
and 18th September, 2001;
3. Dr.
Subhash C. Kashyap suggested the following changes in the Minutes:
(i)
In paragraph 7 (page 2), the spelling of his name may be
corrected.
(ii)
In paragraph 8 (i) (page 3), after the word ‘Judiciary’, the
words ‘at all levels’ may be added and the words ‘into judicial service’ may be
deleted.
(iii)
In paragraph 8 (ii) (page 3), after the word ‘refresher’,
the word ‘and’ may be deleted and words ‘courses for’ may be added. In the same
paragraph, after the words ‘judicial officers’ the words ‘from the lowest to
the highest courts’ may be added.
(iv)
In paragraph 8 (iv) (page 3), the word ‘classifications’ may
be replaced by the word ‘classification’.
(v)
In paragraph 8 (x) (page 3), the sentence should end after
the word ‘same’. In the same paragraph the word ‘other’ appearing after the
word ‘various’ may be deleted.
(vi)
In paragraph 8 (xxi)
(page 4), the word ‘limited’ appearing in the third line may be replaced
by the word ‘delimited’.
(vii)
In paragraph 18 (page 7), at the end of the paragraph, the
words ‘The suggestion was approved’ may be added.
4. Smt. Sumitra G. Kulkarni pointed out
that in the last meeting she had desired that copies of all the important
representations received from the organizations in the North-East should be
sent to her. This had not been reflected in the minutes. The Hon’ble
Chairperson desired that immediate action be taken to send the copies of
representations to Smt. Kulkarni along with a brief purport of the
representations.
5. The meeting
agreed to the modifications of the minutes as suggested by Dr. Kashyap and Smt
Kulkarni in the preceding paragraphs.
Item 2 Consideration of the issue relating to the
entitlement of the persons of foreign origin
to hold high offices in the country.
6. The
issue was discussed in the meeting but the discussion remained inconclusive.
Item 3 Review of the
progress in the preparation of the Consultation Papers and Background Papers
7. The
position regarding the preparation of the Consultation Papers and Background
Papers was explained by the Secretary to the Members. It was intimated that a
Background Paper on the remaining issues regarding ‘Working of Judiciary’ was
being prepared by Professor N.R. Madhava Menon. The Paper on Parliamentary
Reforms was entrusted to Shri S.S. Sohoni, who had been requested to take into
consideration the material available on the subject in the Commission. The
Secretary stated that Shri Sohoni had been requested to prepare a comprehensive
Background Paper along with material for preparation of draft final report on
the topic.
8. Dr.
Subhash C. Kashyap desired that some time limit should be fixed by which all
the Papers should be available to the Commission so that the Commission could
adhere to its time schedule.
9. Dr.
Abid Hussain informed that the four Papers relating to the areas under his
Advisory Panel were in advanced stage of finalisation and he also had the
benefit of discussion of the drafts with the Hon’ble Chairperson, who had made
some very valuable suggestions. He
stated that he would be able to submit the draft Papers to the Commission by 20th
October, 2001.
10. The meeting also discussed the preparation of a Paper on
North-East. Shri Sangma explained that he had been working on the Paper and
hoped to submit the same to the Commission by 8th October, 2001.
Item 4 Consideration of
revised draft Volume I of the Final Report, circulated to Members during the
Eleventh Meeting of the Commission.
11. The meeting was informed that the Editorial Committee had met
on 20th September, 2001 and finalized the procedure and methodology
to be followed for editing the Report of the Commission. As per the procedure
finalized by the said Committee, the draft Chapters as finalized by the
Members-in-Charge, would first be placed before the Commission for approval and
only thereafter, these would be sent to the Editorial Committee for editing
etc.
12. The meeting, however, discussed whether Volume I of the Final
Report and the Introductory Chapter in Volume II (both of which are not
expected to contain any definitive recommendations) should be taken up by the
Editorial Committee before the Commission could consider them. It was agreed
that Volume I (except the summary of recommendations, which would be prepared
after finalisation of Volume II) and the introductory part of Volume II should
be placed before the Editorial Committee, as they did not contain any views/
recommendations of the Commission. After the Editorial Committee edits these
parts of the Volumes, they could be placed before the Commission for final
approval/adoption.
13. The rest of the contents of Volume I viz. consolidated list
of recommendations and the contents of Volume II (except the introductory part)
should first come-up before the Commission for full discussion and thereafter
be passed on to the Editorial Committee.
14. It was decided accordingly.
Item 5 Review of the Progress in drafting of Volume II of the Final
Report.
15. The meeting agreed as mentioned earlier that the procedure
outlined in the preceding paragraph may also be followed in respect of such
portions of Volume II of the Final Report, which do not contain any
views/recommendations of the Commission, such as introduction, areas of concern
etc.,
16. The meeting also discussed the question of finalisation of
various chapters of Volume II of the Final Report. It was agreed that there was
an urgent need for all the Members concerned to submit the draft chapters
concerning them to the Commission at the earliest. The Secretariat of the
Commission has been asked to follow-up and coordinate with the concerned
Members in this regard.
Item 6 Any other items, with
the permission of the Chair.
17. With the approval of the Hon’ble Chairperson, the Main Report
(Volume – I) of the Advisory Panel on ‘Decentralisation and Devolution’
(prepared by Shri L.C. Jain, Chairperson of the Advisory Panel) was circulated
to the Members of the Commission for consideration. The meeting appreciated the
work done by the Advisory Panel. It was agreed that the Member-in-Charge (Shri
P.A. Sangma) and the Commission would consider all the material and suggestions
made in the said Report while finalizing the recommendations/Report on the
topic.
The meeting ended with a vote of
thanks to the Chair.
(RAGHBIR SINGH)
Secretary
Tele: 302 2079, 302 2080
To
All Members of the Commission
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE TWELFTH MEETING
1. Hon’ble Justice
Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah (In Chair)
2. Justice
Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy
10. Dr. Raghbir Singh, Secretary
(
13 )
MINUTES OF THE THIRTEENTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
HELD FROM 24TH NOVEMBER, 2001 TO 29TH NOVEMBER, 2001
The
Thirteenth meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the
Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi from 24th November,
2001 to 29th November, 2001.
Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah chaired the meeting. The list of participants is at Annexure.
2. The
Hon’ble Chairperson extended a warm welcome to the Members and requested the
Secretary to take up the Agenda.
Item 1 Confirmation of
the Minutes of the Twelfth Meeting of the Commission held on 1st
October 2001
3. The
Minutes of the Twelfth Meeting of the Commission held on 1st October
2001 were taken as read and confirmed.
Item 2 Consideration
of the Consultation Paper on “Empowering And Strengthening Of Panchayati Raj
Institutions/ Autonomous District Councils/ Traditional Tribal Governing
Institutions In The North-East India”
4. The meeting was informed that after the
Advisory Panel had approved the Paper, the Projects and Finance Committee also
approved this Paper by circulation. The Hon’ble Chairperson emphasized the
importance of this Paper. After discussing the Paper, the meeting approved the
same and authorised its release to the public for eliciting response and
evoking debate thereon. However, the
requisite editorial modifications and formatting were authorized to be carried
out before its release. In view of the nature of the subject, it was agreed
that the Consultation Paper should be sent to the targeted group of persons
having special knowledge of the North-East so that the Commission is benefitted
by the response in this crucial area. In view of the limited time available
with the Commission, it was also decided that a draft report on the subject
might be prepared by the Member-in-Charge simultaneously without waiting for
the responses. The responses received in the meanwhile could be suitably
incorporated in the report later before its final adoption by the Commission.
5. The
Secretary explained the status of preparation of the various Consultation
Papers and Background Papers. It was intimated that Professor N.R. Madhava
Menon was preparing a Background Paper on ‘The Need for Systemic and Procedural
Reforms in The Judiciary’. Shri K. Parasaran and Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap are
incharge of the topic. The Paper was likely to be finalized by him shortly.
6. The
Paper on ‘Parliamentary Reforms’ prepared by Shri S.S. Sohoni, which also
contained some suggestions, was circulated to the Members.
Item 6 To consider the
recommendations of the Editorial Committee contained in the minutes of its
third meeting held on the 20th November 2001.
7. This
item was taken up before item 4. The minutes of the third meeting of the
Editorial Committee were circulated. In the aforesaid minutes, the Committee
mentioned that it would be possible for it to discharge its responsibilities
only if the Members could finalise drafts of their full chapters (not piecemeal
portions) at their level and the Commission could consider, discuss and approve
all the chapters latest by the first week of December, 2001. The Committee had
also desired that the time schedule should be placed before the
Commission. The aforesaid views of the
Committee were discussed and generally agreed to by the Commission. However, it
was decided that the draft chapters should be finalized by the Commission by
middle of December, 2001 so that the same could be transmitted to the Editorial
Committee. The Hon’ble Chairperson was requested to write to the Members
concerned to send the Draft Final Report on the Chapter/Topics entrusted to
them by 10th December, 2001 so that it could be taken up by the
Commission in the next meeting proposed to be held from 12th
December, 2001 onwards.
8. The
members agreed that the Editorial Committee would be at liberty to make an
appropriate formulation in respect of each recommendation and also make
additional recommendation(s), which might be necessary in furtherance of main
recommendation(s). The Editorial
Committee was authorized accordingly.
9. Regarding
the suggestion of the Editorial Committee that Members should finalise draft of
the full chapters, the meeting noted that some of the chapters of Volume II of
the Final Report comprised of many topics and pertained to different Members.
It was, therefore, necessary to segregate the topics that could be discussed
together. In Chapter 2 relating to ‘Effectuation of Fundamental Rights,
Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties’, topics 1 (Vision of
Socio-economic change through the Constitution) and 3 (Directive Principles of
State Policy and Pace of Socio-Economic Change) could be discussed together;
topics 2 (Fundamental Rights), 4 (Fundamental Duties) and 5 (Literacy) could be
discussed together and topic 6 (Employment and Social Security) could be
discussed separately. This was approved.
Item 4 Consideration of the topics of
Volume II of the Final Report as indicated in Appendix ‘B’
10. The meeting decided to take-up for discussion Chapter 4
relating to `Legislative Institutions, as the draft report and Papers on all
the three topics under this Chapter were available for discussion.
Parliament And State Legislatures
At Work (Chapter 4, Section 1)
11. The meeting discussed the recommendations contained in the
paper on ‘Parliamentary Reforms’ prepared by Shri S.S. Sohoni, which was
circulated. After deliberations, it was
decided that the recommendations contained in the write-up titled “Working of
Parliament and Need for Reforms” prepared by Dr. Kashyap may be taken as the
recommendations of the Commission and the same may be transmitted to the
Editorial Committee for preparation of the Final Report. The recommendations approved by the
Commission in this regard are as under:
For Parliament, it is of the utmost importance constantly to review and
refurbish its structural-functional requirements and from time to time to
consider renewing and reforming the entire gamut of its operational procedures
to guard against putrefaction and decay.
2. The overriding guiding norm and purpose
of all parliamentary reforms should be to make both Government and Parliament
more relevant to meet the challenges of the times and the changing national
needs in the context of the objective of faster economic growth.
3. Some serious thinking is called for in
the matter of reforming the budget procedure in Parliament and bringing it
closer to the needs and constraints of the new situation.
4. It would, therefore, be wise to reduce
to the barest minimum the number of days on which voting by division is
considered imminent. Also, the time may
be fixed by agreement and announced in advance with appropriate whips issued
and attendance ensured otherwise.
5. Nodal Standing Committee on Economy:
It may be advisable to have a nodal Standing Committee on national economy with
specific subject-oriented study groups aided by experts and concerned with
economic policy formulation and implementation.
6. In its own long-term interest,
Parliament as an institution cannot afford to place itself beyond all scrutiny
by anyone. There is every need for a
parliamentary Ombudsman.
7. Deliberate and concerted efforts are
needed also at the professional level to rebuild Parliament's image as the
supreme institution of the people.
8. To give a faithful and complete picture
of what actually happens in the Houses of Parliament, it is necessary to
telecast nationally all important debates live.
9. Improving the quality of Members: It is the primary duty of every Member
irrespective of his party affiliations to maintain and project a good image of
Parliament by his own conduct both inside and outside the Houses. Members of
important parliamentary committees need to lay down a strict code of conduct
for themselves, never to ask the senior Government officers appearing before
the Committee for personal favours, avoid Committee tours unless really
necessary and never accept any gifts, dinners, free transport, five star
hospitality and the like while on tours.
10. Institutionalized arrangements are
necessary to provide the much needed professional training and orientation to
every newly elected Member irrespective of his ideological or party
affiliations. The curriculum should
include, among other things, adequate knowledge of the political system, the
Constitution, the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business, the practices and
precedents, mechanisms and modalities of the working of the Houses and the
Parliamentary Committees, the do's and don'ts for Members, the rules of
parliamentary etiquette and the like.
