The Lok Sabha passed the Lok Pal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 on December 27, 2011. The text of the Bill as Passed by Lok Sabha is available here And PRS Analysis of the Bill as Passed by Lok Sabha is available here .
The Bill as passed by Lok Sabha has incorporated some of the recommendations of the Department Related Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. The Lok Pal Bill, 2011, introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 4, 2011, was withdrawn by the government. PRS prepares a note of comparison of the Lok Pal Bill, 2011; the Standing Committee Report on the Lok Pal Bill; and the Lok Pal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011. Also, prepares a note of comparison of major differences between the Lok Pal Bill 2011 and the Lok Pal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011.
- The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011, introduced on December 22, 2011, was passed by the Lok Sabha on December 27, 2011. The Bill was taken up for consideration and passing in the Rajya Sabha, which referred it to a Select Committee (Chairperson: Shri Satyavrat Chaturvedi). The Committee is scheduled to submit its report by the last week of the Monsoon session.
- The Bill provides for establishment of the Lokpal at the centre and Lokayuktas in the states for inquiring into complaints of corruption against certain public servants. The Bill, once passed, shall be applicable to states if they give their consent to its application.
- The members of the Lokpal (Lokayuktas) shall be appointed by the President (Governor) on the basis of the recommendations of the Selection Committee.
- The Selection Committee for the Lokpal shall comprise of the Prime Minister (Chief Minister), Speaker of the Lower House, Leaders of the Opposition of the Lower House, the Chief Justice of India (Chief Justice of the High Court) or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him, and an eminent jurist nominated by the President (Governor). The Bill makes it mandatory for the Selection Committee to constitute a search committee of at least seven members. At least 50% of the members shall be from among SC, ST, OBC, women or minority communities. The Selection Committee may consider a candidate other than one recommended by the Search Committee.
- The Lokpal and Lokayuktas shall consist of one chairperson and up to eight members. The Chairperson shall be the CJI or a present or former judge of the Supreme Court or a non-judicial member with specified qualifications (Chief Justice or a Judge of a High Court). Fifty percent of the other members shall be judicial members (judges of the Supreme Court and Chief Justices of the High Court in case of Lokpal and judge of a High Court in case of Lokayuktas). A non-judicial member is required to have 25 years experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance and finance.
- At least 50 per cent of the members of both bodies shall be from among SC, ST, OBC, minorities and women.
- Members of the Lokpal may be removed by the President after an inquiry by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may inquire based on a reference from the President. Such reference may be made by the President on his own, or on a citizen's petition if the President is satisfied by it, or on a petition signed by 100 MPs.
- A Lokpal can enquire into offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) committed by:
- the PM with specified safeguards,
- current and former Union Ministers,
- current and former MPs,
- group A, B, C, D officers,
- employees of a company, society or a trust set up by an Act of Parliament, or financed or controlled by the central government.
- employees of association of persons that (i) have received funding from the government and have an annual income above a specified amount; or (ii) have received public donation and have an annual income above a specified amount or received foreign funding above Rs 10 lakh a year.
- An inquiry against the PM has to be held in-camera and approved by a 2/3rd majority of the full bench of the Lokpal. The PM cannot be investigated if the complaint is related to international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy and space.
- The Lokayuktas shall have jurisdiction over the CM, Ministers, MLAs, all state government employees and certain private entities (including religious institutions).
- The Lokpal's inquiry wing is required to inquire into complaints within 60 days of their reference. On considering an inquiry report the Lokpal shall (i) order an investigation; (ii) initiate departmental proceedings; or (iii) close the case and proceed against the complainant for making a false and frivolous complaint. The investigation shall be completed within 6 months. The Lokpal may initiate prosecution through its Prosecution Wing before the Special Court set up to adjudicate cases. The trial shall be completed within a maximum of two years. The Bill specifies a similar procedure for Lokayuktas.
- The Bill removes the requirement of sanction for initiating investigation and prosecution.
