Introduction & Summary
Lokpal and Lokayuktas are ombudsman-type institutions in India, designed to inquire into allegations of corruption against public functionaries. The concept, originating from Sweden, gained significant traction in India through various reform recommendations and a powerful anti-corruption movement.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, established the Lokpal at the Union level and mandated states to constitute Lokayuktas. These bodies aim to provide a swift and effective mechanism for investigating corruption complaints against high-ranking officials, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability in governance, though their implementation and effectiveness have faced various challenges.
20.9.1: Concept
Ombudsman-type Institution
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas are anti-corruption ombudsman institutions. An ombudsman is an official appointed to investigate individuals' complaints against maladministration, especially that of public authorities.
Origin
The concept of an ombudsman originated in Sweden (known as the Justitieombudsman since 1809). New Zealand and Denmark also adopted similar institutions, which then inspired calls for such bodies in India.
Purpose
To inquire into allegations of corruption or maladministration against public functionaries, providing a mechanism for accountability outside traditional bureaucratic channels. (Source: ARC-I Report, Laxmikanth's Indian Polity)
20.9.2: Evolution in India
1966: First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC-I)
(Headed by Morarji Desai, later K. Hanumanthaiya)
Recommended the establishment of two independent authorities – a Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas at the states – for redressal of citizens' grievances.
1968 onwards: Failed Bills
Based on ARC recommendations, the Lokpal Bill was introduced in Parliament multiple times since 1968, but failed to pass due to various reasons (e.g., dissolution of Lok Sabha, lack of consensus, change of government).
2011: Anna Hazare Movement
A strong public agitation led by social activist Anna Hazare, demanding a strong Lokpal (the Jan Lokpal Bill), brought the issue to the forefront of national discourse, eventually leading to the enactment of the law. (Source: ARC-I Report, Parliamentary records, media coverage of Anna Hazare movement)
2013: Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act Enacted
This landmark Act provided for the establishment of Lokpal at the Union level and Lokayuktas at the state level.
20.9.3: Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
Lokpal (for Union)
Composition
The Lokpal consists of a Chairperson and a maximum of eight members.
- Judicial Members: Half of the members must be judicial members (former CJI or former/sitting SC judge, or former HC CJ).
- Other Members: At least half of the members must be from among persons belonging to SCs, STs, OBCs, Minorities, and Women.
Appointment Process (Conceptual Flow)
The Chairperson and members are appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. A Search Committee prepares a panel of names.
Lokpal Selection Flow:
Search Committee
(Prepares Panel of Names)Selection Committee
- PM (Chairperson)
- Speaker of Lok Sabha
- Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
- CJI or SC Judge Nominee
- Eminent Jurist
President of India
(Appoints Chairperson & Members)Term & Jurisdiction
Term: The Chairperson and members hold office for a term of 5 years or until they attain the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier.
Jurisdiction Covers:
- The Prime Minister (with specific safeguards, not for allegations related to international relations, security, public order, atomic energy, space, unless involving corruption).
- Ministers (Union Ministers).
- Members of Parliament (MPs).
- All categories of Group 'A', 'B', 'C', and 'D' officers of the Central Government.
- Officials of PSUs, statutory bodies, societies, trusts, or bodies wholly or partly financed by the Central Government.
Powers & Procedure
Extensive Powers:
- Superintendence/Direction over CBI: Has powers of superintendence and direction over the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) (CBI) for cases referred to it by the Lokpal.
- Civil Court Powers: Vested with the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Confiscation of Assets: Has powers to order confiscation of assets, proceeds, receipts, and benefits of corruption in special circumstances.
- Recommendation: Can recommend disciplinary action or prosecution.
- Preliminary Inquiry: Can direct CVC to conduct preliminary inquiry in certain cases.
Procedure: The Act prescribes timelines for preliminary inquiry (within 3 months, extendable by 3 months), investigation (within 6 months, extendable), and prosecution.
Current Status of Lokpal Office Functioning
After initial delays in appointment, the first Lokpal Chairperson was appointed in 2019 (Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose). Subsequently, members have also been appointed. The office has been functioning, receiving complaints and ordering inquiries. (Source: Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, Lokpal website)
Lokayuktas (for States)
Mandate for States
The Act mandates that every state shall establish a Lokayukta within one year from the commencement of the Act.
Flexibility & Varying Structures
However, the Act leaves the details of the Lokayukta's structure, powers, and jurisdiction to the respective State Legislatures. It provides a model framework but is not binding on the states.
As a result, the structure and powers of Lokayuktas vary significantly across states. Some states had Lokayuktas even before the 2013 Act. Maharashtra was the first state to establish a Lokayukta (in 1971).
Examples of Variation
Some Lokayuktas cover the Chief Minister, while others do not. Powers and effectiveness vary. (Source: Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, state Lokayukta Acts)
Key Takeaway for States
While the central Act provides the impetus, the actual strength and scope of Lokayuktas largely depend on individual state legislation, leading to significant disparities in their effectiveness across India.
