Types Of Parliamentary Questions

1.QUESTIONS:-

A Question is one of the devices available to a Member of Parliament to seek information on matter of public importance concerning subjects detail with by the Ministries and Departments and to force on the omissions and commissions of the government.

2.TYPES OF QUESTIONS:-

There are three type of Question:-

(a) STARRED QUESTIONS Started questions are required to be answered orally by the concerned Minister. These Questions are distinguished by an asterisk (*) mark. Members of Parliament have the option to raise the Supplementary Questions based on the replies to the started Questions. These Questions for which a notice period of minimum 10 days and maximum 21 days has been prescribed are asked during the question Hour on the fixed days allotted to the Ministry/Department. Started Questions from Lok Sabha are printed on green paper and those of Rajya Sabha questions on pink paper.

(b) UNSTARTED QUESTION: Un-started Questions do not carry asterisk (*) mark and only a written answer is given. The notice period is the same as that for the started Questions and these are also asked on the allotted days of the Department/Ministry during Question Hour. Lok Sabha Unstated Questions are printed during Question hour. Lok Sabha Unstated Questions are printed on white paper and those of Rajya Sabha on yellow paper. The replies to the Unstated Questions are laid on the Table of the House.

(c) SHORT NOTICE QUESTIONS: Short Notice Questions relate to a matter of urgent public importance and can be asked with a notice shorter than 10 days. These Questions are answered orally by the Minister concerned and Supplementary Questions can also be asked. However, a Short Notice Question can be asked only with the concurrence of the Minister. The Short Notice questions from Lok Sabha are printed on pinky white paper and those of Rajya Sabha on white paper.

____________________________________________

Improving The System Of Policing: APJ Abdul Kalam

Here is the link:

http://www.bprd.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/article18044754910.jpg

_________________________________________________________

SC: Loose Talk By Judges Harming Judicial Dignity

This is an article from TOI. Here is the link:

Here is an excerpt: “The then Chief Justice P N Bhagwati had said, ‘‘Judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties or their witnesses. They must act with sobriety, moderation and restraint. They must have the humility to recognize that they are not infallible.’’ ”

___________________________________________

Path Breaking Judgments On Indian Police (Summaries)

This is a compilation of Path Breaking Judgments On Indian Police, from the Bureau Of Police Research And Development (http://bprd.gov.in). It is fairly comprehensive and the same set of judgments are hosted by the AP CID. I only wish they made more of an effort on presenting the document. There are blank pages in between and some of the names of the petitioners and respondents are spelled incorrectly. I tried to clean up as much as I could.

Here is the documents: Path Breaking Judgments On Indian Police

You can find all or most of the judgments quoted above at the site hosted by pwtn.org

Here is the link: PWTN.ORG

__________________________________

Eighth Report Of The National Police Commission

Here is the link to the document:

http://bprd.gov.in/writereaddata/mainlinkFile/File853.pdf

I sourced this from the BPRD website: http://bprd.gov.in/

Here is an excerpt. It is pretty damning as it describes the precise state of affairs in the country:

Accountability To The People:

As stated earlier, at present the concept of total anonymity of the bureaucratic executive and undiluted ministerial responsibility to the people has resulted in distortions affecting police efficiency and citizen-satisfaction. Unfortunately, therefore, the concept of ministerial responsibility has given the wrong impression to the political executive that they are authorised to guide and intervene in all functions of the police in all areas regardless of such guidance or intervention being in accordance with or in contravention of the law of the land. We have brought into clear focus in our earlier reports the harm this has done to the people. We wish to emphasise that it is ultimately the people whose agents the police functionaries are and to whom they are ultimately accountable. Realisation of this concept in our opinion, is of vital importance. We however, find that the process of the police accountability to the people has suffered considerable distortion in the recent past. Various pressure and elite groups have come to develop in society having infinite expectations from all Government departments including the police and seeking favours to the exclusion of legality and fair play. These are members of State and Central Legislatures, the local bodies, important functionaries of political parties, particularly the ruling ones, representatives of the local, yellow press, other important persons of the locality and Government servants holding important positions, who have tended to divert the police accountability from the people to themselves. Police functionaries, therefore, also have tended to shift their priorities on to these pressure groups. This has had obvious effect on the attitude of the common people themselves, who feel that the public services including the police service are meant only to serve the elitist groups and in case they wish to avail of any public service, they have to purchase it through illegal gratification or secure it through exercise of pressures from power-wielding sections of the society.

