<p>Reacting to widespread criticism that the Lokayukta and Lokpal Bill 2011 is making the existing anti-corruption institution redundant, the Centre has said it would consider moves to make Lokayukta optional, if an amendment to the effect would be moved in Parliament.<br /><br />Top sources in the UPA government told Deccan Herald on Friday that the Centre would accept the legally feasible amendments, if moved.<br /><br />The criticism has been made in view of the fact that Lokayukta in states has been established under Article 253 of the Constitution dealing with legislation for giving effect to international agreements.<br /><br />The anti-corruption Bill says that it has been brought in to “provide for establishment of a body of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for states to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto....And whereas India has ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption..."<br /><br />Article 253 says “Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conferences, association or other body”. <br /><br />This means the Centre’s appointment of Lokayukta mandatory on the states and would render the existing bodies at the state redundant. Southern parties, besides the BJP, are opposed to bringing Lokayukta under Article 253. The DMK,AIADMK, Janata Dal Secular and JD- United parties are all opposed to the provision. <br /><br />Some of these parties are said to have conveyed to the government in clear terms that they would not support the Bill in the current form. They added that no state would ratify the law.<br /><br />The way out could be, as some suggested to the government, is to bringing the Lokayukta under Article 252 which deals with power of Parliament to legislate for two or more states by consent and adoption of such legislation by any other state. <br /><br />Under this, it is not mandatory for states to accept the law. The government was clearly told of the need to change the provisions when Opposition Leader in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj spoke in Parliament on the legislative competence of the Bill in the House on Thursday.<br /><br />She said: "it makes the Bill obligatory on the part of the states to fashion their respective Lokayuktas on the lines of what was provided in the bill in respect of Lokayuktas. <br /><br />The bill has provided for Lokayuktas under Article 253 that relates to the International treaties which makes it mandatory and not optional for the states." Reiterating that “States have no option”, Swaraj asserted that the state governments should not be forced.<br /><br />Many MPs were of the view that the composition of the Lokayukta and the framing of rules should be left to the respective state governments so that the Centre do not end up trampling over the State governments' powers and affecting federal structure. </p>
<p>Reacting to widespread criticism that the Lokayukta and Lokpal Bill 2011 is making the existing anti-corruption institution redundant, the Centre has said it would consider moves to make Lokayukta optional, if an amendment to the effect would be moved in Parliament.<br /><br />Top sources in the UPA government told Deccan Herald on Friday that the Centre would accept the legally feasible amendments, if moved.<br /><br />The criticism has been made in view of the fact that Lokayukta in states has been established under Article 253 of the Constitution dealing with legislation for giving effect to international agreements.<br /><br />The anti-corruption Bill says that it has been brought in to “provide for establishment of a body of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for states to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto....And whereas India has ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption..."<br /><br />Article 253 says “Parliament has power to make any law for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention with any other country or countries or any decision made at any international conferences, association or other body”. <br /><br />This means the Centre’s appointment of Lokayukta mandatory on the states and would render the existing bodies at the state redundant. Southern parties, besides the BJP, are opposed to bringing Lokayukta under Article 253. The DMK,AIADMK, Janata Dal Secular and JD- United parties are all opposed to the provision. <br /><br />Some of these parties are said to have conveyed to the government in clear terms that they would not support the Bill in the current form. They added that no state would ratify the law.<br /><br />The way out could be, as some suggested to the government, is to bringing the Lokayukta under Article 252 which deals with power of Parliament to legislate for two or more states by consent and adoption of such legislation by any other state. <br /><br />Under this, it is not mandatory for states to accept the law. The government was clearly told of the need to change the provisions when Opposition Leader in Lok Sabha Sushma Swaraj spoke in Parliament on the legislative competence of the Bill in the House on Thursday.<br /><br />She said: "it makes the Bill obligatory on the part of the states to fashion their respective Lokayuktas on the lines of what was provided in the bill in respect of Lokayuktas. <br /><br />The bill has provided for Lokayuktas under Article 253 that relates to the International treaties which makes it mandatory and not optional for the states." Reiterating that “States have no option”, Swaraj asserted that the state governments should not be forced.<br /><br />Many MPs were of the view that the composition of the Lokayukta and the framing of rules should be left to the respective state governments so that the Centre do not end up trampling over the State governments' powers and affecting federal structure. </p>