- The Bill penalises false and frivolous complaints with imprisonment for a maximum of one year and a fine of up to one lakh rupees. The Bill amends the PCA to enhance penalties for a public servant for corruption from maximum of five years to seven years. For criminal misconduct and habitually abetting corruption, the jail term is increased from seven years to ten years.
| Security / Law / strategic affairs | The Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011 | Commonly known as the Whistleblower's Bill, it seeks to establish a mechanism to register complaints on any allegations of corruption or wilful misuse of power against a public servant. The Bill also provides safeguards against victimisation of the person who makes the complaint. हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें
Highlights of the Bill
- The Bill seeks to protect whistleblowers, i.e. persons making a public interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offence by a public servant.
Key Issues and Analysis - The Bill aims to balance the need to protect honest officials from undue harassment with protecting persons making a public interest disclosure. It punishes any person making false complaints. However, it does not provide any penalty for victimising a complainant.
- The CVC was designated to receive public interest disclosures since 2004 through a government resolution. There have been only a few hundred complaints every year. The provisions of the Bill are similar to that of the resolution. Therefore, it is unlikely that the number of complaints will differ significantly.
- The power of the CVC is limited to making recommendations. Also it does not have any power to impose penalties. This is in contrast to the powers of the Karnataka Lokayukta and the Delhi Lokayukta.
- The Bill has a limited definition of disclosure and does not define victimisation. Other countries such as US, UK, and Canada define disclosure more widely and define victimisation.
- The Bill differs on many issues with the proposed Bill of the Law Commission and the 2nd Administrative Reform Commission's report. These include non-admission of anonymous complaints and lack of penalties for officials who victimise whistleblowers.
| Security / Law / strategic affairs | The Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011 | Commonly known as the Whistleblower's Bill, it seeks to establish a mechanism to register complaints on any allegations of corruption or wilful misuse of power against a public servant. The Bill also provides safeguards against victimisation of the person who makes the complaint. हिंदी के लिए क्लिक करें
Highlights of the Bill
- The Bill seeks to protect whistleblowers, i.e. persons making a public interest disclosure related to an act of corruption, misuse of power, or criminal offence by a public servant.
Key Issues and Analysis - The Bill aims to balance the need to protect honest officials from undue harassment with protecting persons making a public interest disclosure. It punishes any person making false complaints. However, it does not provide any penalty for victimising a complainant.
- The CVC was designated to receive public interest disclosures since 2004 through a government resolution. There have been only a few hundred complaints every year. The provisions of the Bill are similar to that of the resolution. Therefore, it is unlikely that the number of complaints will differ significantly.
- The power of the CVC is limited to making recommendations. Also it does not have any power to impose penalties. This is in contrast to the powers of the Karnataka Lokayukta and the Delhi Lokayukta.
- The Bill has a limited definition of disclosure and does not define victimisation. Other countries such as US, UK, and Canada define disclosure more widely and define victimisation.
- The Bill differs on many issues with the proposed Bill of the Law Commission and the 2nd Administrative Reform Commission's report. These include non-admission of anonymous complaints and lack of penalties for officials who victimise whistleblowers.
| Security / Law / strategic affairs | The Prevention of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and Officials of Public International Organisations Bill, 2011 | 2012-11-21
- The Prevention of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and Officials of Public International Organizations Bill, 2011 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on March 25, 2011 by the Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Mr. V. Narayanasamy.
- India had signed the United Nations Convention against Corruption on December 9, 2005. The Bill is necessary for the ratification of the Convention. It provides a mechanism to deal with bribery among foreign public officials (FPO) and officials of public international organizations (OPIO).
- The Bill empowers the Central Government to enter into agreements with other countries (contracting states) for enforcing this law and for exchange of investigative information.
- The Bill criminalizes the following acts :
- Acceptance or solicitation of bribes by FPO and OPIO for acts or omissions in their official capacity;
- Offering or promising to offer a bribe to any FPO and OPIO for obtaining or retaining business;
- Abetment or attempting either of the above acts.
- Any person who commits offences under the Bill shall be liable to imprisonment between six months and seven years and a fine. Extradition treaties entered into by India with other countries that are signatories to the convention are deemed to be amended to include offences under the Bill.