The emphasis should be on the practical know-how, the technicalities and
the operational realities and the concrete situations and not the rule book.
11. There is need to drastically slash
parliamentary spending under various heads.
Even if the resultant economy in the context of the overall national
budget may not seem very large, the psychological impact is bound to be
massive.
12. A strict limit needs to be placed on the
number of Ministers and equivalent posts both at the Union level and in the
States
13. Instead Of depending almost entirely on
published documents – which are almost always outdated and - other official
sources, Parliament must build its own independent national information
reservoir with a network of feeding and retrieval points. Even if no other parliamentary reform was
brought about, the single step of developing an infrastructure of information
support system in Parliament would have been profound effect on revitalizing
and transforming the institution of Parliament.
14. An essential prerequisite for any such assistance being
available in satisfactory measure would be the presence of highly qualified and
competent staff in the Library, Research and Reference Services of the
Secretariats of Parliament.
15. Planning Legislation and improving its
Quality: There is need for a dynamic – not mechanical – approach to
legislative engineering and systematic programmic of laws which may be proposed
for enactment over a period of time.
This can be done by:
(i)
streamlining the functions of the Parliamentary and Legal
Affairs Committee of the Cabinet;
(ii)
making greater use of the Law Commission;
(iii)
setting up a new Legislation Committee of Parliament to
oversee and coordinate legislative planning; and
(iv)
referring all Bills to the newly set-up Departmental
Standing Committees for consideration and scrutiny, consulting concerned
interest groups and finalization of the second reading stage in the relaxed
atmosphere of Committees aided by experts thereby reducing the burden of the
House without impinging on any of its rights and improving the quality of
drafting and content of legislation.
16. Setting up a Constitution Committee: The proposed involvement of Parliament and a
priori scrutiny can be achieved
through the device of a Constitution Committee of Parliament which may be
constituted by resolution or otherwise as a standing joint Committee of the two
Houses. The members of the Committee
may be elected by the respective Houses.
17. Also, where an enactment is placed
beyond the power of judicial review by being included under the Ninth Schedule,
it may be desirable for Parliament itself to provide an alternative forum and
remedy by way of review, etc. to any aggrieved citizen. The proposed Constitution Committee may
perform this function as well
18. Department Committees and Improving Accountability: The setting up of the 17 subject based
Standing Committees has been the most historic development in recent years in
the area of parliamentary reforms.
Seventeen, however, is perhaps too many. Although it may not be easy to reduce the number now, it is
strongly felt that 7 to 10 such Committees would be enough and in fact might
prove more effective than the 17. Also,
it is important from the angle of reducing the overall costs and need for
economy.
19. It is reasonably well established that
parliamentary scrutiny over public finance is at present inadequate and patchy
and there is need for simplifying presentation of the budget and strengthening
executive control and parliamentary scrutiny of expenditure.
20. Working
away from the glare of publicity, in a truly corporate sense, free from the
normal partisan spirit that often characterizes the debates in the House, the
new parliamentary committees could play an important, substantial and useful
role. These Committees could provide a
potent mechanism for a meaningful multilateral dialogue between the Government
and the Members of Parliament enabling a proper appreciation of each other’s
views, reasonable accommodation of varying viewpoints and harmonization of
conflicting interests. In the ultimate
analysis, such parliamentary committees alone can ensure that we are making the
best use of parliamentary system of Government.
21. Since the functions of every Ministry
and Department are covered by the Departmental Standing Committees and also in
view of the proposed new Constitution Committee, Legislation Committee and the
Committee on National Economy, it does not seem at all necessary to continue
the existing Committees on Estimates, Public Accounts, Public Undertakings and
Subordinate Legislation. Their
functions should also be most appropriately handled by the Departmental
Standing Committees. This would
rationalize the new Parliamentary Committee structure, streamline the functions
of each individual committee, prevent overlapping and duplication of roles and
above all lead to greater economy of expenditure under the head of Parliament
and various Ministries of the Government.
22. The role of the Committee staff is
vital. It should constantly and
concurrently monitor the working of the concerned Ministries. The professional staff member should have
the necessary competence in his Committee’s subject area. He has to scientifically feed the committee
with all the relevant information and data.
To avoid diffusion of responsibility, there should be just one competent
professional staff with one secretarial support in each Committee.
23. Parliamentary Control Over Borrowing: For, public borrowing is a charge on the
future generations and must be duly controlled. Beyond certain prescribed limits, borrowing proposals should also
be subjected to scrutiny by the proposed parliamentary committee on National
Economy or the Standing Committee for the Ministry of Finance.
24. Discussing Committee
Reports on the Floor of the House:
It would be most desirable to discuss as a regular feature all important
reports of Parliamentary Committees particularly in cases of disagreement
between the Committee and the Government.
25. Codifying Parliamentary
Privileges: The specific
parliamentary privileges which may be deemed to be in conformity with
contemporary thinking and absolutely necessary for the free and independent
functioning of the institution of Parliament should be clearly defined,
delimited and simplified. There is a
strong case for codifying privileges and ending the necessity of every time
referring to the 1950 position in the House of Commons in U.K.
26. Time is now ripe for removing the
existing uncertainty and anxiety of the press and the people through early
codification. A joint Committee of the
two Houses may be set up to lay down the privileges in precise terms and to
recommend appropriate piecemeal or comprehensive legislation.
28. Only defeat on a No-Confidence Motion
proper may be deemed to be defeat of the Government calling for resignation of
the Council of Ministers. This might
incidentally reduce the incidence of unprincipled defections and instill a new
sense of responsibility, relevance and importance in each member irrespective
of ruling party or opposition affiliation.
29. Other Procedural Reforms
(i) Reorganising Parliamentary Time
Table: The floor time ought to be better utilised
for major policy matters, matters of vital national interest and important
legislative and financial business.
There is an urgent need for a reorganisation of the parliamentary
timetable and rationalisation of the methods and procedures of the House.
Several
items of business like the Questions, Adjournment Motions, Calling Attention
Notices, Motions of No-Confidence, etc. initiated by Private Members are at
present taken up during the time allocated for Government business and not in
the time already reserved for Private Members’ business on Fridays. A better alternative would be to allocate
time on a weekly basis between the Government and the Private Members and to
leave the priorities to be decided within each.
The time during the sessions could be divided in such a way that the
Committees have also enough time to meet and complete their task. The forenoons could be reserved for the
sitting of the Houses and the afternoons for Committee meetings or there could
be a three day week for Parliament, with the Houses sitting on, say, Tuesdays,
Wednesdays and Thursdays for 7 hours daily from 11 to 6 without lunch
break. The Committees could sit on
Mondays and Fridays, if necessary, on Saturdays as well. In the 21-hour week, 11 hours of floor-time
could be set apart for government business i.e. legislation and other matters
initiated by the Government, and the remaining 10 hours of floor-time could be
made available to Private Members for Questions, calling Attention Notices,
Private Members Bills and Resolutions, No-Day-Yet-Named Motions, Privilege
Issues and other non-official business.
(ii) Freedom
of Expression: While unparliamentary or
objectionable expressions may be expunged from the proceedings of the two
Houses of Parliament by their respective Presiding officers under the existing
rules, ‘shutting off’ or ‘blinding’ the proceedings of any House under the
presiding Officer’s direction that ‘nothing of what is said without his
permission would go on record’ may be of questionable desirability inasmuch as
in that case the reports of the Proceedings cannot really be regarded any more
as a faithful record of all that happened.
(iii) The Petitions Committee: It needs to be strengthened and put to greater use.
(iv) The Question Hour: The necessary top priority given to
parliamentary Questions causes serious dislocation of normal work in the
Ministries and offices of the Government.
All this is not satisfactory and involves considerable waste of public
money and parliamentary time.
(v) Adjournment Motions:
Since, after independence, the device of No-confidence Motion itself has
become available, stiff resistance to admitting any Adjournment Motions at all
may be perhaps somewhat misplaced, overdone and unnecessary.
Discussions in the House, on a motion of adjournment, of a
matter of urgent importance which may in any case, be upper most in the minds
of the members and of the people at large outside at a particular time, can do
no harm. It may, if fact ease tensions
and help to create a better and healthier atmosphere both inside and outside
the House.
(vi) Absenteeism of members:
Absenteeism of Members threatens to become a serious malady. What is required is ensuring better and
longer attendance by the Members in the Houses of Parliament. Those Members who are not so present in the
Hose may, therefore, under their own self-regulatory procedures, lose their
salary and allowances for the day.
(vii) Secretariats of Parliament:
It is most
unfortunate that no law has so far been passed under article 98(2). Desirability of doing so at the earliest may
be considered and efforts made to reorganise the Secretariats as dynamic
instruments with stress on independence, efficiency, economy and
promptness. Suitable arrangements may
be made on a regular basis for providing to all parliamentary officials special
training and orientation in parliamentary political science and legislative
management techniques and tools.
29. Parliamentary reforms cannot be effected
in a hurry. We must proceed with care
and caution and begin by setting up a Parliamentary Reforms Commission or a
‘Study of parliament Group’ outside parliament as was done in U.K. before the
procedural reforms. Finally, of course,
the Rules committee or a Special Procedure Committee of the House should report
on the matter.
30. Parliamentary reforms, political party
reforms, electoral reforms, judicial reforms, etc., all have to be taken up
together in an integrated approach to political and economic reforms and as
part of the overall review of the working of our Constitution. No single reform can provide a miracle cure
and no reforms should be effected in a hurry.
We must proceed with utmost care and caution and evolve a national
consensus on desirable changes.
12. It was also decided that this write-up might be suitably
edited for incorporation of the same as a background paper in Volume-III of the
Final Report.
System Stability In Polity (Immunity
Of Legislators- What Do The Words ‘In Respect Of Anything Said Or Any Vote
Given By Him’ In Article 105(2) Signify? (Chapter 4, Section 2)
13. After detailed deliberations, the members agreed to all the
recommendations made in the draft on the subject as indicated below:
Immunity of Legislators
The Commission recommends enactment/ insertion of four new clauses,
viz., clauses (3A), (3B), (3C) and (3D) in articles 105 and similar clauses
with necessary modifications in article 194 of the Constitution in the
following terms:
“(3A) Nothing in
clauses (1), (2) or (3) shall bar the prosecution of a member of Parliament, in
any court of law, for an offence involving receiving or accepting, whether
directly or indirectly, and whether for his own benefit or for the benefit of
any other person in whom he is interested, any kind of monetary or other
valuable consideration for voting in a particular manner or for not voting, as
the case may be, in either House of Parliament.
(3B) No court shall take
cognizance of the offence mentioned in sub- clause 3(A), except with the
previous sanction of the committee constituted under clause (3C).
(3C) For the purposes of
clause 3B, the President shall constitute a Committee consisting of five
members of Parliament drawn from the House of the People and Council of States
(in the ratio of 3:2) nominated by the President in consultation with the
Speaker of the House of the People and the Chairman of the Council of
States.
(3D) The term of office of the
members of the Committee constituted under clause (3C) and the other matters
relating to such Committee shall be as the President may, by rule, determine.”
Parliamentary Oversight Over
Government Functioning And Public Finance: C&AG (Efficacy Of Public Audit
System In India: C&AG – Reforming The Institution) (Chapter 4, Section
3)
14. The members discussed the various recommendations contained
in the draft on the subject. There was
general consensus on all the recommendations.
However, since the Member In-charge
(Dr. Abid Hussain) was not present on 24.11.2001, it was decided to
defer the final decision to a day when Dr. Hussain would be present. Accordingly on 28.11.2001, when Dr. Abid
Hussain was present, there was a further detailed discussion and it was agreed
to accept the recommendations contained in the draft except the one relating to
certain qualifications for the post of C&AG. It was agreed that a
citizen of India who had proven capacity and experience in public finance
should only be appointed to the post.
The experience in ‘accounting and auditing systems’ mentioned in the
draft recommendation was agreed to be deleted from the recommendations. The approved recommendations are as under:
The Commission recommends:
1.
Constitution of an Audit Board
of India, comprising of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India as the
Chairperson and two other Members, in place of the existing institution of the
Comptroller and Auditor General of India by suitably amending the Constitution.
2.
The Chairman of the Audit
Board of India shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand
and seal on the recommendation of a Committee comprising of the Prime Minister,
Union Finance Minister, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the Opposition
and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. The C&AG of India shall be only removed from office in like
manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court is removed. The
Members of the Audit Board shall be appointed by the President by warrant under
his hand and seal on the recommendation of the Committee referred to
above. The Members shall be removed
from office only in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the High
Court is removed.