20.9.4: Challenges in Implementation & Effectiveness
Delays in Appointments
Significant delays in the appointment of the Chairperson and members of the Lokpal at the Centre, and Lokayuktas in many states.
Lack of Full Implementation by States
Many states have either not established a Lokayukta as mandated or have enacted weak laws.
Weakened Powers
Some state Lokayukta Acts do not cover the Chief Minister or give the Lokayukta sufficient investigative and punitive powers.
Political Influence
Selection committees heavily involve political executive, raising concerns about independence and impartiality. Absence of LoP can stall selection.
Dependence on Executive
Lokpal and Lokayuktas often depend on existing investigative agencies (CBI, State Police/Anti-Corruption Bureau) for investigations, which may itself be susceptible to executive pressure.
Resource Constraints
Lack of adequate human resources (investigators, legal experts) and financial autonomy.
Transparency and Accountability
Concerns about the transparency of the Lokpal's own functioning and its accountability mechanism.
High Threshold for Complaints
The process for filing complaints and the requirements for preliminary inquiry can be stringent, potentially deterring genuine complaints.
No Suo Motu Power (for some Lokayuktas)
Some Lokayuktas lack the power to initiate inquiries on their own.
Key Provisions: Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
| Feature | Lokpal (Union) | Lokayuktas (States) |
|---|---|---|
| Establishment | Mandated by Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. | Mandated for states by Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (within 1 year). |
| Composition | Chairperson (former CJI/SC Judge) + max 8 members (half judicial, half from SC/ST/OBC/Minorities/Women). | Details left to State Legislatures. |
| Appointment | By President on recommendation of Selection Committee (PM, Speaker LS, LoP LS, CJI/SC Judge nominee, Eminent Jurist). Assisted by Search Committee. | By Governor on recommendation of state-level committee (details vary by state, typically CM, Speaker, LoP, State HM, CJ of HC/Judge). |
| Term | 5 years or 70 years. | Varies by state (e.g., 5 years or 65/70 years). |
| Jurisdiction | PM (with safeguards), Union Ministers, MPs, Group A, B, C, D Central Govt officers, PSUs/govt-financed bodies. | Varies by state; may cover CM, Ministers, MLAs, state govt officials. |
| Key Powers | Inquire into corruption; superintendence/direction over CBI (for referred cases); powers of civil court; confiscation of assets; preliminary inquiry role for CVC. | Varies by state; typically investigative, sometimes recommendatory/punitive. May have civil court powers. |
| Nature of Role | Primarily investigative and recommendatory (can recommend prosecution). | Primarily investigative and recommendatory. |
| Current Status | First Lokpal Chairperson appointed in 2019; functioning. | Many states have established, but with varying degrees of power/effectiveness. Maharashtra first (1971). |
Exam Insights & Practice
- Concept: Ombudsman-type institution for corruption complaints. Origin: Sweden.
- Evolution in India: Recommended by ARC-I (1966). Triggered by Anna Hazare movement (2011).
- Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013:
- Lokpal (for Union):
- Composition: Chairperson + max 8 members (half judicial, half from SC/ST/OBC/minorities/women).
- Appointment: By President on recommendation of Selection Committee (PM-head, Speaker LS, LoP LS, CJI/SC Judge nominee, Eminent Jurist). Assisted by Search Committee.
- Term: 5 years or 70 years.
- Jurisdiction: PM (with safeguards), Ministers, MPs, Group A,B,C,D Central Govt officers, PSUs/govt-financed bodies.
- Powers: Inquire corruption allegations. Superintendence/direction over CBI (for referred cases). Powers of civil court. Confiscation of assets.
- Procedure: Preliminary inquiry, investigation, prosecution (with timelines).
- Lokayuktas (for States):
- Act mandates states to establish within 1 year.
- Details (structure, powers) left to State Legislatures. (Model provided is not binding).
- Maharashtra was first state (1971) to establish.
- Lokpal (for Union):
- Challenges: Delays in appointments, lack of full implementation by states, weak powers, political influence, dependence on executive/investigative agencies, resource constraints.
Major Debates/Discussions:
- Independence vs. Political Influence: Selection committee's composition raises concerns.
- Jurisdiction over PM: Safeguards debated for loopholes.
- Lack of Suo Motu Power (for some Lokayuktas): Limits proactive role.
- Pendency and Effectiveness: Delays in complaint disposal, staff/resources.
- Relationship with Existing Agencies: Practical coordination and effectiveness debated.
Historical/Long-term Trends, Continuity & Changes:
- Decades-long Struggle: Reflects India's fight against corruption and public demand.
- Shift from Executive to Statutory/Independent: Empowering institutions outside direct executive chain.
- Impact of Civil Society Movements: Anna Hazare movement's role in reforms.
Contemporary Relevance/Significance/Impact:
- Anti-Corruption Mechanism: Dedicated, high-level body.
- Enhancing Accountability: More transparent governance.
- Deterrent Effect: May discourage corrupt practices.
- Citizen Empowerment: Direct avenue for complaints.
- Judicial Oversight: Alternative forum for inquiries.
