Want to have transparency in Public Offices

Amend Indian Penal Code more particularly sections 77 of I.P.C, Section 197 Cr.P.C and Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, also repeal Judges Protection Act 1985 to enable the prosecution of Corrupt Judges.

Biggest hurdles in our struggle for Transparency in Public Offices is the process of obtaining Sanction for prosecuting of Public Servants, which is the greatest obstacle and these Sections work as shields or armors on the self of Public Servants, as the process for obtaining a Sanction is time consuming and many a times the appointing authority refuse sanction for prosecution.

The other part i fail to understand, why are sanctions required for prosecution of corrupt public servants?

Why do Judges need Protection? and Why is the Judges Protection Act 1985 enacted.

Judges need the protection from Whom and Why?

Kindly visit Change.org and more specifically this link and sign my petition
https://www.change.org/p/citizens-repeal-judges-protection-act-1985-this-protection-is-being-abused-by-some-corrupt-judges?source_location=discover_feed more  

yes - you can get justice under the common law - more  
www.cvc.nic.in Ministry/ Department wise summary of cases pending sanction for prosecution over four months as on 31.07.2016 visit this link http://cvc.nic.in/spp_cbi_06092016.pdf more  
Indian Penal Code: Reproduced: 77. Act of Judge when acting judicially.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law. Criminal Procedure Code 197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants. (1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction- (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: 1 Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression" State Government" occurring therein, the expression" Central Government" were substituted. (2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub- section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub- section will apply as if for the expression" Central Government" occurring therein, the expression" State Government" were substituted. (3A) 1 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government. (3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 , receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.] (4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held. Prevention of Corruption Act 19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.— (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction,— (a) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature. Judges Protection Act 1985 3. Additional protection to Judges.— (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), no Court shall entertain or continue any civil or criminal proceeding against any person who is or was a Judge for any act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him when, or in the course of, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official or judicial duty or function. (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall debar or affect in any manner the power of the Central Government or the State Government or the Supreme Court of India or any High Court or any other authority under any law for the time being in force to take such action (whether by way of civil, criminal, or departmental proceedings or otherwise) against any person who is or was a Judge. more  
Dear Jeevan Toprani, thank you very much for the reply, it is really very encouraging to find at least one person on this circle who agrees with my thought. Now coming to the question, you mentioned that this issues mentioned in my post can be raised in a PIL, A PIL comes up before the Supreme Court Chief Justice or the High Court Chief Justice, and the prayer is to ask them to give us the citizens the relief of Amending Section 77 of I.P.C and 197 of Cr.P.C and 19 of P.C Act and further more there is the question of Repealing the Judges Protection Act 1985. Do you or anyone of the members think that we can get justice from those people whom we are asking to throw down their protection and come out into public like any other citizens and face the law if need be. Well my answer to this is a NO. the Judges Protection Act 1985 and the other protections that are there will remain in place untill the society comes forward as one to get them addressed. And this will not happen in the near future, as this can be seen from the response to this post of mine. All the very best, and thank you once again. more  
These are very good questions and they can be raised in the PIL ! more  
Post a Comment

Related Posts

    • Request A gazette that puts notification on discontinuation of any car on public domain

      Dear Jeep India, You had plans to discontinue the Jeep Compass Petrol models as on May 2023, and in March 2023 you aggressively sale pitched me by sending your Sales Executive to my hous...

      By Tarit MOHAN
      /
    • Karnataka corruption brought the Govt down

      Corruption was the biggest issue in Karnataka. And the top leadership did nothing to stop it. 40% proved costly. This should be a lesson for 2024. No amount of roadshows can win elections if the tr...

      By SN Mittal
      /
    • Political Funding Tax Evasion modus operandi

      Heard of a tax evasion scheme. Person donates, say, ₹10L to a political party. Gets ~35% IT benefit (for taxable income >50L). The political party returns back ₹9L. Political party converts it's...

      By Rajesh Suri
      /
    • PM/ CM Helplines

      The PM Helpline was very effective when it was launched and it is supporting citizens to a great extent. It has however been observed that for the states that have a CM Helpline, the grievance of P...

      By Pranaya Rawat
      /
    • Adding 5 Adani companies to Nifty indices

      An NSE subsidiary is set to include 5 Adani group firms in 14 Nifty indices. Experts are worried as it would drive lakhs of investors’ savings into the group’s sinking stocks from March...

      By Karuna Dhingra
      /
    • LIC investment in Adani in REF

      ‘LIC investments in AdaniGroup has now turned Negative Initial investment: ₹ 30,127 Cr December: ₹ 62,550 Cr January: ₹ 56,142 Cr Now: ₹ 29,721 Cr

      By Yash Jindal
      /
    • Adani Saga

      Did this attached really happen or is this narrative building. However the bigger question is , if the promoters had ₹9000 crore available , why were they raising additional capital via FPO ?

      By Arjun Singh
      /
    • Indian industrialists and bankers buying FPO

      Shame on Sunil Mittal, Jindal and Deepak Parekh for propping up the botched FPO of Adani. Especially Parekh who belongs to the industry where trust is supreme. Deepak Parekh's HDFC Life is the only...

      By Ruchika L Maheshwari
      /
    • Adani potential Conflict of Interest with SEBI

      The daughter of Cyril Shroff but his daughter is married to Gautam Adani’s son. Cyril Shroff serves on SEBI’s Committee on Corporate Governance & Insider Trading. If SEBI listens t...

      By Sudesh Rai
      /
    • Circuit Breaker Lower Limit for shares

      So Adani Total Gas (I mean literally) was falling 20% day after day since Hindenburg report came. Because the circuit breaker control kicked in. Yesterday for all Adani companies this l...

      By Vishal Khanna
      /
    • adani group

      the answer is quite simple;groups like adani would not promote any professionalism and hence would not associate with entities which impose their professional independence.they wish people who are ...

      By Suresh Dasarathy
      /
Share
Enter your email and mobile number and we will send you the instructions

Note - The email can sometime gets delivered to the spam folder, so the instruction will be send to your mobile as well

All My Circles
Invite to
(Maximum 500 email ids allowed.)