3.
A citizen of India, who has proven
capacity and experience in public finance, should only be appointed to the post
of Comptroller and Auditor General of India.
4.
Need to decentralise the functioning of
Comptroller & Auditor General's set-up and give greater authority to State
Accountants General so that they are able to perform their duties more
efficiently.
5.
Incorporation of a provision in the
Constitution to the effect that every State shall have an Accountant General
who shall exercise such powers and discharge such duties as may be assigned to
him by the Audit Board of India.
6.
In view of integrated nature of finances
of the Central Government and State Governments and need for maintaining
uniformity in auditing and accounting standards, there is a need for C&AG
of India to exercise general superintendence, direction and control over the
work of State Accountants General. Therefore, a provision may be made that
Audit Board of India will have powers to give directions to State Accountants
General on policy matters including preparation of Audit Reports.
7.
In order to maintain independence of
audit, the present position (The Indian Audit and
Accounts Department is presently a central outfit and its budgetary allocation
comes from Union Government and its employees are Central Government servants)
need not be changed even if separate constitutional status is given to State
Accountants General. Similarly, the current status of Indian Audit and Accounts
Service (IA&AS) need not be disturbed and cadre control may remain with
C&AG as hitherto and posting of officers in State AG offices may be made on
the basis of a policy which may be evolved by mutual consultation.
8.
Conferment of quasi-judicial powers, similar to those available under the Commission of Inquiry
Act, 1952 on the Accountants General/Principal Directors of Audit and other
senior officers of Indian Audit and Accounts department in the country
by making a suitable provision in Comptroller and Auditor-General of India's
(Duties, Powers and Condition of Service) Act, 1971 for making the audit
effective. They may be vested with following powers:
(a)
powers to summon
concerned officers before them to give evidence on oath;
(b)
where, after giving
due opportunity, it is established that loss of money or property has been
caused due to default of the public official he should be required to make good
the loss;
(c)
in case the official
does not make good the loss, a report be made to the superior authority of the
department where the official is working for recovering the money or initiating
disciplinary action under the relevant Conduct Rules;
(d)
where the action of
the public official involves criminal liability, the public prosecutor be
informed either by Audit officer or the department where he is working for
initiating criminal action under the Indian Penal Code or any other relevant
law.
9.
Need for a constitutional/legal provision that all
bodies which receive public funds will fall within the audit mandate of
C&AG. While it may not be possible for C&AG to departmentally conduct
audit of all such bodies, he should have powers to lay down accounting and
auditing standards for them and exercise general superintendence over their
audit.
10.
A
constitutional amendment to the effect that State Accountants General (whom we
have proposed as separate constitutional authority) or in the alternate
C&AG will lay down accounting policies and auditing standards for
Panchayats and Municipalities and exercise general superintendence over their
audit.
11.
In order to strengthen
parliamentary control over executive it is necessary to devise a system, which
envisages that PAC examines all the reports submitted by C&AG and submits
its recommendation to legislature within a time limit of, say 12 to 18 months.
12.
Public Accounts
Committee be given a suitable status with clearly defined mandate and duties
and responsibilities and its recommendations be made binding on the Government.
The life of the PAC be made five years co-extensive with the life of Parliament/State
legislature with one-third of its members retiring every year. The appropriate
legislature could make necessary provisions in this regard.
13. Need for
an external audit of C&AG's organisation on the same pattern as in the U.K,
to fulfill the canons of accountability.
Political Parties And Electoral
Process – Need For Reforms (Chapter 3)
15. As regards this chapter, the Commission discussed the summary
of suggestions contained in the Consultation Papers on ‘Review Of The Working
Of The Political Parties Specially In Relation To Elections And Reform Options’
and ‘Review Of Election, Processes And Reform Options’. The responses to these Consultation Papers
received by the Commission were brought to the notice of the Members during the
discussion. The decisions on these two topics are indicated in following
paragraphs.
Review of the Working of the
Political Parties Specially in Relation to Elections & Reform Options
16. The suggestions mentioned in para 8.1 to 8.17 (page Nos.
37-47) of the Consultation Paper on the subject were taken up seriatim.
17. The meeting decided
to drop the following suggestions:
Sl. Nos. 8.7(e), sub-para 1,2, 5 and 6 of 8.16
8.7 (e) Candidates
contesting elections should be familiar with the Constitution and should be
able to read, write and understand its provisions.
1.
As the parties provide the necessary political leadership
for governance, it is necessary that the incumbent to public offices must be
chosen on the basis of their integrity and capacity to administer. If the political parties have a continuous
program of grooming the potential members of their parties for different types
of assignments corresponding to the ministries and departments of the
government, things would become easier and a smooth transition of the
government could take place. At the
same time, the parties could contribute effectively to the processes of policy
formulation, implementation and governance even while remaining in opposition.
2.
The practice of political parties extending support to the
government from the parliamentary floor from outside is an amoral exercise of
power without responsibility. This inhibits the process of governance and has
been the immediate cause of premature collapse of all the governments since
1989. This must be disallowed, if the
coalition governments have to survive and carry on their task of governance.
5. The think tanks in various
political parties' organizations should occasionally come out with alternative
policy perspectives in the form of a
"Green Paper" for want of a better term on some of the crucial
issues facing the nation at a given moment and be widely circulated amongst the
public, the media, intellectuals and others to elicit alternative opinions on
the subject.
6. In times of
emergencies, or national calamities, the parties should not eschew taking
specific responsibilities in assisting governments in their activities to tie
over the crisis.
18. After discussion the Commission decided to adopt the
following suggestions with suitable modifications:
Sl. No. 8.7(c)
[with a modification that to start with, no candidate should be declared
elected unless he/she secures more than 40% (instead of 50%) of the votes cast]
8.7 (c) Under the present system of "first -past -the -post",
candidates can get elected on a minority of votes. No candidate should be declared elected unless he or she secures
more than 50% of the votes cast. If no candidate gets 50% of votes in the first
run, a second run off election be held immediately the next day of the first
ballot. These days of electronic voting
and counting make it possible to adopt such a system without incurring heavy
expenditure or need for fresh security and administrative arrangements.
19. The Commission accepted the following suggestions in toto:
Sl. Nos. 8.1
to 8.6, 8.7(a), (b), (d), (f), 8.8 - 8.15, sub-para 3 and 4 of 8.16,
8.17
8.1 Need for a Legislation governing political parties
There is a
need for a comprehensive legislation (may be named Political Parties
(Regulation) Act) regulating the functioning of political parties in
India. The legislation should provide
conditions for the constitution of a political party and for recognition,
registration and de-registration. Until
now the recognition and registration of political parties is done only for the
limited purpose of allocating symbols.
The new law, however, should prescribe not only the conditions for the
establishment of the political party, but also provisions for regulating the
functioning of political parties after establishment. It should be made compulsory for every political party to get
registered under the proposed Act. Any party so constituted under the proposed
Act should declare its allegiance to the provisions to the Constitution and the
sovereignty and integrity of the nation.
The legislation should also prescribe that every political party should
abide by the spirit of democracy in its internal management and operation and
should observe inner party democracy in its decision making process. It should
provide that elections to the various levels of party organs should be held at
least once in three years. It should
also make it mandatory for political parties to provide for a representation of
at least 30 percent of its organizational positions at every level for
women. The leaders of political parties
should also make sure that at least 30 percent of their party tickets are
distributed amongst the women at the time of elections. The legislation should make it compulsory
for the parties to maintain accounts about the receipts of funds and
expenditures in a systematic and regular way. The form of accounts of receipt
and expenditure and declaration about the sources of funds may be prescribed by
an independent body of Accounts & Audit experts, created under this
proposed Act. The accounts should also
be audited by the same independent body, created under the legislation who
should also prepare a report on the financial status of the political party,
which should be open and available to public for study and inspection. The
proposed law should make it compulsory for the political parties to make their
candidates declare their assets and liabilities at the time of their nomination
being filed before the returning officers for elections to any office at any
level of government. It should provide
for limiting the expenditures of the political parties in relation to holding
public rallies and large scale demonstrations and protests which hardly serve
any effective purpose in these days of high tech electronic media, which is far
more effective and economical and causes least inconvenience to public than the
very frequent huge public rallies and large protests in capital cities. In this way the political parties would also
be spared the burden of huge expenditure on all sorts of illegitimate or
dubious means adopted to raise that amount of money for that kind of
expenditure. [Malaysia has imposed a
total ban on large-scale rallies for political demonstration and/or for
election purposes.] The money saved
could be more fruitfully employed in other more important activities of
political parties, such as educating the voters through door to door contacts
and /or sensitizing their own party-men in respect of various controversial
issues facing the nation.
Only those parties, which are registered under the proposed Act be
allowed to contest elections.
8.2 Criteria for Registration
(a)
The law should define the criteria of registration of
political parties. Every political party or a pre-poll alliance of political
parties should be compulsorily registered under the proposed Act. The Registration authority can be the
Election Commission of India.
(b)
The criteria for registration as a national party be revised
to at least securing of 10% of the valid votes polled by all the candidates in
at least one half of the states.
(c)
The parties be
designated as State parties if they secure the required percentage of at least
10% of total votes cast in any of the states.
(d)
Only parties or a
pre-poll alliance of political parties registered as National parties with the
Election Commission be allowed to contest for the Lok Sabha. State parties may contest for State
Legislatures and the Council of States (Rajya Sabha).
8.3 Criteria for De-Registration
The law
should define the criteria and conditions for de-registration of political
parties, and the decision of the Election Commission in this respect should be
final, subject to the judicial appeal to High Court/Supreme Court on points of law. For example, one of the
criteria for de-registration could be the non-adherence to the conditions
prescribed for registration or obtaining of registration in the first instance
by fraudulent means or wrong declarations.
The
constitution of the parties submitted for Registration under the law should
provide for:
(a)
a declaration to the adherence to the democratic values and
norms of Constitution in their inner party organizations
(b)
a declaration to shun violence for political gains
(c)
a declaration not to resort to casteism and communalism for
political mobilisation, but to adhere to the principles of secularism in the
achievement of their objectives
(d)
provision for party conventions to nominate and select
candidates for political offices at the grass root and state level
(e)
representation to the women and weaker sections of the
society in party offices and candidates for contesting of polls.
8.5 Educational Training and
Developmental Activities
Political
parties should in their constitution provide for establishing some
institutional mechanism for planning, thinking and research on crucial
socio-economic issues facing the nation and educational cells for socializing
their party cadres and preparing them for responsibilities of governance.
8.6 Leadership conventions
Indian parties should seriously consider adopting the
leadership convention system, as is practiced in countries like Canada, and the
USA. This would have the advantage
first, of making the leadership election process more open, democratic, and
federal. Second, the people will know in advance of the prospective Prime
Ministerial candidates. Third, it would
introduce a nationally aggregative mechanism in major parties and curb the
tendency of regionalisation and fragmentation. If the national convention is found too expensive, a series of
staggered state conventions may be held by major parties with their respective
slates of candidates (common for all the states in one party). This will go a
long way in making parties aggregative and thus more functional in a
parliamentary federal system of governance.
(a) Rules of procedure may provide for the
election of the Leader of the House by the Lok Sabha along with the election of
the Speaker and in the like manner. The Second Ballot system be adopted, in
case no candidate secures a majority in the first round. The Leader may then be appointed as the
Prime Minister. The same procedure may
be followed for the Chief Minister.
(b) Adoption of a system of constructive
vote of no confidence. For a motion of
no-confidence to be brought out against a government at least 20% of the total
number of members of the House should give notice. Also, the motion should be accompanied by a proposal of
alternative Leader to be voted simultaneously.
(d) Candidates should not be allowed to
contest election simultaneously for the same office from more than one
constituency.
(f) The election code of conduct, which
should come into operation as soon as the elections are announced, is only a
guideline. It should be given the
sanctity of law and its violation should attract penal action. Political parties should also evolve their
own codes for fair and violence free polls.
The entry
of criminals in politics is a matter of great concern. Although it can be prevented by laws, but
more than that it is within the powers of political parties to see that no
criminals or persons with the reputation of being in criminal activities are
selected as candidates. The proposed law on political parties should provide
that no political party would be able to sponsor and provide ticket to a
candidate who has been convicted by any court for any criminal offences or if
the courts have framed criminal charges.
In case of conviction, the bar should apply for six years after the
completion of the period of the sentence.
If any party violates this provision, the candidate involved should be
disqualified and the party deregistered forthwith.
Any person
convicted for any heinous crime like rape, murder, etc. should be permanently
debarred from contesting for any political office.
Criminal
cases against politicians pending before Courts either for trial or in appeal
must be disposed off speedily by appointing Special Courts.