Real-world/Data-backed Recent Examples & Current Affairs:
- Functional Status: Lokpal functioning, but reports on slow complaint disposal. (Source: Lokpal Annual Reports).
- State-level Implementation: Varying effectiveness across states.
- Lokpal Search Committee Issues: Initial delays highlighted challenges.
- Whistleblower Protection: Provided by Act, but separate Act implementation pending.
- Debate on Strengthening Laws: Discussions on further reforms for effectiveness.
- Pending Cases and Staffing: Challenges in managing complaints and resources.
UPSC CSE 2014 (Prelims)
Which of the following statements about the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is correct?
- (a) The Act mandates the establishment of a Lokayukta in every state within six months.
- (b) The jurisdiction of the Lokpal extends to the Prime Minister with no safeguards.
- (c) Half of the members of the Lokpal must be judicial members.
- (d) The Lokpal has the power to directly impose punishment for corruption.
Answer: (c)
Hint/Explanation: (a) is incorrect (within 1 year, not 6 months). (b) is incorrect (PM covered with safeguards). (d) is incorrect (recommends prosecution/disciplinary action, doesn't directly punish). (c) is correct (half judicial members).
UPSC CSE 2017 (Prelims)
Which one of the following is correct about the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013?
- (a) It establishes the Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in states.
- (b) The Lokpal has jurisdiction over the Prime Minister in all matters.
- (c) The Lokpal has the power to remove any public servant found guilty of corruption.
- (d) The Act is not applicable to Union Territories.
Answer: (a)
Hint/Explanation: (a) is correct. (b) is incorrect (PM with safeguards). (c) is incorrect (recommends, doesn't remove). (d) is incorrect (applicable to UTs, though Lokpal's jurisdiction generally applies to central government functionaries).
UPSC CSE 2016 (Prelims)
The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has become a crucial institution in India's fight against corruption. Which of the following is correct regarding the CVC?
- (a) It is a constitutional body.
- (b) It exercises superintendence over the functioning of the CBI in all matters.
- (c) It has the power to inquire into allegations of corruption against public servants.
- (d) It is under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
Answer: (c)
Hint/Explanation: This question is about CVC, but its functions overlap with Lokpal. CVC has inquiry powers (c). (a) is incorrect (statutory). (b) is incorrect (only for PC Act cases). (d) is incorrect (independent).
UPSC CSE 2017, GS Paper II (Mains)
"The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, was a landmark legislation in India's fight against corruption. Discuss its salient features and examine the challenges in its implementation." (250 words)
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Briefly state the Act's purpose and its origin.
- Salient Features: Establishment of Lokpal (Centre) and Lokayuktas (States); Composition of Lokpal; Appointment process; Jurisdiction (PM with safeguards, Ministers, MPs, all categories of Central govt officers, PSUs etc.); Powers (superintendence over CBI, civil court powers, confiscation of assets); Procedure (timelines).
- Challenges in Implementation: Delays in Appointment; Lack of Full Implementation by States; Political Influence; Dependence on Executive; Resource Constraints; Jurisdictional Overlap; Lack of LoP.
- Conclusion: While a landmark law, its full potential is yet to be realized due to implementation hurdles and concerns about its independence.
UPSC CSE 2019, GS Paper II (Mains)
"The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, introduced a new era of anti-corruption reforms in India. Discuss the key provisions of the Act and critically evaluate its effectiveness in combating corruption at the Union level." (250 words)
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: State the Act's significance.
- Key Provisions (Union Level - Lokpal): Composition; Appointment process; Jurisdiction; Powers; Procedural timelines.
- Critical Evaluation of Effectiveness (Union Level):
- Positive (Potential): High-level, independent forum; deterrent; symbol of commitment.
- Negative (Challenges): Delayed Operationalization; Independence Concerns; Limited Autonomy of CBI; Resource Constraints; Low Complaint Numbers; No Suo Motu Power; Effectiveness of Safeguards for PM.
- Conclusion: While a significant step, the Lokpal's effectiveness is a work in progress, facing challenges in its implementation and establishing its full independence and deterrent effect.
UPSC CSE 2021, GS Paper II (Mains)
"India's institutional framework for combating corruption involves multiple agencies. Critically examine the effectiveness of this framework in promoting transparency and accountability in public administration." (250 words)
Direction/Value Points:
- Introduction: Identify key anti-corruption institutions (CVC, CBI, Lokpal, RTI/CIC, CAG).
- Effectiveness (Positive): CVC (apex vigilance, CBI superintendence); CBI (primary investigative); Lokpal (ombudsman for high functionaries); RTI/CIC (citizen empowerment); CAG (post-audit); Judiciary (upholding rule of law).
- Challenges/Limitations (Critical Examination): Lack of Independence (executive interference); Advisory Nature (CVC, Lokpal partly); Jurisdictional Overlaps/Conflicts; Resource Constraints; Political Will; Delays (investigations, trials, appointments); Ineffective Whistleblower Protection; Systemic Corruption (root causes).
- Conclusion: While India has a multi-layered framework, its full effectiveness is hampered by institutional limitations and implementation challenges. Continuous reforms are needed.