- In case the evidence required for investigating an offence under the Bill is available in a contracting state, an application may be made by the Investigation Officer to the Special Judge appointed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- Similarly, when a letter of request is received by the Central Government from a contracting state the same shall be forwarded to the Special Judge for executing the request in accordance with the provisions of the Bill and Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
- The government of India or the Special Judge may impose conditions upon the imprisonment of persons being transferred from India. Reciprocally, the Bill provides for compliance with conditions imposed by a contracting state when a prisoner is transferred to India.
- The High Court shall hear appeals over the decisions of the Special Judge.
| Security / Law / strategic affairs | The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 | Highlights of the Bill- The Bill seeks to create a mechanism to ensure timely delivery of goods and services to citizens.
- Every public authority is required to publish a citizens charter within six months of the commencement of the Act. The Charter will detail the goods and services to be provided and their timelines for delivery.
- A citizen may file a complaint regarding any grievance related to: (a) citizens charter; (b) functioning of a public authority; or (c) violation of a law, policy or scheme.
- The Bill requires all public authorities to appoint officers to redress grievances. Grievances are to be redressed within 30 working days. The Bill also provides for the appointment of Central and State Public Grievance Redressal Commissions.
- A penalty of up to Rs 50,000 may be levied upon the responsible officer or the Grievance Redressal Officer for failure to render services.
Key Issues and Analysis- Parliament may not have the jurisdiction to regulate the functioning of state public officials as state public services fall within the purview of state legislatures.
- This Bill may create a parallel grievance redressal mechanism as many central and state laws have established similar mechanisms.
- Companies that render services under a statutory obligation or a licence may be required to publish citizens charters and provide a grievance redressal mechanism.
- The Commissioners may be removed without a judicial inquiry on an allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity. This differs from the procedure under other legislations.
- Appeals from the Commissions' decisions on matters of corruption will lie before the Lokpal or Lokayuktas. The Lokpal and some Lokayuktas have not been established.
- Only citizens can seek redressal of grievances under the Bill. The Bill does not enable foreign nationals who also use services such as driving licenses, electricity, etc., to file complaints.
| Science / Energy / Mines/ Environment | The Electronic Delivery of Services Bill, 2011 | Highlights of the Bill - The Bill requires public authorities to deliver all public services electronically within a maximum period of eight years.
- There are two exceptions to this requirement: (a) services that cannot be delivered electronically; and (b) services that public authorities, in consultation with the Commissions, decide not to deliver electronically.
- The Bill establishes Central and State Electronic Service Delivery Commissions to monitor compliance of government departments, and hear representations.
- Public authorities have to establish a mechanism to redress complaints. Complaints may be for: (a) non-delivery of services in an electronic form; or (b) deficiency in the electronic service provided. In the first case, a representation may be made against the mechanism's orders before the Commission.
- A maximum penalty of Rs 5,000 may be imposed on a defaulting officer by the Central and State Commissions.
Key Issues and Analysis
- To provide electronic services, information may be stored electronically. However, the Bill does not provide any safeguards to protect the security of such information.
- The Bill provides for complaints against: (a) non-availability of electronic services; and (b) deficiency in electronic service. The appellate mechanism is available in the former case and not in the latter case.
- The grievance redressal mechanism under this Bill may overlap with the grievance redressal mechanism under the Citizens Charter Bill, 2011. Additionally, some states have enacted their own laws on electronic delivery of services.
- The Bill states that a government order for the appointment of a Commissioner 'may not be questioned in any manner'. This may be in contradiction with the decision of the Supreme Court on the appointment of the Chief Vigilance Commissioner.
- The Standing Committee's recommendations include: (a) the need to simultaneously provide services manually; and (b) that infrastructure costs to be borne by the centre.
| Industry / Commerce / Finance | The Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2011 | - The Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2011 was introduced by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Pranab Mukherjee in the Lok Sabha on December 27, 2011. This Bill seeks to amend the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
- The Bills proposes to introduce the concept of 'corresponding law' to link the provisions of Indian law with the laws of foreign countries. It also adds the concept of 'reporting entity' which would include a banking company, financial institution, intermediary or a person carrying on a designated business or profession.