Vide the Representation of People (Amendment) Act, 1996, security
deposit for independent candidates was enhanced to twenty times of the earlier
limit, number of proposers for independent candidates increased and it had been
provided that the names of the independent candidates would be listed in the
ballot paper below the names of the candidates set up by the political
parties. These measures to some extent
succeeded in reducing the number of non-serious independent candidates. But, more needs to be done.
In order
to check the proliferation of the number of independent candidates and the
malpractices that enter into the election process because of the influx of the
independent candidates, the security deposits in respect of independent
candidates may be raised further.
The
security deposits should be doubled progressively every year for those independent
candidates who fail to win and still keep contesting every election.
If any
independent candidate has failed to get at least five percent of the total
number of votes cast in his constituency, he/she should not be allowed to
contest as independent candidate for the same office again at least for 6
years.
Any
independent candidate who looses election three times consecutively for the
same office as an independent candidate should be permanently debarred to
contest election to that office.
An independent
candidate should be nominated at least by twenty elected members of Panchayats,
Municipalities or other local bodies spread out in majority of electoral
districts in his constituency.
The problem of political funding is a complex and
undeniable reality, and there are no panaceas to remedy it. In effect, the
premise that there are no absolute truths or ideal solutions in electoral
matters has gained even more strength with regard to funding for two main
reasons. One because of the close link that exists between this issue and the
specific characteristics of the political system as a whole, as well as with
the characteristics of the political party system in particular. Another reason
is the permanent relationship posed by this subject with the values of
political culture, which may mean that any solution can be evaluated in
completely different ways in different contexts. For instance, whereas in
Scandinavian countries the disclosure of electoral expenses and sources of
funding is perceived as a violation of the fundamental principle of the right
to voter secrecy, in other countries, such as Germany and Canada, these
practises are viewed as exactly the opposite, as a guarantee of transparency in
political activity and of the citizens’ right to be duly informed.
Two other considerations deserve attention. The first
one has to do with emphasising the importance of reviewing the funding system,
not only in terms of the aims of the reform effort and its desired effects on
the political system and system of political parties, but also with respect to
the degree of effectiveness of regulations as well as their undesirable or
immoral effects. The second expresses
the need to insist that not every reform to the funding system must be analysed
separately, but rather as an integral part of political/electoral reforms as a
whole. This is so because the consequences of such an analysis affect very
important aspects, such as competition among parties, conditions for
competition, the system of political parties and, consequently, the very
credibility and legitimacy of democracy itself.
Moreover, every reform on this issue must be aimed at
achieving greater and improved levels of transparency with respect to party
revenues and expenditures. In fact, the issue of transparency and public
disclosure is crucial to the fight against political corruption. In principle,
this need would seem more fitting with regard to hefty contributions than for
small ones, since greater the contribution, the greater the risk of dependence
and the greater the danger of corruption. Thus, there is a need for greater
transparency and public disclosure in respect of party funding. This demand for
transparency must be conceived, rather, as a democratic value in itself, a tool
designed to avoid any wrongful influences of money in politics that might lead
to corruption.
If laws are intended to be effective with regard to
transparency, they should be very general in nature and be enforced with
respect to everyone, and not just political parties or candidates, but also to
the donors as well. Otherwise,
alternate or indirect ways to evade control will be devised. In fact, while it
is essential to strengthen regulation, the mechanisms and capabilities of
supervision and controlling entities, this only addresses part of the problem.
Quite often, funding and commitments do not reach the parties, but rather go
directly to the candidate and his/her inner circle of supporters. This is truer
today in the context of the image and credibility crisis that partisan
organisations have been undergoing, and the emergence of regional leaders due
to the decentralisation process. This usually tends to make transactions
between donors and beneficiaries become even more secretive. Hence, the main
leaders or party members are often not aware of private contributions (many of
them dubious in origin and in quite large sums), but only the candidate and
his/her inner circle, which frequently consists of private contributors and/or
individuals not involved in the party.
Consequently, any proposals for reforms concerning
political funding should revolve, among other things, around the following five
main objectives: (i) reducing the influence of money by diminishing its impact
(by shortening campaigns, establishing ceilings on expenditure and limiting
individual contributions); (ii) improving the use of money by investing it on
more productive activities for the sake of democracy, and not just squandering
it on propaganda and negative campaigns; (iii) stopping, or at least
curtailing, as much as possible, current levels of influence peddling and
political corruption; (iv) strengthening public disclosure and transparency
mechanisms with respect to both the origin and the use of funds; and (v) promoting
fairer requirements for elections, particularly concerning access to the media.
8.11 Regulating political contributions
There is a
need for one comprehensive legislation regarding the regulation of political
contributions to political parties and towards election expenses. The various existing provisions in different
Acts need to be consolidated into a single law regulating the flow of funds to
political parties both from the internal as well as external sources.
Legislation
should provide for compulsory auditing of the accounts of all political parties
registered with the Election Commission by an independent authority specified
under the new law regulating the functioning of political parties, publishing
of audited party accounts, and immediate de-recognition and enforcement of
penalties for filing false or incorrect election returns. Accounts should be
made available for public inspection.
Legislation
should also contain provisions for making both donors and receivers of
political funds accountable.
Individuals
and corporate agency be permitted to make contributions to the political
parties upto a certain ceiling higher than the present 5% of profits and an
incentive be provided in terms of tax concessions.
The
Government should encourage the corporate bodies and agencies to establish an
electoral trust, which should be able to finance political parties on an
equitable basis at the time of elections.
8.12 Controlling
Electoral Expenditure
In view of
the increasing cost of the election campaigns, it is desirable that the
existing ceiling on election expenses for the various legislative bodies be
suitably raised to a reasonable level reflecting the increasing costs. However, this ceiling should include all the
expenses by the candidate as well as by his political party or his friends and
his well-wishers or any other expenses incurred in any political activity
sponsored on behalf of the candidate by an individual or a corporate entity.
Such a provision should be the part of a legislation regulating political
funding in India.
8.13 Monitoring
Election Expenditure
The
Election Commission should devise specific format(s) for filing of election
returns by the candidates as well as political parties in such a manner that
the fudging of accounts be made difficult.
These accounts should be monitored through a system of checking and
cross-checking through the income-tax returns filed by the candidates, parties
and their well-wishers.
The
Election Commission should organize training-cum-orientation workshops for the
candidates and party agents to enable them to manage party accounts and
election expenses in the format prescribed by the Election Commission,
especially on the eve of elections.
A suitable
law should be enacted providing penalties against damaging or desecrating
public or private property by candidates, political parties or the agents,
through painting of slogans or erecting cut-outs and hoarding or putting
banners and buntings. The law should also provide for constitutions of special
courts to ensure strict compliance of the aforesaid provisions of law, should
any dispute arise in respect of the alleged violations of provisions of law by
any candidate, political party or his agents and well-wishers.
8.14 Property of candidates
and politicians
A useful tool in the fight against corruption would be
legislation to make it possible to ascertain details about the inherited and
self-acquired property of candidates by means of public affidavits reporting on
it. Such affidavits should be audited by the Special Authority created by the
proposed law on Political Parties. During their term of office, elected
officials should also submit audited reports on a yearly basis, as well as a
final audited statement at the end of their term of office. This type of
measures would serve to keep the public fully informed about the property and
lifestyle of politicians before they assume power, during their term of office
and at its conclusion, thereby avoiding any unlawful acquisition of wealth.
In order
to curb the insidious practice of defection, the law should be amended to
specifically provide that all persons defecting from the party or the alliance
of party, on whose tickets they had been elected, must resign from their
parliamentary or assembly seats and must contest fresh elections. In other words, they should lose their
membership and the protection under the provision of split etc. should be
scrapped. The defectors should also be
debarred to hold any public office of a minister or any other remunerative
political post for at least the duration of the remaining term of the existing
legislature or until, the next fresh elections whichever is shorter.
3.
The practice of bloating the Council of Ministers must be
stopped. A ceiling on the number of Ministers in any state or the Union
government be fixed at the maximum of 10% of the total strength of the lower
house of the legislature.
4.
The practice of creating a number of political offices
equivalent to the position or privileges of a minister should also be
stopped. Any new administrative
organization should only be created through regular administrative procedures
and only if the provisions have been made in the regular budget estimates of
the government concerned.
8.17 Restoring
Moral Standards in Public Life
To the
question what can be done for the restoration of moral standards and ethical
values in public life, there is no simple answer. In the context of the current
feeling of resignation to corruption and unethical and criminal practices in
public life, and the disposition to consider them as inevitable and, therefore,
acceptable, it may be well to remember Gandhiji's observation that "Life
is an aspiration…the ideal must not be lowered because of our weakness and
imperfections", and the fact of his life long resistance to evil in many
forms - from racialism and imperialism to untouchablility.
Thus, in
addition to measures like the proposed legislation to effectively curb
defections and operation of black money, break the nexus between electoral
politics, economic resources and criminal support, and establishing the
institution of Lok Pal, it is necessary that a rigorous Code of Conduct be
drawn for both Ministers/Legislators and important functionaries of all
political parties, which should incorporate what the Nolan Committee in the
U.K. has suggested as the seven principles of public life-- viz.,
selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness,, honesty and leadership.
A Public
Ethics Committee consisting of representatives of all Political Parties and
some eminent public persons of impeccable integrity and acceptability may be
constituted to oversee, monitor and enforce the adherence to this code.
Review Of
Election, Processes And Reform Options (Chapter 3, Section 2)
20. The
suggestions mentioned in the summary of the Consultation Paper on the subject
were taken up seriatim.
The Gandhian Model
21. It
was decided that in the report, it should be brought out that the Commission
had considered the Gandhian Model of decentralization of power. However, in the present situation it was not
found feasible to be adopted.
22. The
meeting considered the following suggestions mentioned in the summary of the
Consultation Paper on the subject issued by the Commission and noticed that the
points made therein have already been covered in the earlier topic:
Sl. Nos. 2,13,14,15,21,24,29-30,34-37,
40-42, 44-49 and 51.
2. There should be a mechanism for constantly
updating these rolls and during each 1st week of April the updated
rolls as of 31st December of the previous year should be posted on
the web.
13. CEC’s suggestion to impose President’s rule over all the
States for the duration of elections may not be considered logical or feasible.
14. Once charges relating to certain crimes
have been framed by a court against a person, he should not be permitted to
contest elections unless cleared.
15. A potential candidate against whom the
police have framed charges may take the matter to a special electoral court.
This court would be obliged to enquire and take a decision in a strictly time
bound manner. Basically, this court may decide whether there is indeed a prima
facie case justifying the framing of charges. If yes, the person should not
be allowed to contest.
21. Create special electoral courts for
deciding on election petitions. These should be decided in a time bound way
within 6 to 12 weeks unlike the present where it can take years by which time
they have lost their meaning.
24. Partial state funding of elections
through time provided on national media for campaign activities of recognised
parties may continue.
29. All political party accounts, much like
the accounts of a public company, should be published yearly with complete
disclosure under pre-determined account heads. The Election Commission should
have these accounts audited.
30. Also make it obligatory for campaign
expense accounts – both receipts and expenses - of all candidates to be made public
in their constituencies.
34. Let candidates both at state level and
parliamentary level win only on the basis of a majority vote meaning 50%+1 of
the votes cast. This will create a majority representation and also push
political parties and serious contenders to widen their appeal to their
electorate.
35. For this let there be a run-off election
if required between the top two candidates who get the highest and the second
highest number of votes.
36. When using EVMs, have election spread
over two days and keep the second day for possible run-offs. This will save
considerable resources.
37. If this is not possible have the
shortest possible gap between the main election and the run-off. No further
campaigning should be permitted.
Defection and The Tenth
Schedule
40. Whether by an individual or a group,
defections should not be permitted. If a legislator wishes to leave his party
or vote against it he should vacate his seat. Let him/her contest on a fresh
platform. The vote cast by a defector
should also be invalidated. In the
alternative, the 10th Schedule should be repealed.
41. As a corollary to this, the role of whip
should be reduced. Whip should be allowed to be used only for those votes in
the House, which might threaten the life of the government.
42. Defectors should not eligible for any
public office until re-election.
Problems of Instability
44. Independent candidates should be
discouraged. Permit only those who have a track record of having won any local
election.
45. Let only recognised national parties or
pre-poll alliances contest elections to Lok Sabha.
46. It should be possible without any
constitutional amendment to provide for the election of the Leader of the House
(Lok Sabha /State Assembly) along with the election of the Speaker and in like
manner under the Rules of Procedure.
The person so elected may be appointed the Prime Minister/Chief Minister
and the Government constituted by him may be removable only on a constructive
vote of no-confidence.
