Lokpal and Lokayukta

The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 established the Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for States. These are statutory bodies with no constitutional status. Their role is similar to that of an “ombudsman,” investigating allegations of corruption against specific public functionaries and addressing related issues.

Why are these Institutions Needed?

Maladministration, akin to a termite, gradually undermines the nation’s foundations and obstructs administrative functions. Corruption is the primary cause of this issue.
Many anti-corruption agencies lack independence, with even the Supreme Court calling the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) a “caged parrot” under political control.
Additionally, numerous agencies are advisory bodies with limited power, and their suggestions are often ignored. The lack of transparency and accountability in these agencies, combined with the absence of an independent mechanism to check their functioning, led to the need for institutions like the Lokpal. The creation of the Lokpal was seen as a crucial step toward addressing this issue.

History Behind Their Formation

The ombudsman system was formally introduced in Sweden in 1809. It gained significant traction in the 20th century, particularly after World War II.
In 1962, New Zealand and Norway adopted it, followed by Great Britain in 1967, becoming the first large democratic nation to implement it.
In India, the idea of a constitutional ombudsman was first proposed by Law Minister Ashok Kumar Sen in the 1960s. Dr. L. M. Singhvi coined the terms Lokpal and Lokayukta.
In 1966, the First Administrative Reforms Commission recommended establishing two independent authorities to investigate complaints against public functionaries. Though the Lokpal Bill was passed in 1968, it lapsed when the Lok Sabha was dissolved, and multiple attempts to pass the bill failed until 2011.
In response to public demand, the India Against Corruption movement, led by Anna Hazare, pressured the government, culminating in the passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2013 in Parliament. It received presidential assent on January 1, 2014, and came into effect on January 16, 2014.

Key Provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2016

The 2016 amendment modified the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, particularly Section 44, which requires public servants to declare their assets and liabilities within 30 days of joining office. The amendment removed the 30-day deadline and now mandates that these declarations be made in a format prescribed by the government.

Structure of Lokpal

The Lokpal is a multi-member body consisting of one chairperson and up to eight members.
The chairperson must be a former Chief Justice of India, Supreme Court Judge, or an individual with a distinguished career in anti-corruption, public administration, finance, or law, with at least 25 years of relevant expertise.
Out of the eight members, half must be judicial, and at least 50% must come from SC/ST/OBC/minorities and women.
Lokpal members are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a selection committee, which includes the Prime Minister, Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition, Chief Justice of India, and one eminent jurist. The committee appoints a search panel to propose candidates for the position.

Lokpal Search Committee

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) compiles a list of candidates for the positions of Lokpal Chairperson and members. This list is then evaluated by an eight-member search committee before being reviewed by the selection panel.
In September 2018, the government set up a search committee led by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
The 2013 Act also mandates that all states set up their own Lokayukta offices within a year of its enactment.

Jurisdiction and Powers of the Lokpal

The Lokpal’s jurisdiction extends to the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, and central government officials, including all grades (A, B, C, D).
However, the Lokpal has limited authority over the Prime Minister, excluding matters related to national security, foreign relations, atomic energy, and space. Similarly, it cannot address anything said or voted on in Parliament by MPs and Ministers.
The Lokpal also has jurisdiction over individuals involved with bodies set up by central legislation or financed/controlled by the government.
The Lokpal can supervise the CBI, providing direction and ensuring no transfers occur without approval in cases referred to the agency. It also has the authority to confiscate assets acquired through corruption.
Additionally, it can recommend the suspension or transfer of public servants involved in corruption and prevent the destruction of records during investigations.

Limitations of the Lokpal

Though the Lokpal represents a significant step in tackling corruption, it has several limitations:

1. Political interference remains a challenge since the selection committee includes political figures.
   
2. Absence of judicial immunity: the Lokpal lacks constitutional backing and does not have an appellate body.
   
3. The Lokpal is not independent of political influence, particularly in the selection process.
   
4. Inadequate protection for whistleblowers: The Act does not provide sufficient protection for whistleblowers, and complainants may face repercussions if the accused is found innocent.
   
5. Judiciary exclusion: The Lokpal does not have jurisdiction over members of the judiciary, which remains a significant gap.
   
6. Only 16 states have established their Lokayukta institutions, despite the requirement under the 2013 Act.
   

Moving Forward

To effectively combat corruption, the Lokpal and Lokayukta must be strengthened, ensuring functional autonomy and adequate staffing.
There must be greater transparency in the appointment process to avoid political influence, and the institutions should be financially, administratively, and legally independent.
Appointments should be made with transparency to minimize political interference, and there should be a system of decentralized institutions with clear accountability mechanisms to avoid excessive concentration of power.
Lastly, the government needs to act on the underlying reasons behind corruption rather than just increasing the number of investigative agencies.