- The Bill expands the definition of offence under money laundering to include activities like concealment, acquisition, possession and use of proceeds of crime.
- The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 levies a fine up to Rs five lakh. The Bill proposes to remove this upper limit.
![]() | Image Credit: PRS Legislative Research
|
- The Bill seeks to provide for provisional attachment and confiscation of property of any person (for a period not exceeding 180 days). This power may be exercised by the authority if it has reason to believe that the offence of money laundering has taken place.
- The Bill proposes to confer powers upon the Director to call for records of transactions or any additional information that may be required for the purposes of investigation. The Director may also make inquiries for non-compliance of the obligations of the reporting entities.
- The Bill seeks to make the reporting entity, its designated directors on the Board and employees responsible for omissions or commissions in relation to the reporting obligations.
- The Bill states that in the proceedings relating to money laundering, the funds shall be presumed to be involved in the offence, unless proven otherwise.
- The Bill proposes to provide for appeal against the orders of the Appellate Tribunal directly to the Supreme Court within 60 days from the communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal.
- The Bill seeks to provide for the process of transfer of cases of the Scheduled offences pending in a court (which had taken cognizance of the offence) to the Special Court for trial. In addition, on receiving such cases, the Special Court shall proceed to deal with it from the stage at which it was committed.
- Part B of the Schedule in the existing Act includes only those crimes that are above Rs 30 lakh or more whereas Part A did not specify any monetary limit of the offence. The Bill proposes to bring all the offences under Part A of the Schedule to ensure that the monetary thresholds do not apply to the offence of money laundering.
| Security / Law / strategic affairs | The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 | The central government plans to issue a unique identification number (called Aadhaar) to every resident of India. The number shall be linked to a resident's demographic and biometric information. A resident can use his Aadhaar number to identify himself anywhere in the country in order to access certain benefits and services. The Bill seeks to establish the National Identification Authority and lay down the properties of Aadhaar, process of issuing the Aadhaar and safeguards for protection of privacy of Aadhaar number holders.
Highlights of the Bill- The Bill seeks to establish the National Identification Authority of India (NIAI) to issue unique identification numbers (called 'Aadhaar') to residents of India.
- Every person residing in India is entitled to obtain an Aadhaar number after furnishing relevant demographic and biometric information. No information related to race, religion, caste, language, income or health shall be collected.
- The information collected shall be stored in the Central Identities Data Repository. This shall be used to provide authentication services.
- Sharing of data is prohibited except by the consent of the resident; by a court order; or for national security, if directed by an authorised official of the rank of Joint Secretary or above.
- The Bill also establishes an Identity Review Committee which shall monitor the usage patterns of Aadhaar numbers.
Key Issues and Analysis - The Bill does not make it mandatory for an individual to enroll with the NIAI. However, it does not prevent any service provider from prescribing Aadhaar as a mandatory requirement for availing services.
- The information collected by NIAI may be shared with agencies engaged in delivery of public benefits and services with prior written consent of the Aadhaar holder. The safeguards provided for preventing misuse of this information may be inadequate.
- The Bill requires the NIAI to disclose identity information in the interest of national security, if so directed by an authorised officer. The safeguards for protection of privacy differ from the Supreme Court guidelines on telephone tapping.
- The Bill states that no court shall take cognizance of any offence, except on a complaint made by the NIAI. This could result in a conflict of interest situation if the offence is committed by a member of the NIAI.
- Details of demographic and biometric information to be recorded have been left to regulations. This empowers the NIAI to collect additional information without prior approval from Parliament.
| Security / Law / strategic affairs | The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 | The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill tries to lay down enforceable standards of conduct for judges. It also requires judges to declare details of their and their family members' assets and liabilities. Importantly, it creates mechanisms to allow any person to complain against judges on grounds of misbehaviour or incapacity.
Highlights of the Bill- The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 requires judges to declare their assets, lays down judicial standards, and establishes processes for removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
- Judges will be required to declare their assets and liabilities, and also that of their spouse and children.
