[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Tackling Corruption

>There is no problem with some courts and judges specializing in
>certain areas. We have tax courts, etc.  But it appears you want these
>courts to be the level of the "High Court" which is normally an
>appellate court. I guess what you are suggesting here is that these
>courts will have a panel (of three?) judges.  Then you make a very
>disturbing suggestion:"politicians be probed..by [these] special
>courts."  This is disturbing because it is not upto the judiciary to
>"probe."  Activism on part of judiciary is an aberration not the norm.

I do not mean that these courts probe anyone. All I would like to
see is that cases involving politicians are disposed quilckly.
Dr. Jayalalitha's case is being heard by a special court.
Nothing suits a corrupt politician more than a series of 
adjournments and blocking the progress in the case.

> A court is there to decide on the basis of evidence presented.  For
>example, it is wrong and never authorized in a democracy that a court
>can or should order investigation against an individual as it violates
>the separation of powers doctrine.

Agreed here.

>> * I've always wondered what happens once the CAG
>>   indicts the politicians. Nothing comes out of the
>>   issue. A Parliamentary Affairs committee is set up
>>   to whitewash the crime. Once the CAG indicts
>>   someone, it should be mandatory to file a case and
>>   submit the evidence.
>What is a CAG and who has given it the power to indict?

Again, I have used the wrong word. Maybe I should have said
"censures" instead of "indicts"? Whatever it is, a discrepancy
is shown by the CAG and no one bothers about it. After all, the
CAG is doing his job of auditing.

>And how and who will remove corruption at the "lower level" while the
>"upper level" continues to be corrupt.  You are assuming that you will

I suggest starting at the upper level. I do not advocate a police state, 
but stringent steps for politicians who are corrupt.

>All of the above assumes that you have an army of trained
>professionals and trained judges, prosecutors and public defenders.
>Not to mention an expanded and professionally jail system.  After all
>this special force will be making arrests, prosecuting and putting a
>lot of people in jail?

4000 legislators is not a lot of people! Just kidding. As I said,
the strong measures must be for politicians first. I am confident
the rest of the population will fall in line by themselves once
the politicians are made honest.

>Finally, I suggest that "Making India the least
>> corrupt country in the world in 2 years time" 
>> should be part of our manifesto. This is not at all
>> difficult to achieve.
>We can suggest the urgency of the problem.  However, to think that
>corruption can be stamped out of India in two years, is totally
>unrealistic.  It will take more thatn two years to setup training

If it cannot be removed in two years, it can never be removed.
If one T.N.Seshan could do so much, surely half a dozen dedicated
people can do a lot. How long do you think it will take? I would
certainly like to know your estimate.


This is a posting to India_Policy Discussion list: india_policy@cine.net
Rules, Procedures, Archives:     http://www.indiaconsult.com/indiapolicy/