Issues of Public Morality
47. Educate India’s masses about their
fundamental rights and duties, by driving home the message that political
position holders are not “rulers” in the sense of a “mai-baap” or a “maharaja”
but are elected into positions of authority to administer and serve the
society’s needs. Create a strong public
opinion against political corruption and by making sure that no one gets to
enjoy the fruits of their corrupt actions.
Miscellaneous
48. Debar all legislators from being
appointed as chairpersons of various state undertakings, also debar them from
any non-ministerial post other than chairmanship of legislative committees.
49. There must be a bar on ministries that
are larger than 10% of the house. No other position of profit, executive
authority or discretion should be available to legislators.
51. Some policy should be devised to
encourage public-spirited “professionals” to contest elections and give to the
legislature the benefit of their expertise and experience for a term or two.
23. After
discussion the Commission decided that the following suggestions made in the
summary of the Consultation Paper might be dropped:
50. There must be a limit of two terms for
any political position. So you may be a member of the panchayat for two terms,
of state assembly only for two terms even if non-contiguous and MP for two
terms.
59. Create multi-member or double-member
constituencies to eliminate or at least reduce narrow appeals based on religion
or caste.
24. After
discussion the Commission decided to adopt the following suggestions with
suitable modifications:
Sl. Nos. 1,8,10,17,18,20,22,43,52,56,58,60 and
61. (The modifications approved by the Commission are
indicated in italics below the original suggestion contained in the
Consultation Paper)
1. Electoral roll should be updated at the
lowest constituency level with a clear link to the higher constituency levels
till the parliamentary constituency.
1 The
Electoral Rolls should be easily accessible to the general public, preferably
at a public place such as all the Post Offices in the country so that these
could be inspected on payment of a nominal fee by any one. Facilities should also be provided to the
members of the public at the post offices for submitting their applications for
modification of the electoral rolls.
8. Reference section 58A of the
Representation of the People Act 1951, give Election Commission the authority
to take decision regarding booth capturing not only on the report of the
returning officer but even otherwise if it is satisfied.
8 Under
section 58A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the Election Commission
should be authorized to take a decision on the report of the Prominent Citizens
Groups also.
10. Make booth capturing punishable with
more stringent punishment and empower the Election Commission, to investigate
booth capturing and other violations of the electoral law, through the Central
or State police investigating agency; by the establishment of special electoral
courts.
10 The Special Electoral Courts as envisaged
under Article 323B(2)(f) of the Constitution should be constituted at the level
of High Courts and their decisions should be appealable to the Supreme Court
only (in similar way as the decisions of the National Environmental Tribunal).
17.
Under Section 8(4), sitting members are not disqualified
even when convicted until their appeal is decided. This should be deleted.
18. If an elected representative gets
convicted on charges related to specific crimes, he should be required to
withdraw from the legislature for six months and if within that period he fails
to get an acquittal, he should be disqualified.
17&18 These should be reworded. Section 8 of the R.P. Act, 1951 should be
rationalized.
20. Amend current practice that once the
High court hands out the judgement on an election petition holding the
candidate guilty of corrupt practices, the case goes to the Secretary of the
concerned State Legislature or the Secretary General Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha,
as the case may be. It is then forwarded to the President who in turn forwards
it to the EC. Only then does the EC get jurisdiction to tender its opinion to
the President based on which the disqualification order is issued. Instead of
this round about procedure a direct reference between the High Court, the
Election Commission and the President should be created to cut unnecessary
delay.
20 Pre-1975
position needs to be restored.
22. The basic problem is that the present
rules have a significant loophole in the shape of explanation 1 to section 77(1)
of the Representation of the People Act 1951, under which the amounts spent by
persons other than the candidate and his agent themselves, are not counted in
his election expenses. This means that there can be never any violation of the
expenditure limits. All extra expenditure, even when known and proven, can be
shown to have been spent by the party or by any friends and it remains outside
of the enforceable limits. This must be rectified and all expenditure made by
or on behalf of the candidate must be included in his expenditure limit as
provided under the rules.
22 The explanation 1 to section 77(1) of
the RP Act, 1951 should be deleted.
43. Have intra-state delimitation exercise
undertaken by the Election Commission to eliminate anomalies like the Chandni
chowk Lok Sabha constituency being only 1/7th of the voter size of
the Outer Delhi Lok Sabha constituency. The same should be done for assembly
constituencies.
43 The delimitation Commission should
reflect the plural composition of the society.
52. The EC should be unanimously appointed
by a body consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the
Chief Justice of India and the Presiding Officers of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
This should also be done for the State Election Commissioners.
52 The words ‘unanimously’ & ‘Chief
Justice of India’ may be deleted from the suggestion.
56. There is every case for their being more
women representatives. Political
parties should be asked to put up women candidates for at least one-third of the
seats they contest both for State and parliament elections or the same number
of seats should be reserved for them by rotation.
56 Law should require the Political
Parties to put up at least one-third women candidates for elections to
Parliament and State Legislatures.
Failure to do so should invite penalty of losing recognition for the
Political Party.
58. All candidates should be required to
clear government dues before their candidature is accepted. This pertains
specially to payment of taxes and bills and to holding on the accommodation,
telephones, and government facilities used while in power.
58 The fact that the matter regarding
Government dues in respect of the candidate are pending before a Court of Law
should be no answer to the suggestion.
60. Hold State level and parliamentary level
elections at the same time. This would reduce election expenditure.
60 To the extent possible State &
Parliamentary level elections should be held at the same time.
61. Every candidate at the time of election
and every holder of a political position annually must declare his assets and
liabilities along with those of his close relatives.
61 The word ‘annually’ should be deleted
from the suggestion.
25. The
Commission accepted the following suggestions in toto:
Sl. Nos. 3-7,9,11,12,16,19,23,25-28,31-33,38-39,53-55
and 57
3. Multipurpose voter ID card or
citizenship card should be designed with a bar coded unique voter ID number.
Over an acceptable period of time these should become mandatory for all elections.
4. This job should be entrusted to a
pre-qualified professional organisation and should include designing the
implementation of the scheme in coordination with and under the EC. Panchayati
Raj Institutions and local post offices to be involved in helping in its
implementation.
5. The designing of Electoral Rolls and ID
should be coordinated with a view to the future.
6. The responsibility for the electoral
rolls and ID should rest with one
integrated machinery under the EC/SECs.
7. Introduce Electronic Voting Machines in
all constituencies as rapidly as possible. For all sensitive constituencies use
them straightaway.
9. Again, under section 58A of the Act,
the Election Commission should not only be empowered to countermand the
election and order a fresh election as now provided under the law, but also
should be empowered to declare the earlier poll to be void and order only a
re-poll in the entire constituency, instead of a re-election there, depending
on the nature and seriousness of each case.
11. Consider use of tamper-proof video and
other electronic surveillance at sensitive polling stations/constituencies.
Caste and
Communal Hatred
12. Any campaign on the basis of caste or
religion and any attempt to spread caste and communal hatred during elections
should be punished with immediate disqualification and mandatory imprisonment.
Criminalisation
16. Eliminate incongruities in the existing
provisions of sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951, whereby a rapist convicted and sentenced to ten years
imprisonment, may be disqualified only for six years under sub-section (1) and
thus remain free to contest elections, even while in prison serving the last
four years of his sentence. The law should provide that whoever is convicted of
any offence by a Court of law and sentenced to imprisonment for six months or
more should be debarred from contesting elections, for a period totalling the
sentence imposed plus an additional six years.
19. Political parties, when they are seen to
be abetting criminalisation should face derecognition and other action.
Election
Expenditure – the high cost of elections and abuse of unaccounted money power
23. Political parties as well as individual
candidates should be subject to a proper statutory audit of the amounts they
spend. At the end of the election each candidate should submit an audited
statement of expenses, head-wise. The audit should not only be mandatory but it
should be enforced by the Election Commission appointing a council of at least
two auditors say for 10 constituencies each. Any violation or misreporting
should be dealt with strongly.
25. For other proposed state funding, it has
to be linked to the political parties being regulated by law and to creating a
foolproof mechanism to implement financial limits strictly and to deter
expenditure violations.
26. Bring in transparency into all political
funding.
27. Permit corporate donations within prescribed
limits and keep them transparent.
28. Make all legal and transparent donations
tax exempt and treat this tax loss to the state as its contribution to state
funding of elections. For example, tax exemptions could be limited to say
25,000 for individuals and 10,00,000 for companies provided that the
contributions are made to party funds and not to individuals. In the case of
corporate contributions, the Board of Directors may approve up to say 1,00,000
and anything over this amount may be approved by the shareholders. Political
funding should be a separate head in the accounts and annual reports of the
company. This will ensure transparency.
31. There should be a serious attempt at
reducing election expenses and this can be done by perhaps changing the ground
rules for electoral campaigns – partly by encouraging the use of electronic and
digital technology to campaign at state cost and simultaneously by totally and
effectively banning other overt and wasteful tamashaas of campaigning
32. Place reasonable restrictions on the following:
Wall writings, Display of cut-outs hoardings and banners, Hoisting of
flags (except at party offices, public meetings and other specified places),
Use of more than a specified number of vehicles for election campaign and for
processions, Announcements or publicity by more than a specified number of
moving vehicles, Holding of public meetings beyond the specified hours, Display
of posters at places, other than those specified by the district/electoral
authorities, strong penalty for violation of expenditure ceiling. During
election times rallies only under covered roofs should be allowed. No outdoor
public rallies should be permitted.
33. Create an effective mechanism to
implement these rules and create an effective deterrence against violations.
While compulsory voting may
not be feasible or advisable at present, a scheme of suitable incentives for
increasing voter participation may be considered.
Negative
Voting
Sound on principle, the suggestion
for a provision of negative voting may be found impracticable and unnecessary.
38. Consider providing incentives to voters
for casting their vote by providing of some simple facilities in order to push
up the electoral turn out. Together with the 50%+1 vote scheme this will have a
salutary effect on the campaigning rhetoric of the candidates and political
parties because they will have to reach a higher number of voters now.
39. Electoral offences in the run-off
elections should have a higher punishment prescribed.
53. The EC should not be appointed to any other office after
retirement.
54. An independent auditing authority should be appointed for
auditing annual statements of accounts of all political parties.
55. Rotation of seats should be done for SC
seats and non-scheduled area ST seats.
57. The minimum number of valid votes polled
should be increased to 25% from the current 16.67% as a condition for the
deposit not being forfeited. Also the amount of deposit should be increased. These steps would further reduce non-serious
candidates.
26. It was pointed out that some of the suggestions mentioned by
the Commission in the Consultation Papers were already being acted upon by the
Government. Members agreed that it
would be desirable to mention this fact appropriately in the report.
Additional
Agenda for 27th & 28th November, 2001
27. The Hon’ble Chairperson had allocated the representations
submitted by various organizations containing their demands to some
Members/group of Members in January 2001 for consideration and suggesting the
course of action to be taken by the Commission. It was noted that there had not been much progress in this
regard. Moreover, some more
representations have been received after the aforesaid allocations. It was decided that the representations
should be taken note of when the draft chapters on the relatable subject are
considered by the Commission in its future meetings. The Secretariat was asked to take note of it.
Additional
Agenda for 29th November, 2001
Consideration of the suggestions
made by “Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan, Campaign Coordinator, Lok Satta
28. It was noted that Dr. Jayaprakash
Narayan had made a suggestion about the availability of the Electoral Rolls in
the post offices so that general public could have easy access to it. This suggestion had already been accepted by
the Commission while considering the Chapter on ‘Political Parties and
Electoral Process – Need for Reforms’.
29. The other suggestion made by him relates
to a ‘direct election’ of Chief Minister in States. It was felt that this suggestion in effect means introduction of
Presidential form of Government in the States and acceptance of the same may
amount to interfering with the basic features of the Constitution. This would be outside the Commission’s terms
of reference and, therefore, it could not be accepted.
Item 5
(Any other item)
30. Smt. Sumitra G. Kulkarni, Member was in favour of
establishment of Special Courts for women, children and SC/ST so that their problems
could receive special attention. She
also wanted a time limit to be fixed for these Special Courts for disposal of
the cases before them.
31. With the permission of the Chair, the meeting was informed
that Deans of Faculty of Law of University of Delhi and Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
University, Agra have sought permission and funds for organizing a public
interactive session cum seminar in Delhi and Aligarh respectively. After some
discussion, it was agreed that the University of Delhi being a premier University
might be allowed to conduct a Seminar at Delhi at the earliest and preferably
by the end of December, 2001 so that its proceedings could be available before
the Commission prior to finalisation of its report. An amount of Rs. 40, 000/-,
which was paid to other universities for similar seminars, could be paid to it.
However, the Commission did not agree to the conduct of a Seminar by the Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra at Aligarh as the Aligarh Muslim University had
already held one such seminar at this place.