- The Bill establishes the National Judicial Oversight Committee, the Complaints Scrutiny Panel and an investigation committee. Any person can make a complaint against a judge to the Oversight Committee on grounds of 'misbehaviour'.
- A motion for removal of a judge on grounds of misbehaviour can also be moved in Parliament. Such a motion will be referred for further inquiry to the Oversight Committee.
- Complaints and inquiries against judges will be confidential and frivolous complaints will be penalised.
- The Oversight Committee may issue advisories or warnings to judges, and also recommend their removal to the President.
Key Issues and Analysis - The key issue is whether the balance between independence and accountability is maintained by the proposed mechanism in the Bill. The Oversight Committee has non-judicial members which might impinge on the independence of the judiciary.
- The Bill penalises anyone who breaches the confidentiality of complaints. It is questionable whether a penalty is needed for a frivolous complaint that remains confidential.
- The Scrutiny Panel has judges from the same High Court. This is different from the in-house procedure of the Supreme Court.
- The Oversight Committee has non-judicial members. The procedure of the Committee is not an in-house procedure of the judiciary. It is not clear whether the power of the Oversight Committee to impose minor measures is constitutionally valid.
- The Bill does not mention whether a judge has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court against an order of removal issued by the President after Parliament finds him guilty of 'misbehaviour'.
| Industry / Commerce / Finance | The Public Procurement Bill, 2012 | - The Public Procurement Bill, 2012 was introduced by the Ministry of Finance in the Lok Sabha on May 14, 2012. This Bill seeks to regulate and ensure transparency in the procurement process.
- A procuring entity could be a Ministry or Department of the central government, any Central Public Sector Undertaking, any company in which the government has a stake of more than 50%.
- This Bill shall not apply to procurements which are less than Rs 50 lakh, emergency procurements made for disaster management, and procurement for the purpose of national security.
- The basic norms that the procuring entity shall adhere to include: (a) ensuring efficiency, economy and transparency; (b) provide fair and equitable treatment to bidders; (c) promote competitiveness; (d) ensure the quality is consistent with the price of the bid; and (e) prevent corruption.
- The Bill also defines a Code of Integrity for the procuring entity or Central Purchase Organization (CPO) as well as the bidders. It prohibits acceptance of bribe, collusion, misrepresentation, coercion or threat, and obstruction in the auditing process of the procurement made.
- The procuring entity shall first determine the need for the procurement and estimate the cost of the procurement based on certain specified matters. It may publish information regarding planned procurements.
- The CPO shall not limit participation of bidders or discriminate against or amongst bidders except for the protection of public order and morality, animal or plant life, intellectual, national security. The central government may make procurement mandatory from certain bidders only on the grounds of promotion of domestic industry, socio economic policy, or other considerations in public interest.
- The procuring entity may specify certain requirements for the qualification of bidders. It may also engage in a pre-qualification process prior to inviting bids. The pre-qualification shall ordinarily be for a single procurement.
- The CPO may maintain a panel of registered bidders to help identify reliable bidders for certain class of procurements.
- The procuring entity may make modifications to the bidding document or issue clarifications before the last date of submission of bids. It may allot extension of time for submitting the bids if the clarifications need to be taken into account while submitting the bids.
- The evaluation criteria of the procurement bids shall include among other factors the price; cost of operating, maintaining, and repairing the goods; time for delivery and completion; terms of payment and guarantee; and qualities such as reliability, and functional competence.
- The Bill provides for exclusion of a bid if the procuring entity determines that the bidder is not qualified; bid contains false information; conflict of interest involved; a bribe or gratification given by a bidder; etc.
- The six methods of procurement listed in the Bill are (a) open competitive bidding, (b) limited competitive bidding, (c) single source procurement, (d) two-stage bidding, (e) electronic reverse auction, and (f) request for quotation and stock purchase.
- The Bill provides for a Central Public Procurement Portal to ensure transparency in the procurement process. Information such as pre-qualification document and details of bidders shall be displayed on the Portal.
- The central government shall constitute one or more independent procurement redressal committees. Any prospective bidder aggrieved by the decision of the CPO may file an application with such a committee.
