‘Battle against corrupt not easy, unity is key’
The National Advisory Council (NAC) member Aruna Roy on Friday downplayed the differences between the civil society activists on the proposed draft of the anti-corruption Lokpal Bill, saying public consultations will remove all doubts.delhi Updated: Apr 29, 2011 23:49 IST
The National Advisory Council (NAC) member Aruna Roy on Friday downplayed the differences between the civil society activists on the proposed draft of the anti-corruption Lokpal Bill, saying public consultations will remove all doubts.
"The rich, the powerful and the corrupt will not allow this bill to become a reality easily. The battle is tough and it would have to be fought together," Roy said addressing a seminar.
Roy, who heads the working group on transparency and accountability of the Sonia Gandhi-led NAC, said the so-called differences between the civil society activists were being hyped by vested interests.
"These attempts will not succeed. We are all united to bring a strong and effective jan lokpal bill. Public consultations will remove the differences," she said in presence of lawyer Prashant Bhushan, a member of the joint committee to draft the bill.
The 10-member joint panel of the Centre and Anna Hazare's team is scheduled to hold its second meeting on Monday and begin discussions on the draft being provided by the actvists.
In a separate development, the SC on Friday refused give an early hearing to a bunch of public interest litigations (PILs), challenging the constitutional validity of the government's notification to form a joint committee to draft the anti-graft bill.
A three judge bench headed by the Chief Justice S H Kapadia posted the matter for hearing in July, saying it was “premature” at this juncture.
“The petitions are premature and can't be taken as the lokpal bill was yet to be passed,” the bench said.
“It is still not the law,” stated the bench, also comprising justice KS Radhakrishnan and justice Swatanter Kumar said.
The bench dealt with the three petitions separately and passed identical orders for hearing them in July. While dealing with one of the petitions, the bench remarked, “some of the averments in the petition are untenable in law.”