32. A communication received from one Shri O.P.R. Mishra from
Mumbai seeking appointment to present his views before all the Members of the
Commission during its meeting was placed before the Commission. All the members agreed that it was not
necessary to invite Shri Mishra as they have already received his memoranda.
The meeting ended with a vote of
thanks to the Chair.
(RAGHBIR SINGH)
Secretary
Tele: 302 2079, 302 2080
To
All Members of the Commission
Annexure
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS OF THE
THIRTEENTH MEETING
1. Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah
(In Chair)
2. Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy
(except 25th
& 26th November)
(14)
MINUTES OF THE FOURTEENTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
HELD ON 14,15,17 AND 18 DECEMBER, 2001
The
Fourteenth meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the
Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi on 14,15,17 and 18 December,
2001. Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah chaired the meeting. The list of participants is at Annexure-A.
2. The Hon’ble Chairperson extended a warm
welcome to the Members and requested the Secretary to take up the Agenda.
Item 1 Confirmation of
the Minutes of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Commission held from 24th
November, 2001 to 29th November, 2001
3. The
Minutes of the Thirteenth Meeting of the Commission held from 24th
November, 2001 to 29th November, 2001 were taken as read and
confirmed subject to the following amendments:
4. In
para 11 of the minutes regarding ‘Parliament and State Legislatures at Work’,
under the heading ‘Reorganising Parliamentary Time Table’ at page 8 of the
minutes, the minimum number of days for which the legislatures should have
sittings in a year should be prescribed as under:
Legislative
Assemblies of Small States :
50 days
(number of legislators being less than 70)
Legislative
Assemblies of Other States : 90
days
Rajya
Sabha : 100
days
Lok Sabha : 120
days
Review of the Working of the
Political Parties Specially in Relation to Elections & Reform Options
5. Justice
Dr. K. Punnayya had some reservation on the adoption of modified para 8.7(c)
mentioned at page 15 of the minutes that no candidate should be declared
elected unless he/she secures more than 40 % (40% +1) of the votes cast
(instead of 50% +1 mentioned in the recommendation in that para originally). He
felt that there would be practical difficulties in holding of run off
elections.
6. Para
8.8 at page 18 of the minutes regarding ‘Curbing Criminalisation of Politics’
should be modified as under:
Any person
charged with any offence punishable with imprisonment for a maximum term of
five years or more, should be disqualified for being chosen as or for being a
member of the Parliament or Legislature of a State on the expiry of period of
one year from the date the charges were framed against him by the court in that
offence and shall continue to remain so disqualified till the conclusion of the
trial for that offence. In case of conviction, the bar should apply during the
period under which the convicted person is undergoing the sentence and a
further period of six years after the completion of the period of the
sentence. If any party violates this
provision, the candidate involved should be liable to be disqualified and the
party deregistered forthwith.
Any person
convicted for any heinous crime like rape, murder, smuggling, dacoity, etc.
should be permanently debarred from contesting for any political office.
7. In
Para 8.9 at page 18 of the minutes regarding ‘Checking Proliferation of
Independent Candidates’ the portion regarding ‘security deposits’ should read
as under:
8. In para 19
of the minutes para 8.14 at page 21 should be replaced by the following:
8.14 Property of candidates
and politicians
A useful tool in the fight against corruption would be
to lay down by legislation to make it possible to ascertain details about all
the assets and Liabilities of candidates by means of public affidavits
reporting on it. Such affidavits should be audited by the Special Authority
created by the proposed law on Political Parties. During their term of office,
elected officials should also submit audited reports on a yearly basis, as well
as a final audited statement at the end of their term of office. This type of
measures would serve to keep the public fully informed about the property and
lifestyle of politicians before they assume power, during their term of office
and at its conclusion, thereby avoiding any unlawful acquisition of wealth.
Review Of Election Processes And
Reform Options (Chapter 3, Section 2)
8 Under
section 58A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Election
Commission should be authorized to take a decision regarding booth capturing on
the report of the returning officer, observer and also of the Citizens Groups.
(b) In place of suggestion in para 10 (at page 26), the following
shall be substituted:
10 The
Special Electoral Courts should be constituted at the level of High Courts and
their decisions should be appealable to the Supreme Court only (in similar way
as the decisions of the National Environmental Tribunal). The Special Electoral
Courts should decide the cases within a period of six months. For deciding the
cases, these Courts should take evidence through Commissioners.
(c) In place of suggestion in para 17 (at page 26), the following
shall be substituted:
18. The
disqualification shall apply after expiry of a period of one year from the date
the charges were framed in a court of law (as stated in para 8.8 above).
61 Every
candidate at the time of election must declare his assets and liabilities along
with those of his close relatives. Every holder of a political position must
declare his assets and liabilities along with those of his close relations
annually. Law should define the term ‘close relatives’.
28. Make all
legal and transparent donations upto a specified limit tax exempt and treat
this tax loss to the state as its contribution to state funding of elections.
For example, tax exemptions could be limited to say 25,000 for individuals and
10,00,000 for companies provided that the contributions are made to party funds
and not to individuals. In the case of corporate contributions, the Board of
Directors may approve up to say 1,00,000 and anything over this amount may be
approved by the shareholders. Political funding should be a separate head in
the accounts and annual reports of the company. This will ensure transparency. This will be in addition to the existing
conditions laid in the Companies Act, 1956 for making donations to political
parties.
38. Consider
providing incentives to voters for casting their vote by providing of some
simple facilities in order to push up the electoral turn out. Together with the
50%+1(40%+1 to begin with) vote scheme this will have a salutary effect on the
campaigning rhetoric of the candidates and political parties because they will
have to reach a higher number of voters now. However, there should be no tax
rebate for exercise of the right to vote.
57.
The minimum number of valid votes polled should be
increased to 25% from the current 16.67% as a condition for the deposit not
being forfeited. Also the amount of deposit should be doubled for independent
candidates. These steps would further
reduce non-serious candidates.
(A) VISION OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHANGE
It was
noted that this part did not contain any recommendations as such. The
Commission, therefore, decided to remit this portion of the draft Report to the
Editorial Committee for such editorial changes as are considered appropriate by
it.
(B) EFFECTUATION AND REALISATION OF
DIRECTIVE PRINCIPLES OF STATE POLICY
1. The
Directive Principles of State Policy shall be called the Directive Principles
of State Policy and Action
2. The
demand that has been made from time to time that the Directive Principles of
State Policy be made justiciable so that the same can be enforced like the
Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution has been carefully
considered and the Commission has come to the conclusion that the same can not
be accepted at this stage.
3. For
ensuring that the Directive Principles of State Policy are realised more
effectively, the Commission recommends as under:
(i)
The Planning Commission shall ensure that there is specific
mention/emphasis on and specific bench-marks for the progressive
effectuation/realizations of the Directive Principles of State Policy in all
the plans and schemes formulated by it.
(ii)
Every Ministry/Department of the Government of India/ State
Governments shall prepare and publish a special annual report indicating the
extent of effectuation/realization of the Directive Principles of State Policy,
the shortfall in the targets, the reasons for the shortfall, if any and the
remedial measures taken to ensure their full realization, during the year under
report.
(iii)
The aforesaid Report at (ii) above shall be discussed by the
Planning Commission in interactive seminars/workshops with the representatives
of various NGOs, Civil Society Groups, etc. in which the representatives of the
concerned Ministry/Department and the Departmental Related Parliamentary
Standing Committee would also participate.
(iv)
The report under (ii) along with the records/ proceedings
under (iii) will be considered and discussed by the Departmental Related
Parliamentary Standing Committee which shall submit its report on the working
of the Department indicating the achievements/failures of the
Ministry/Department along with its recommendations thereto to the Parliament
which shall discuss the Report within a period of three months and pass a
resolution about the action required to be taken by the Ministry/Department.
4. The
Commission also recommends a similar mechanism for the States.
5. The
requisite amendments to the Rules of Business to enable these procedures shall
be brought about.
Article 41
of the Constitution may be amended and a proviso may be added to that article
so as to provide that the State shall bring a suitable legislation for
providing the right to rural wage labour for a minimum of 80 days in a
year. A proviso to Article 41 in the
following terms may be inserted:
“Provided
that the State shall by suitable legislation endeavour to guarantee rural wage
labour for a minimum of eighty days in a year”
The summary of
recommendations made under this topic was remitted to the Editorial Committee
Shri K. Parasaran, the Member-in-charge of this topic being a member of the
Editorial Committee it could consider, discuss and fine tune the
recommendations with particular reference to the new technology that may be
required for handling the enormous changes required after the proposed Article
21-A becomes part of the Constitution as it would be a crucial area.
(E) FUNDAMENTAL
DUTIES
The draft report on the topic of Fundamental Duties prepared
by the Member-in-Charge was considered. On finding that the recommendations
contained therein were found to contain inadequate picture of the Commission’s
comprehension of the subject, it was decided that the matter be remitted to the
Editorial Committee for suitably drafting the report, taking into
consideration, inter alia, (i) Recommendations of Justice J.S. Verma
Committee, which were generally found to be acceptable by the Commission (ii)
Consultation Paper on the subject released by the Commission and (iii) Paper on
the subject submitted by Smt. Sumitra G. Kulkarni, Member.
(F) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS
In the
light of the discussion contained in this section, the Commission is making the
following recommendations for amendment of Part III of the Constitution of
India, which deals with Fundamental Rights.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In Article 12 of the Constitution, the following Explanation
should be added:
‘Explanation.-
In this article, the expression “other authorities” shall include any person in
relation to functions of a public nature.’.
2. In
sub-clause (1) and sub-clause (2) of Article 15 and in sub-clause (2) of
Article 16, before the words “or any of them” the following words should be
inserted, namely: -
“ethnic or
social origin, political or other opinion, property or birth”
3. (i)
In sub-clause (1) of Article 19, in clause (a), after the words “freedom of
speech and expression”, the following words should be added:
“which
shall include the freedom of the press and other media, the freedom to hold
opinions and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas”
(ii) In
sub-clause (2) of Article 19, after the words “incitement to an offence”, the
following words should be added:
“or for
preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, if required,
in public interest”
4. Existing
Article 21 may be re-numbered as clause (1) thereof, and a new clause (2)
should be inserted thereafter on the following lines:-
“(2) No
one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment”.
5. After
Article 21, a new Article, say article 21A, should be inserted as follows:
“21A. (1)
Every person shall have the right to leave the territory of India and every citizen
shall have the right to return to India.
(2)
Nothing in clause (1) shall prevent the State from making any law imposing
reasonable restrictions in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of
India, friendly relations of India with foreign States and interests of the
general public.”.
6. The
existing Article 21 may be re-numbered as clause (1) thereof, and after clause
(1) as so numbered, a new clause namely, clause (2) should be inserted as
follows:
“(2) Every person who has been illegally deprived
of his right to life or liberty shall have an enforceable right to
compensation.”.
7. It
is proposed that a new article, namely, Article 21-B should be inserted in Part
III of the Constitution:
“21-B. (1)
Every person has a right to respect for his private and family life, his home
and his correspondence.
(2)
Nothing in clause (1) shall prevent the State from making any law imposing
reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by clause (1) in
the interests of security of the State, public safety or for the prevention of
disorder or crime, or for the protection of health or morals, or for the
protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
8. In article 25 of the Constitution, -
(a) in
clause (2), for sub-clause (b), the following clause should be substituted,
namely:-
“(b) providing for social
welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu, Sikh, Jaina or Buddhist
religious institutions of a public character
to all classes and sections of these religions.”.
(b)
Explanation II should be omitted.
9. After Article 30, the following Article should be added as
Article 30-A:
“30-A:
Access to Courts and Tribunals and speedy justice
(1)
Everyone has a right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the
application of law, decided in a fair public hearing before a court or tribunal
or forum or where appropriate, another independent and impartial court,
tribunal or forum.
(2) The
right to access to courts shall be deemed to include right to reasonably speedy
and effective justice in all matters before the courts, tribunals or other
forum and the State shall take all reasonable steps to achieve the said
object.”
10. After the proposed Article 30-A, the following Article should
be inserted as Article 30-B:
“30-B:
Equal justice and free legal aid:
The State
shall secure that the operation of the legal system promotes justice on the
basis of equal justice, and shall, in particular, provide free legal aid, by
means of suitable legislation or otherwise, to ensure that opportunities for
securing justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities.”
11. (i) The first proviso to article 22(4) as contained in the
Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978 should be substituted by the
following proviso.
“Provided
that an Advisory Board shall consist of a Chairman and not less than two other
members, and the Chairman and the other members of the Board shall be serving
judges of any High Court.”