- The Bill states different degree of penalties for offences such as taking gratification in respect of procurement, interference with the process, making vexation, frivolous or malicious complaints, and abetment of offences.
- The central government shall debar a bidder if he has been convicted of an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 and the IPC. A bidder shall be debarred from the procurement process if he breaches the code of integrity for a period not exceeding two years.
| Bill | Date of introduction | Status | Brief description | | The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 (Listed for passing) | December 22, 2011 | Passed by Lok Sabha on 27 Dec 2011. Report of Rajya Sabha Select Committee submitted on November 23, 2012. | It seeks to establish the office of the Lok Pal at the centre and Lokayuktas in states for inquiring into complaints against certain public servants.The Bill once passed shall be applicable to states if they give their consent to its application. | | The Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011 (Listed for passing) | August 26, 2010 | Passed by Lok Sabha on December 27, 2011. Pending in Rajya Sabha | It seeks to protect whistleblowers (person making a disclosure related to acts of corruption, misuse of power or criminal offence).Under the Bill any person including a public servant may make such a disclosure to the Central or State Vigilance Commission.The identity of the complainant shall not be disclosed. | | The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Bill, 2011 | August 18, 2011 | Standing Committee submitted its Report on June 26, 2012 | The Bill prohibits all persons from entering into benami transactions (property transactions in the name of another person).Any benami property shall be confiscated by the central government.It seeks to replace the existing Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. | | The Prevention of Bribery of Foreign Public Officials and Officials of Public International Organisations Bill, 2011 (Listed for passing) | March 25, 2011 | Standing Committee submitted its Report on March 29, 2012 | Indiais a signatory to the UN Convention against corruption. The Bill is necessary for India to ratify the Convention.The Bill makes it an offence to accept or offer a bribe to foreign public officials and officials of public international organizations in order to obtain or retain international business | | The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 | December 20, 2011 | Standing Committee submitted its Report on August 28, 2012 | It requires every public authority to publish a citizen charter within six months of commencement of the Act.The charter should detail the goods and services to be provided and the timeline for their delivery. | | The Electronic Delivery of Services Bill, 2011 | December 27, 2011 | Standing Committee submitted its Report on August 30, 2012 | The Bill requires all public authorities to deliver all public services electronically within a maximum period of eight years.There are two exceptions to this requirement: (a) service which cannot be delivered electronically; and (b) services that the public authorities in consultation with the respective Central and State EDS Commissions decide not to deliver electronically. | | The Prevention of Money-Laundering (Amendment) Bill, 2011 (Listed for passing) | December 27, 2011 | Standing Committee submitted its Report on May 9, 2012 | The Bill Amends the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.This Bill widens the definition of offences under money laundering to include activities like concealment, acquisition, possession and use of proceeds of crime.It provides for the provisional attachment and confiscation of property (for a maximum period of 180 days). | | The National Identification Authority of India Bill, 2010 | December 3, 2010 | Standing Committee submitted its Report on December 13, 2011 | The Bill seeks to establish the National Identification Authority of India to issue unique identification numbers (called 'Aadhaar') to residents ofIndia.Every person residing inIndia(regardless of citizenship) is entitled to obtain an Aadhaar number after furnishing the required information.The number shall serve as an identity proof. But not as a citizenship proof. | | The Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010 | December 1, 2010 | Passed by Lok Sabha on March 29, 2012; Pending in Rajya Sabha | It replaces the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968. It provides for enforceable standards for the conduct of High Court and Supreme Court judges.The Bill requires judges and their spouses and children to declare their assets and liabilities. It also establishes a process for the removal of judges of Supreme Court and High Court | | The Public Procurement Bill, 2012 | May 14, 2012 | Standing Committee Report pending | The Bill seeks to regulate and ensure transparency in the procurement process. It applies to procurement processes above Rs 50 lakh.The procuring entity shall adhere to certain standards such as (a) ensuring efficiency and economy; and (b) provide fair and equitable treatment to bidders. | Sources: Respective Bills, PRS Legislative Research | | | |
| |
| | |
| |
| |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a Comment