Ministers, MPs scuttle move on anti-graft device

The Times of India 27 March,2008 P. 1 The Times of India Delhi

New Delhi: The government has failed to agree on a ‘‘competent authority’’ to decide on the prosecution of lawmakers. A difference of opinion between UPA managers prompted the Centre to drop a proposal in this regard. Sources said a discussion to decide on the ‘‘empowered office’’ that would take a call whether a political leader should be chargesheeted turned into a debate, with a section of the participants suggesting that ‘‘prosecution sanction’’ be limited to the ‘‘official work’’ of an MP, MLA or MLC in the legislatures.

It triggered a strong resentment among ministers, who felt that this would expose them to frivolous charges as a bulk of their work involves interventions on behalf of the citizens. Many of them said there was still no need for sanction to try a legislator in a criminal case but the ‘‘sanction shield’’ was required for corruption cases to let him work without fear. Anti-graft act silent on sanction authority New Delhi: Differences between UPA managers has led to the government dropping a proposal to decide on a competent authority to prosecute lawmakers. The seemingly radical suggestion to do away with the ‘‘sanction shield’’ has turned out to be a spoiler: it has put paid to an attempt to make Prevention of Corruption Act complete in itself by identifying authorities to decide on the fate of MPs or MLAs facing corruption charges.

PCA is silent on this front, although ‘‘competent authorities’’ are named for other ‘‘public servants’’. As an interim arrangement, presiding officers of legislatures decide on an investigating agency’s request to chargesheet an elected leader. A GoM, looking into a set of amendments to PCA, has decided to leave the issue of ‘‘competent authority’’ for the future even as it sealed other proposals. Ironically, the sudden call to remove the ‘‘sanction shield’’ for the lawmakers flies in the face of other proposals quietly assented by the same GoM. It has decided to extend the safety of prosecution sanction to retired public servants. More so, the GoM has decided against letting CBI decide suo motu on moving applications in courts for attachment of tainted property of a public servant.

The Centre had proposed to designate, under section 19 (1) of PCA, President as the ‘‘c ompetent authority’’ to decide on sanctions for MPs and governors for MLA/MLCs. It is mandatory to seek the opinion of speakers. The two offices were to be an interesting change in many ways. The office of the speaker gives ‘‘manoeuvring’’ space as this ‘‘neutral’’ office is generally occupied by a nominee of the ruling party. There is enough cloud over their role to put them above suspicion.
With thanks from The Time of India
©All rights reserved with the Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd
For any query:- legalpoint@aol.in