(ii)
Article 22(4) or (7) should be suitably amended providing for restricting the
maximum period of detention to six months.
12. For the existing Article 300-A, the following article should
be substituted:
“300-A:
(1) Deprivation or acquisition of
property shall be by authority of law and only for a public purpose.
(2) There shall be no arbitrary deprivation or
acquisition of property:
Provided that no deprivation or
acquisition of agricultural, forest and non-urban homestead land belonging to
or customarily used by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes shall take
place except by authority of law which prescribes making of a suitable
rehabilitation scheme before taking possession.”
13. In Article 31-B, the following proviso should be added at the
end, namely:-
“Provided
that the protection afforded by this article to Acts and Regulations which may
be hereafter specified in the Ninth Schedule or any of the provisions thereof,
shall not apply unless such Acts or Regulations relate —
a) in pith
and substance to agrarian reforms or land reforms;
b) to
reasonable quantum of reservation under articles 15 and 16;
c) to
provisions for giving effect to the policy of the State towards securing all or
any of the principles specified in clause (b) or clause (c) of article 39.”
14. Article 359 (1-A) should be amended by substituting for
“(except articles 20 and 21)”, the following:
“(except
articles 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25 and 32)”
15. The Commission has received representations for abolition and
for retention of death penalty. The Commission, after due deliberations, has not
thought it appropriate to recommend, at this stage, any change in the existing
law relating to imposition of death penalty.
16. A new article, say Article 30-C, should be added in Part III
of the Constitution on the following lines:-
“Article
30-D: (1) Every child shall have a right to free elementary education of
quality until he completes the age of fourteen years.
(2)
Every person shall have the right to education beyond the age of fourteen years
within the limits of economic capacity and development of the State.”
17. After article 24, the following article should be inserted,
namely:-
“24A. Every child shall have a right for care and
assistance in basic needs, and protection from all forms of neglect, harm and
exploitation,
18. After the proposed Article 30-C, the following Article should
be inserted as Article 30-D:
“30-D:
Right to prevention of pollution, conservation of ecology and sustainable
development:
Every
person has the right—
(a) to an
environment that is not harmful to his health or well-being; and
(b) to
have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future
generations, through reasonable legislative and other measure that—
(i)
prevent pollution and ecological degradation,
(ii)
promote conservation; and
(iii) secure
ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while
promoting justifiable economic and social development;”
14. The Commission took up the topic ‘All-India
Judicial Service’ under Chapter 6 of volume II of the Final Report for consideration. Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy explained the
background of the matter and the views of the various High Courts and others.
After detailed discussions, the Members agreed to conclusion that the formation
of an All-India Judicial Service would not be a better alternative, than the
present system and therefore, it would not be preferable to disturb the present
position. The Commission did not favour
deletion of clause (3) of article 312 of the Constitution.
15. The next topic taken up for consideration
under Chapter 6 of volume II of the Final Report was ‘Financial Autonomy of
the Judicial Branch of the State’. After discussing the draft in detail,
the Commission decided on the following recommendation to be made on this
topic:
‘The
financial autonomy is one of the essential elements for the independence of
judiciary and the Commission recommends that an appropriate mechanism be
devised to ensure that the budget proposals of the judiciary may be finalized
after mutual discussions between the judiciary and the concerned Ministry
keeping in view the developmental needs of the judiciary.’
16. ‘Appointment, Transfer and Removal of
Judges’ was the next topic under Chapter 6 of volume II of the Final Report
taken up for consideration. After comprehensive discussions, the Members agreed
to the following recommendations:
(i)
There shall be a National Judicial Commission for making recommendation as to the
appointment of a Judge of the Supreme Court (other than the Chief Justice of
India), a Chief Justice of a High Court and a Judge of any High Court.
(ii)
The composition of the National Judicial Commission would be
as under:
a) The
Vice-President of India
b) The Chief
Justice of India
c) Two
senior-most Judges of the Supreme Court, next to the Chief Justice
d) The Union Minister
for Law & Justice.
The
National Judicial Commission shall meet as a round table. While meeting for
making recommendation as to the appointment of a Judge of a High Court, the
Chief Justice of the concerned High Court shall also be associated as a Member
of the Commission.
(iii)
Proposals for appointment of Judges
should originate either from the Chief Justice of India or the Chief Justice of
a High Court, as the case may be.
(iv)
The retirement age of High Court and
Supreme Court Judges should be uniform and it can be 65 years.
(v)
The Pension of the judges should be same
as the last basic pay drawn by them plus the Dearness Allowance.
(vi)
The retired judges should not be
appointed to any paid appointment under the Government. However, even for
post-retirement non-paid assignments, it is recommended that, to eliminate room
for irrelevant considerations, it would be appropriate to provide as a matter
of law that where a retired Judge is sought to be appointed to a
Tribunal/Commission or similar other body, such appointment should be made in
consultation with the concerned Chief Justice. In the case of appointment of a
retired Judge/Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of India
will be consulted and in the case of appointment of a judge/Chief Justice of
the High Court, the Chief Justice of that Court should be consulted. Such a
course would help in eliminating irrelevant considerations and would also
facilitate appointment of appropriate persons to these bodies.
(vii)
As regards the transfer of Judges, it
should be as a matter of policy and the power under article 222 and its
exercise in appropriate cases should remain untouched. The President would
transfer a Judge from one High Court to any other High Court after consultation
with a committee comprising the Chief Justice of India and the two senior-most
Judges of the Supreme Court.
(viii)
The Commission considers that the present
position of impeachment is totally inadequate and for various reasons
impracticable.
(ix)
The Commission suggests a procedure as to
how to deal with complaints of deviant behaviour as at Annexure-B.
(x)
The Commission is of the opinion that the
mere creation and existence of a mechanism as suggested herein should itself
operate as a check against deviant behaviour. Where, however, deviance occurs,
it is necessary that it is dealt with appropriately.
Chapter 7 – Union-State Relations
17. The next topic taken up for
consideration was ‘Article 356’. After discussing the draft prepared by
Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy and a Paper prepared by Shri S.K. Sharma, former
Secretary in the Inter-State Council, in detail, the Commission decided that
retention of this article was very much necessary. Shri S.K. Sharma
participated in the discussions on the topic as a special invitee. The
Commission requested Shri S.K. Sharma to modify the recommendations part of the
draft in the light of discussions and submit the revised draft recommendations
in a narrative form to the Editorial Committee by 25th December,
2001.
18. The Commission took up the next topic
“the Institution of Governor”. The draft report prepared by Justice Shri
B.P. Jeevan Reddy was taken up for consideration and after detailed
discussions, the Commission decided to adopt the following recommendations:
(a)
The appointment of Governor should be entrusted to a
Committee consisting of the Prime Minister of India, Union Minister for Home
Affairs and the Chief Minister of the concerned State.
(b)
Normally five year term of the Governor should be
adhered to.
(c)
Removal or transfer of Governor should be by following
a similar procedure as for appointment i.e. in consultation with the Committee.
The Chief Minister of the concerned State(s) should always be consulted in the
matter.
(d)
In the matter of selection of a Governor, the
following matters mentioned in para 4.16.01 of the Sarkaria Commission Report
should be kept in mind:-
“4.16.01 A person to be appointed as a Governor
should satisfy the following criteria:
Ø
He should be eminent in some walk of life.
Ø
He should be a person from outside the State.
Ø
He should be a detached figure and not too intimately
connected with the local politics of the State.
Ø
He should be a person who has not taken too great a
part in politics generally, and particularly in the recent past.
In
selecting a Governor in accordance with the above criteria, the persons
belonging to the minority groups should continue to be given a chance as
hitherto.”.
(e)
The time-limit – say a period of six months – within which
the Governor should take a decision whether to grant assent or to reserve it
for consideration of the President should be prescribed.
(f)
The Editorial Committee was requested to examine and further
consider the following suggestion:
If the
Bill is reserved for consideration of the President, there should be a
time-limit, say of three months, within which the President should take a
decision whether to accord his assent or to direct the Governor to return it to
the State Legislature or to seek the opinion of the Supreme Court regarding the
constitutionality of the Act under Article 143 (as it happened in the case of
Kerala Education Bill in 1958).
Annexure - A
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS of the fourteenth meeting
1. Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah
(In Chair)
2. Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy (except 18th
December)
3. Justice R.S. Sarkaria (except
15th,17th and 18th December)
ANNEXURE-B
How
complaints of deviant behaviour should be dealt with:
A committee comprising the Chief Justice of India and two senior-most
Judges of the Supreme Court should examine complaints of deviant behaviour of
all kinds and complaints of misbehaviour and incapacity. Their scrutiny at this stage would be
confined to ascertain whether –
a)
there is no substance in the complaint;
or
b)
there is a prima facie case
calling for a fuller investigation and enquiry; or
c)
whether it would be sufficient to
administer an appropriate advice/warning to the erring Judge or give other
directions to the concerned Chief Justice regarding allotment of work to such
Judge or to transfer him to some other court.
If, however, they find that the matter is serious and that it calls for
a fuller investigation or inquiry, they will refer the matter for a full
inquiry to the committee (constituted under the Judges’ Inquiry Act,
1968).
The committee shall be a permanent committee with composition indicated
in the said Act and not one constituted ad-hoc for a particular case or
from case to case, as is the present position under Section 3(2) of the
Act. The tenure of the Committee shall
be for a period of four years and to be re-constituted every four years.
The committee shall be constituted by the President on the advice of
the Chief Justice of India. The membership shall not be full time salaried
employment. But the terms and other
conditions of service of the Members of the Committee shall be such as may be
specified in the notification constituting the committee. The committee shall inquire into the
allegation against the Judge in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the
said Act, i.e. in accordance with sub-sections (3) to (8) of Section 3 and
sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act and submit their report to the
Chief Justice of India.
The report should be considered by the full court of the Supreme
Court. The full court shall take a
decision as to –
whether (a) the
Judge concerned ought to be exonerated of the charge or the charges levelled
against him; or
(b) whether any
charge or charges are established against him and if so, whether the charges
held proved are so serious as to call for his removal (i.e. proved
misbehaviour) or whether it should be sufficient to administer a warning to him
and/or make other directions with respect to allotment of work to him by the
concerned Chief Justice or to transfer him to some other court (i.e., deviant
behaviour not amounting to misbehaviour).
If the decision of the full court of the Supreme Court is to remove the
Judge, the recommendation to that effect shall be made by the Supreme Court to
the President of India who shall pass orders accordingly. The decision of the
Full Court of the Supreme Court means the decision arrived at by two-thirds of
the Judges of the Supreme Court present and voting and a simple majority of the
total effective strength (and not sanctioned strength) of the Supreme
Court.
This procedure shall equally apply in case of Judges of the Supreme Court
as well with the modification that the judge against whom complaint is received
or inquiry is ordered, shall not participate in any proceeding affecting him.
(15)
MINUTES OF THE FIFTEENTH MEETING OF THE COMMISSION
HELD FROM 5th TO 8th JANUARY, 2002
The
Fifteenth meeting of the Commission was held in the Conference Room of the
Commission in Vigyan Bhawan Annexe, New Delhi from 5th to 8th
January, 2002. Hon’ble Justice Shri M.N. Venkatachaliah chaired the
meeting. The list of participants is at
Annexure.
2. The
Hon’ble Chairperson extended a warm and respectful welcome to the Members and
requested the Secretary to take up the Agenda.
Item 1 Confirmation of
the Minutes of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Commission held on 14th,
15th, 17th and 18th December, 2001.
3. The
Minutes of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Commission held on 14th, 15th,
17th and 18th December, 2001 were taken as read
and confirmed subject to the following amendments:
(i)
Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap pointed out that the minutes did not
reflect an important decision of the Commission to have a meeting with Shri R.
Venkataraman, former President of India to elicit his views on various matters
of national importance relating to working of the Constitution. Such a decision had been taken twice earlier
but somehow was neither recorded nor acted upon thus far. The Commission could
call on him after ascertaining his convenience.
[The
Hon’ble Chairperson directed that immediate action be taken to seek an
appointment with the former President of India.]
(ii)
Mentioning of the names of S/Shri Gopi K. Arora, N.C. Saxena
and S.K. Sharma in the list of participants at Annexure-A (page 18) of the
minutes as special invitees was not correct.
Shri Gopi K. Arora had participated in the meeting as Consultant in
pursuance of a decision of the Commission for assisting them in the
drafting/editorial work whereas Shri Saxena was only called to clarify a point.
Similarly, Shri Sharma was called for a few minutes only to explain the
contents of his note. Hence of these
three names, only the name of Shri Gopi K. Arora as Consultant should remain in
the minutes. The meeting accepted the suggestion and decided accordingly.
