Lokpal and Lokayuktas

The establishment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas has been a significant step towards enhancing transparency and accountability in the Indian governance system. Instituted to combat corruption at the highest levels of government, Lokpal and Lokayuktas serve as independent bodies empowered to investigate allegations of corruption against public officials and political leaders.

The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act of 2013 introduced the creation of Lokpal at the Union level and Lokayukta at the state level. While these bodies are established by law, they do not possess constitutional status. Functioning as ombudsmen, they are tasked with investigating accusations of corruption involving specific public officials and addressing associated concerns.

Formation of Lokpal and Lokayuktas

The concept of the ombudsman originated officially in Sweden in 1809.
It gained significant traction in the 20th century, particularly after World War II.
New Zealand and Norway adopted the ombudsman system in 1962, spreading its concept.
In 1967, Great Britain became the first major democratic nation to adopt the ombudsman institution based on the Whyatt Report of 1961.
Guyana was the first developing nation to embrace the ombudsman concept in 1966, followed by Mauritius, Singapore, Malaysia, and India.
In India, the idea of a constitutional ombudsman was initially proposed by Ashok Kumar Sen, the then law minister, in the early 1960s.
The terms Lokpal and Lokayukta were coined by Dr. L. M. Singhvi.
The First Administrative Reforms Commission in 1966 recommended the establishment of independent authorities at the central and state levels to address complaints against public functionaries.
The Lokpal bill was first passed in the Lok Sabha in 1968 but lapsed due to various reasons in subsequent years.
Eight attempts were made to pass the Lokpal Bill until 2011, all of which were unsuccessful.
The Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution recommended the appointment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas in 2002, suggesting the exclusion of the Prime Minister from their purview.
In 2005, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission advocated for the prompt establishment of the Lokpal office.
In 2011, a Group of Ministers chaired by Pranab Mukherjee was formed to address corruption and examine the Lokpal Bill proposal.
The “India Against Corruption” movement led by Anna Hazare pressured the UPA government, resulting in the passage of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2013, in both Houses of Parliament.
The bill received presidential assent on January 1, 2014, and came into force on January 16, 2014.

Need of Lokpal and Lokayuktas

Maladministration can be likened to a termite, gradually corroding the very foundation of a nation and impeding the efficient functioning of its administration. Corruption serves as the primary catalyst for this pervasive issue.
A majority of anti-corruption agencies lack true independence, with the Supreme Court even likening the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to a “caged parrot” that echoes the voice of its masters. Many of these agencies merely serve as advisory bodies without any meaningful authority, and their recommendations are often disregarded.
Internal transparency and accountability within these agencies also remain major concerns, compounded by the absence of a dedicated and effective oversight mechanism.
In this backdrop, the establishment of an independent institution like Lokpal stands as a significant milestone in India’s political landscape, offering a potential solution to the enduring problem of corruption.

Provisions

The Selection Committee for Lokpal comprises the Prime Minister as Chairperson, the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or a Judge nominated by them, and one eminent jurist appointed by the President.
The Lokpal’s jurisdiction extends to the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, and government employees from group A, B, C, and D.
It consists of a chairperson and a maximum of eight members, with half of them being judicial members. Additionally, 50% of members belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities, and women.
The Lokpal has the power of superintendence and can direct investigative agencies, including the Central Bureau of Investigation, for cases referred to it.
Under the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, the Lokpal has jurisdiction over foreign donations exceeding Rs 10 lakhs per year.
The Act mandates the establishment of Lokayukta institutions through state legislation within 365 days of its enactment.

Jurisdiction of Lokpal and its Powers

The Lokpal holds jurisdiction over several key entities, including the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, as well as officers and officials of the Central Government across various groups. However, there are certain exceptions to its jurisdiction, such as allegations of corruption related to international relations, security, public order, atomic energy, and space concerning the Prime Minister. Additionally, the Lokpal does not have jurisdiction over matters discussed or voted upon in Parliament by Ministers and MPs.
Furthermore, the Lokpal’s jurisdiction extends to individuals who have been or are in charge of bodies or societies established by central acts, or those financed or controlled by the central government, along with anyone involved in acts of abetting, giving, or taking bribes.
Under the Lokpal Act, all public officials are required to declare their assets and liabilities, as well as those of their dependents. The Lokpal possesses supervisory authority over the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), with the power to provide directions and prevent the transfer of investigating officers without its approval.
Moreover, the Lokpal’s Inquiry Wing is endowed with the powers of a civil court, and it retains the authority to confiscate assets acquired through corrupt means in certain circumstances. Additionally, the Lokpal can recommend the transfer or suspension of public servants implicated in corruption allegations and issue directives to prevent the destruction of records during preliminary inquiries.

Lokpal and Lokayukta (Amendment) Act 2016

An amendment to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 alters the rules regarding the declaration of assets and liabilities by public officials.
It allows the leader of the largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha to be part of the selection committee in the absence of a recognized Leader of Opposition.
The amendment revises section 44 of the Act, which originally required public officials to declare their assets and liabilities within 30 days of assuming office.
The 30-day time limit specified in section 44 is removed, and public officials will now report their assets and liabilities according to government guidelines.

Limitation and Challenges

The Lokpal institution aimed to combat corruption in India’s administrative structure, but it has shortcomings.
Despite the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act being passed in 2013, no Lokpal has been appointed yet, indicating a lack of political will.
While the Act required states to appoint a Lokayukta within a year, only 16 states have done so.
The Lokpal’s appointment process can be influenced by political parties since the appointing committee includes members from these parties.
Criteria for determining who qualifies as an ’eminent jurist’ or a person of integrity are not specified, leaving room for manipulation.
Whistleblowers lack concrete immunity under the 2013 act, and they may face inquiry if the accused is found innocent, discouraging complaints.
Judiciary is excluded from the Lokpal’s purview, which is a significant gap.
The Lokpal lacks constitutional backing and has limited appeal provisions.
States have been given full discretion in appointing Lokayuktas, with no specific guidelines provided.
The CBI’s functional independence has been somewhat addressed by changes in the Director’s selection process under this Act.
Complaints of corruption cannot be registered after seven years from the date of the alleged offence, which is a limitation.

Way Forward

To combat corruption effectively, it is crucial to enhance the authority and resources of the ombudsman institution, ensuring both functional autonomy and sufficient manpower.
Additionally, there is a pressing need for increased transparency, expanded right to information, and empowerment of citizens and civil society groups, coupled with strong leadership that willingly subjects itself to public scrutiny.
However, the mere appointment of Lokpal is insufficient. The government must address the underlying issues prompting demands for Lokpal, rather than merely expanding investigative agencies, which may only enlarge the bureaucracy without necessarily improving governance. The government should uphold the principle of “less government and more governance” in practice.
Furthermore, it is imperative for Lokpal and Lokayukta to operate independently, both financially, administratively, and legally, from the entities they are tasked with investigating and prosecuting.
The appointment process for Lokpal and Lokayukta should be transparent to minimize the risk of unsuitable candidates being selected.
Lastly, there is a need for a diverse array of decentralized institutions with appropriate mechanisms for accountability to prevent the concentration of excessive power in any single institution or authority.

Read about Central Bureau of Investigation.