____________________________________________

SC Judgment (1990): Inordinate Delay In Investigation May Lead To Quashed FIR

Here is the ruling by the SC (State of Andhra Pradesh vs P.V. Pavithran-1990), I quote:

“A lethargic and lackadaisical manner of investigation over a prolonged period makes an accused in a criminal proceeding to live every moment under extreme emotional and mental stress and strain and to remain always under a fear psychosis. Therefore, it is imperative that if investigation of a criminal proceeding staggers on with tardy pace due to the indolence and inefficiency of the investigating agency causing unreasonable and substantial delay resulting in grave prejudice or disadvantage to the accused, the Court as the protector of the right and personal liberty of the citizen will step in and resort to the drastic remedy of quashing further proceedings in such investigation. However, there are offences of grave magnitude which would necessarily involve considerable time for unearthing the crimes and bringing the culprits to book. Therefore, it is not possible to formulate inflexible guidelines or rigid principles of uniform application for speedy investigation or to stipulate any arbitrary period of limitation within which investigation in a criminal case should be completed.”

Here is the link to the judgment: SC Judgment: Inordinate Delay In Investigation

_____________________________________________

SC: FIR Should Not Be Too Sketchy

Press Trust Of India

New Delhi, October 15, 2007

First Published: 18:59 IST(15/10/2007)

An FIR should not be too sketchy to make investigation impossible, the Supreme Court has held.

“Lodging of an FIR is necessary for setting the criminal law in motion. It, however, should not be too sketchy so as to make initiation of investigation on the basis thereof impossible,” a Bench comprising Justices S B Sinha and Harjit Singh Bedi said. “Mere information with regard to commission of an offence may not for all intent and purpose satisfy the requirement of the FIR,” it said. The Court’s observation came while setting aside the conviction of three persons in a murder case that took place in Kolhapur District of Maharastra in 1993. In this case, two persons were killed on October 21, 1993 in presence of two alleged eyewitnesses, who passed on the information to the deceased family. The brother of the deceased then went to police station but he did not mention the names of the accused. The details of incidents were narrated to the police on the spot by another witness on the basis of the account of alleged eyewitness and names of the accused were mentioned. However, the court observed, “the alleged eyewitness had disclosed all the details about the incident to all whom they had met. Why they did not lodge the FIR has not been disclosed.”

“If the said prosecution witness who claimed himself to be the eye-witness was the person who could lodge an FIR, there was absolutely no reason why he himself didnot become the first informant,” the Bench said rejecting the statements of the alleged eyewitness who didnot approach the police after the incident.

___________________________________________

 

Law Commission Submits Report On Dowry Death

10 October 2007

The Chairman of the Law Commission of India, Dr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan today submitted a Report on Dowry Death to the Union Law Minister, Dr. H. R. Bhardwaj.

The question that has been examined by the Law Commission in this Report is whether Section 304-B of Indian Penal Code, should be amended to provide for more stringent punishment of death sentence to curb the menace of dowry death. This section provides for punishment of imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. Although this section has come into force w.e.f. November 19, 1986 yet the incidents of dowry death have not shown any significant decline. This gave rise to demands for death sentence for the offence of dowry death in order to imbibe necessary deterrence in the law.

The Commission examined Section 304-B IPC in the light of various judicial pronouncements and critically dealt with the substantive as well as procedural aspects of the subjects. The Commission finds that the offence of murder is not the same thing as the offence of dowry death. Though death of bride may be a common element in both the offences, the absence of direct connection between the husband and the death of wife distinguished the offence of dowry death from the offence of murder. Besides, the presumptive character of the offence of dowry death and cardinal principle of proportionality as well as the underlying scheme of the Penal Code go against the proposed prescription of death sentence in case of dowry death. It may be pertinent to point out that where a case of dowry death also falls within the ambit of the offence of murder, awarding death sentence may be legally permissible. The guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court for award of death sentence, especially, the dictum of rarest of rare case, will, however, have to be adhered to in such cases.

The Commission found a lot of misgivings and misapprehension associated with the subject of dowry death. Dowry death is quite often confused with the offence of murder. There may be instances where the two may overlap with each other. This gives rise to demand for parity in the matter of sentence in both these cases. Nevertheless, the two offences are distinct and independent offences. The Commission has proceeded to spell out the finer nuances of the offence of dowry death for their better understanding and appreciation to dispel the ambiguity and confusion shrouding the notion of dowry death vis–vis murder. This will help in providing clarity on the subject for its correct understanding and appreciation to the concerned authorities while dealing with the cases of dowry death.

The Commission has, there, not recommended death penalty for dowry death cases. However, the Commission has favoured the increasing of the minimum sentence from seven years to ten years in such cases.

_______________________________________________________________