The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, is a landmark Indian law establishing independent anti-corruption Ombudsman at both central (lokpal) and state (lokayukta) levels. This act was a result of prolonged public movement against corruption, particularly the “India against corruption” movement led by Anna Hazare. This act empowers these bodies to investigate allegations of corruption against public officials, including the Prime Ministers and Member of Parliament. Lokpals and lokayuktas have the authority to investigate complaints against public servants, including those in high offices. The act aims to promote transparency and accountability in governance by providing a mechanism for redressal of grievances related to corruption.
Composition of Lokpal and Lokayuktas
Lokpal
The Lokpal is a statutory body constituted under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Its composition is carefully structured to ensure balance and impartiality.
a) Structure:
Chairperson: A former Chief Justice of India or a former Judge of the Supreme Court, or an eminent person with impeccable integrity and at least 25 years of experience in anti-corruption policy, law, management, etc.
Members: The body consists of up to eight members, of whom 50% must be judicial members. The Act mandates that not less than 50% of the members be from SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, or women.
b) Appointment:
The Lokpal is appointed by a selection committee consisting of:
- The Prime Minister (Chairperson),
- The Speaker of the Lok Sabha,
- The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha,
- The Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him,
- An eminent jurist nominated by the President.
A search committee prepares a panel of names for consideration by the selection committee.
Lokayuktas
Lokayuktas are state-level ombudsman bodies. Their composition varies from state to state, as the Act mandates states to establish Lokayuktas but allows them discretion in designing their own structure.
a) Composition:
- A Lokayukta (usually a retired High Court or Supreme Court judge),
- One or more Upa-Lokayuktas (deputy Lokayuktas),
- Staff and inquiry wings to carry out investigations.
States like Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Kerala have well-established Lokayuktas, while many others are either yet to implement the law effectively or have done so in diluted form.
Jurisdiction and Powers
Lokpal: The Lokpal has extensive jurisdiction under Section 14 of the 2013 Act:
a) Public Servants under Jurisdiction:
- The Prime Minister (with certain limitations),
- Ministers and Members of Parliament,
- Group A, B, C, and D Central Government officials,
- Employees of government-funded NGOs (receiving over ₹1 crore or 10 lakh if more than 25% funding comes from the government).
b) Powers:
- Preliminary Inquiry: To determine whether there exists a prima facie case for investigation.
- Full Investigation: Through the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which functions under Lokpal’s supervision in such cases.
- Prosecution: Can file charges in the Special Courts established under the Act.
- Attachment of Property: Can recommend confiscation or attachment of assets amassed through corrupt means.
- Search and Seizure: Authorized under law.
- Disciplinary Proceedings: Can recommend disciplinary action against government servants.
Exemptions for the Prime Minister:
Lokpal cannot inquire into allegations against the PM:
- Relating to international relations, external/internal security, public order, atomic energy, and space.
- Unless the full bench of Lokpal permits and two-thirds of its members approve.
- In-camera proceedings are allowed, and no records are made public until the investigation concludes.
Lokayuktas: The jurisdiction of Lokayuktas varies across states but generally includes:
a) State-Level Public Officials:
- Chief Ministers (in some states),
- Ministers and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs),
- Government officials and bureaucrats,
- Local bodies and semi-government organizations.
b) Powers and Functions:
- Receive and investigate complaints against public officials,
- Recommend action or prosecution based on findings,
- Forward cases to appropriate investigating agencies like state vigilance,
- Advisory Role: Recommend reforms or procedural improvements in public administration.
Criticism and Challenges
a) Delay in Establishment and Operationalization
Though the Act was passed in 2013, the first Lokpal was appointed only in 2019, after a long delay attributed to the absence of the Leader of the Opposition (LoP) in the selection committee due to numerical strength in the Lok Sabha.
b) Lack of Independence
Critics argue that the appointment process lacks transparency and opens the door to executive interference, compromising the institution’s independence. The search committee, although independent on paper, often works under the government’s influence.
c) Jurisdictional Ambiguities
There are limitations on the Lokpal’s jurisdiction over the Prime Minister and matters of national interest. Additionally, issues like overlapping jurisdictions with the CVC, CBI, and judiciary create confusion and reduce effectiveness.
d) Limited Enforcement Powers
Lokpal can recommend action but relies heavily on external agencies like the CBI or ED, which report to the government. This dilutes its power and may delay or weaken implementation.
e) Inadequate Infrastructure and Staffing
Both Lokpal and many state Lokayuktas suffer from understaffing, inadequate budgetary allocations, and lack of trained personnel, which undermines their investigative capacity.
f) Lack of Awareness and Accessibility
A large section of the population remains unaware of the existence or function of these institutions, limiting their accessibility to the common citizen.
g) State Apathy towards Lokayuktas
Many states have not established Lokayuktas at all, or have done so in namesake only. For instance, Uttar Pradesh has not appointed a Lokayukta till date, and several others have failed to vest them with meaningful powers.
Conclusion
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas were envisioned as powerful instruments to restore public trust in governance and provide a credible mechanism for redressal of corruption complaints. Their existence reflects the legislative intent to address the deep-rooted issue of corruption in India. However, the mere creation of institutions is not enough.
Contributed by: Vanshika Dhiman (Intern)