(iii)
In para 6, the portion regarding ‘Curbing Criminalisation of
Politics’ mentioned thereunder should be modified as under:
Any person
charged with any offence punishable with imprisonment for a maximum term of
five years or more, should be disqualified for being chosen as or for being a
member of Parliament or of the Legislature of a State on the expiry of a period
of one year from the date the charges were framed against him by the court in
that offence and shall continue to remain so disqualified till the conclusion
of the trial for that offence. In case of conviction, the bar should apply
during the period under which the convicted person is undergoing the sentence
and for a further period of six years after the completion of the period of the
sentence. If any political party
violates this provision, the candidate involved should be liable to be disqualified
and the party should be deregistered
and de-recognised forthwith.
Any person
convicted for any heinous crime like rape, murder, smuggling, dacoity, etc.
should be permanently debarred from contesting for any political office.
(v)
In para 16 regarding appointment, transfer and removal of
Judges on page 14, it should be mentioned that there was some discussion
regarding the composition of the proposed National Judicial Commission
16(i). Since the substantive issue
relating to judiciary was scheduled to be discussed on 7th January,
20021, the decision on this item was deferred
to that date.
(vi)
In para 16(iv), at page 14, it was noted that the Commission
had agreed that the retirement age of High Court and Supreme Court judges
should be uniform. However, there was
no decision that it could be 65 years.
The matter would be discussed on 7th January, 20021 and decision on this item was deferred
to that date.
(vii)
Para 16(v), at page 14, relating to pension of the judges
should be deleted.
(viii)
Para 16(vi) at page 14, relating to prohibition of
appointment of retired judges to any paid appointment under the Government, it
was suggested by some members that such jobs should include those of Governor,
Ambassador and the like. However, no
firm decision could be arrived and hence decision on this item was deferred1.
(ix)
Para 16(viii) at page 15 of the minutes may be substituted
as under:
“The Commission considers that the present position regarding removal
of a judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court is totally inadequate and
for various reasons impracticable”.
(x)
Para 17 at page 15 of the minutes may be substituted as
under:
“The next
topic taken up for consideration was ‘Article 356’. After discussing the
draft prepared by Justice Shri B.P. Jeevan Reddy and a Paper prepared by Shri
S.K. Sharma, former Secretary in the Inter-State Council, in detail, the
Commission decided that retention of this article was very much necessary. Shri
S.K. Sharma was called before the Commission to explain the contents of his
paper. The Commission requested Shri S.K. Sharma to submit the draft of a
recommendation in the light of discussions in a narrative form to the Editorial
Committee by 25th December, 2001.
The
Commission noted that the Editorial Committee had not received the desired
draft from Shri Sharma.
(xi)
Para 18(a), at page 16 of the minutes regarding appointment
of Governor may be substituted as under:
“Article
155 of the Constitution may be amended and the amended Article may read as
under:
“The
Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President, after consultation
with the Chief Minister of that State, by warrant under his hand and seal.”
(xii)
At the fourteenth meeting of the Commission, topics
discussed included (i) Treaty Making Powers and (ii) Liability of State in
Tort. After full deliberation, it was
decided by the Commission to drop both these matters. The minutes may be modified to include a reference to these
decisions.
Item 2 The Commission
then took up the next agenda item regarding certain topics of Volume-II of the
Final Report.
Chapter 2-
Effectuation of Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties
1. Pace of Socio- Economic Change
Chapter 5 - The Executive and Public Administration
(A) Executive
Responsibility.
5. After deciding to drop the proposals
contained in the Consultation Paper, the Commission recommended that Parliament
may consider enacting suitable legislation under article 253 “for giving effect
to international agreements.”
2. Liability
of State in Tort
6. After considering the points made in
the Consultation Paper, the Commission decided that no recommendation was
necessary to be made on the subject.
(B)
Administrative Accountability
1. Legal
Control of Monetary and Fiscal Policy
7. The decisions of the Commission on the recommendations
contained in the Draft Report on ‘Legal Control of Monitory and Fiscal Policy
prepared by Dr. Abid Hussain, Member In-charge are as under:
1. No change
is needed in the existing provisions of the Constitution in so far as
appointment of the C&AG and other related matters are concerned. The Commission would, however, recommend
that a healthy convention be developed to invariably consult the Chairman of
the Public Accounts Committee, who by a well-established parliamentary
convention is always a leading member of the Opposition, before the government
decides the appointment of the C&AG.
(It
was decided that in modification of the decision taken by the Commission in its
Thirteenth meeting regarding appointment of the C&AG [Chairman of the Audit
Board of India] by a Committee, the present method of appointment of C&AG
may continue. However, a healthy
convention be developed to consult the Speaker of the Lok Sabha before the
Government decides on the appointment of the C&AG).
2. The
Constitution should be amended to provide for the constitution of an Audit
Board for better discharge of the vital function of public audit, but the
number of members to be appointed, the manner of their appointment and removal
and other related matters should be dealt with by appropriate legislation,
keeping in view the need for ensuring independent functioning of the Board.
(This
recommendation was agreed).
3. The
findings and recommendations of the PACs be made binding on the
government. This need not require an
amendment of the Constitution. A
political convention should be developed with the cooperation of all major
parties represented in the legislature to accord to the PACs the status of a
permanent conscience-keeper of the nation in financial matters.
(After
discussing this recommendation in detail it was decided that Dr. Abid Hussain
would discuss the issue with one of the former Chairmen of the Public Accounts
Committee before finalizing the draft recommendation in the Drafting and
Editorial Committee).
4. To fulfil
the canons of accountability, a system of external audit of C&AG's
organization by a reputed firm or agency, be adopted to ensure that our audit
agencies have kept abreast of developments in the theory and practice of public
audit. A similar system should be evolved
for the state level organizations.
(Regarding
this recommendation, the Commission reiterated its earlier decision contained
in recommendation No. 13 in para 14 of the minutes of the Thirteenth meeting of
the Commission which reads as under:
“the Commission recommends need for an external audit of
C&AG’s organization on the same pattern as in the U.K, to fulfil the canons
of accountability.”)
5. The
approach contained in the Fiscal Responsibility Bill (FRB) is whole-heartedly
endorsed and would urge the Parliament to enact it as expeditiously as
possible.
(It was
decided that in the above recommendation the word ‘urge’ be replaced by the
word ‘request’).
6. The FRB
should not go beyond the ambit of Article 292 and it may not be necessary to
provide for express authority to Parliament to legislate the purposes for which
borrowings should be made.
(This
recommendations was modified as: ”It may not be necessary to provide for
express authority to Parliament to legislate the purposes for which borrowings
should be made in as much as the FRB does not go beyond the ambit of Article
292”)
7. The State
Assemblies should enact similar legislation as provided in Article 293 to put
their respective fiscal houses in order.
(After
discussing this recommendation the Commission requested the Drafting and
Editorial Committee to further examine the matter and finalise the
recommendation).
8. No
amendment of Article 293(3) is considered necessary with a view to rectifying
the practices and tendencies which have been noticed in regard to borrowings at
the State level.
(It was
explained that the recommendation has been drafted in response to some of the
suggestions received in this regard.
The Commission decided that the recommendation was not a positive
recommendation and therefore, it should appropriately find a place in the body
of the report only and not in the recommendations portion).
9. No
amendment of Article 280(3)(d) is considered necessary to provide for formal
involvement of the National Development Council in a consideration of the
additional terms of reference for the Finance Commission. All political parties
are urged to develop a consensus on a political practice of referring such
terms of reference to the National Development Council.
(It was
explained that the recommendation has been drafted in response to some of the
suggestions received in this regard.
The Commission decided that the recommendation was not a positive
recommendation and therefore, it should appropriately find its place in the
body of the report and not in the recommendations portion).
10. It is not
considered necessary to amend the Constitution to provide for the
recommendations of either the Finance Commission set up under Article 280 or of
the State Finance Commissions set up under Articles 243-I and 243-Y for being
treated as awards.
(It was
explained that the recommendation has been drafted in response to some of the
suggestions received in this regard.
The Commission decided that the recommendation was not a positive
recommendation and therefore, it should appropriately find its place in the
body of the report and not in the recommendations portion).
11. No
constitutional amendment is required to make surcharges shareable but would
expect public policy to move decisively in the direction of doing away with the
surcharges as part of the Centre's fiscal armoury.
(It was
explained that the recommendation has been drafted in response to some of the
suggestions received in this regard.
The Commission decided that the recommendation was not a positive
recommendation and therefore, it should appropriately find its place in the
body of the report and not in the recommendations portion).
12. Enumeration
of services that can be taxed exclusively by the States should get top priority
with a view to augmenting the resource pool of the States. The Commission would advocate a well thought
out amendment of the Constitution after more experience has been gained,
particularly with regard to administrative capabilities of the States' taxation
machineries in administering service taxes.
(It was
explained that the recommendation has been drafted in response to some of the
suggestions received in this regard.
The Commission decided that the recommendation was not a positive
recommendation and therefore, it should appropriately find its place in the
body of the report and not in the recommendations portion).
13. No need
for a change in the Constitution to specifically provide for independent
conduct of monetary policy. The
existing legislation and the long history of non-interference by government in
the day to day conduct of monetary policy and of maintenance of a suitable
environment of security and continuity for the key personnel and autonomy of
decision-making by the top management have ensured that monetary policy would
be conducted in an independent way.
(This
recommendation needs to be reworded and end with the words “and therefore, it
is not considered necessary to amend the Constitution. It should appropriately find its place in
the body of the report and not in the recommendations”)
2. Executive And Public Administration
8. The
Commission thereafter considered the recommendations in the Draft Report on
‘Executive And Public Administration’ prepared by Dr. Abid Hussain. It was
decided that the recommendations were required to be reworded so as to make
them more specific. It was also felt
that there was need to specify the composition of the Civil Services Board and
to mention its functions precisely. The
desirability of having some professional management persons such as the
Directors of Indian Institutes of Management or the Chairman of the
Administrative Staff College on the Governing Board of the Civil Services Board
needs to be examined. The functions of
the Civil Services Board may also include transfers and postings of the civil
servants above a particular level.
9. Smt.
Sumitra Kulkarni made the following suggestions for making the bureaucracy more
effective and efficient:
(i)
All the services should be treated at par and there should
not be preferential treatment given to the Indian Administrative Service.
(ii)
The posts at the level of Deputy Secretary and above should
be open for recruitment from a wide variety of sources, including the open
market, instead of the posts at the level of Joint Secretary as mentioned in
recommendation No. 9 of Dr. Abid Hussain’s draft report.
(iii)
Any officer who brings political influence to further his
prospects in the service should be disqualified for promotion, etc.
(iv)
The disciplinary cases should be decided within time limits,
laid down for the purpose.
(v)
The officers should not be allowed to continue on central
deputation after completion of their tenure and should be reverted back
compulsorily.
(vi)
The officers who go on deputation to organizations other
than the Central Government must go back to their parent cadre after serving
the tenure so that the experience gained by them is utilized by their parent
cadres.
(vii)
The powers to discipline the civil servants should be
exercised effectively by the disciplinary authorities.
10. The Drafting and Editorial Committee was
requested to finalize the recommendations in the light of the discussions held
during the meeting.
11. The Commission then took up the draft
report on the topic ‘Probity in Governance’ prepared by Justice Shri B.P.
Jeevan Reddy. After detailed discussion
the Commission approved the recommendations as under:
(paras 5.3.6 , 5.3.7 and 5.3.8)
(The
Commission felt that the nomenclature of the proposed legislation should be
specified. The legislation should have
only very limited number of sections and model draft legislation should be
annexed to this recommendation).
(paras
5.3.13 and 5.3.14)
(para 5.3.14)
(paras 5.3.15 and 5.3.18)
(paras 5.3.19 and 5.3.22)
(para 5.3.28)
(paras 5.3.32 and 5.3.33)
(The Commission decided that the Prime Minister should be
kept outside the purview of the proposed legislation.)
8. The
legislation relating to the Central Vigilance Commission may be enacted soon
keeping in mind the directions contained in the decision of the Supreme Court
in Vineet Narain’s case.
(para 5.3.34)
9. For
overseeing appointment and transfer of civil servants to senior posts, a Civil
Services Board should be constituted. Till such time a legislation is brought
in, executive measures may be taken to set up the Board.
(para 5.3.35)
(paras 5.3.36 and 5.3.37)
Chapter 6 – The Judiciary
Need for Systemic and Procedural
Reforms
Chapter-7 – Union State Relations (including Inter-State Disputes)
1. Barriers
to Inter-State Trade and Commerce
2. Constitutional
Mechanisms for Settlement of Inter-State Disputes
14. After discussing the draft report prepared by Justice Shri
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, the Commission decided on each of the recommendations as
under:
1.