LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA

•What is lokpal and lokayukta

•DISTINCTION BETWEEN LOKPAL &
LOKAYUKTA
•Need of such institutions
•ConstitutiOnaL BACKING
•Background of their formation
•Statute and provisions
What is Lokpal and Lokayukta
• Generally the Ombudsman is to a Judge or Lawyer or a high officer. He
investigates the complaints from clients against the administrators and
tries to find out the remedies. An Ombudsman, or his equivalent, has
become a standard part of the machinery of any modern government
• The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 provided for the establishment of
Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for States.
• These institutions are statutory bodies without any constitutional
status.
• They perform the function of an "ombudsman” and inquire into
allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries and for
related matters.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA
LOKPAL LOKAYUKTA
• It is constituted at the national • It is constituted at the state level.
level. • All the members of the legislative
• All the members of Parliament assembly and state government
and central government employees comes under its
employees comes under its jurisdiction.
jurisdiction. • The members are appointed by
• The members are appointed by the Governor.
the President. • It is a three-member body.
• The committee consists of a
maximum of eight members and
a Chairperson.
NEED OF THE INSTITUTIONS
• Maladministration is like a termite which slowly erodes the foundation of a nation
and hinders administration from completing its task. Corruption is the root cause
of this problem.
• Most of the anti-corruption agencies are hardly independent. Even Supreme
Court has been termed CBI as a “caged parrot” and “its master’s voice”.
• Many of these agencies are advisory bodies without any effective powers and
their advice is rarely followed.
• There is also the problem of internal transparency and accountability. Moreover,
there is not any separate and effective mechanism to put checks on these
agencies.
• In this context, an independent institution of Lokpal has been a landmark move in
the history of Indian polity which offered a solution to the never-ending menace
of corruption.
 CONSTITUTIONAL BACKING
Article 39: The state shall in particular direct its policies
toward securing the right to an adequate means of
livelihood to all citizens
the ownership and control of material resources shall be
organized in a manner to serve the common good.
The state shall avoid concentration of wealth in few hands
BACKGROUND OF THE ESTABLISHMENT
• . In 1809, the institution of ombudsman was inaugurated officially in
Sweden.
• In the 20th century, Ombudsman as an institution developed and
grew most significantly after the Second World War.
• New Zealand and Norway adopted this system in the year 1962 and
it proved to be of great significance in spreading the concept of the
ombudsman.
• In 1967, on the recommendations of the Whyatt Report of 1961, Great
Britain adopted the institution of the ombudsman and became the first
large nation in the democratic world to have such a system.
• In 1966, Guyana became the first developing nation to adopt the
concept of the ombudsman. Subsequently, it was further adopted
In India, the concept of constitutional ombudsman was first proposed by the then
law minister Ashok Kumar Sen in parliament in the early 1960s.

M.C. Setalvad suggested the idea of establishing an Ombudsman at the All India
Lawyers’ Conference in 1962

The term Lokpal and Lokayukta were coined by Dr. L. M. Singhvi.

In 1966, the First Administrative Reforms Commission recommended the setting up

of two independent authorities- at the central and state level, to look into
complaints against public functionaries, including MPs.

In 1968, Lokpal bill was passed in Lok Sabha but lapsed with the dissolution of Lok
Sabha and since then it has lapsed in the Lok Sabha many times.
Till 2011 eight attempts were made to pass the Bill, but all met with failure.

In 2002, the Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution headed by M.N.
Venkatachaliah recommended the appointment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas, also
recommended that the PM be kept out of the ambit of the authority.

In 2005, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission chaired by Veerappa

Moily recommended that the office of Lokpal should be established without delay.

In 2011, the government formed a Group of Ministers, chaired by Pranab Mukherjee to suggest
measures to tackle corruption and examine the proposal of a Lokpal Bill.

"India Against Corruption movement" led by Anna Hazare put pressure on the United Progressive
Alliance (UPA) government at the Centre and resulted in the passing of the Lokpal and
Lokayuktas Bill, 2013, in both the Houses of Parliament.

It received assent from President on 1 January 2014 and came into force on 16 January 2014.
STATUTE AND PROVISIONS
• Maharashtra was the first state to introduce Lokayukta
through The Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-
Lokayuktas Act in 1971.
• The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 provided for the
establishment of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta
for States.
LOKPAL STRUCTURE
 Lokpal is a multi-member body, that consists of one chairperson and a maximum
of 8 members.
 Chairperson of the Lokpal should be either the former Chief Justice of India or the
former Judge of Supreme Court or an eminent person with impeccable integrity
and outstanding ability, having special knowledge and expertise of minimum 25
years in the matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration,
vigilance, finance including insurance and banking, law and management.
 Out of the maximum eight members, half will be judicial members and minimum
50% of the Members will be from SC/ ST/ OBC/ Minorities and women.
 The judicial member of the Lokpal either a former Judge of the Supreme Court or
a former Chief Justice of a High Court.
 The non-judicial member should be an eminent person with impeccable integrity
and outstanding ability, having special knowledge and expertise of minimum 25
years in the matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration,
vigilance, finance including insurance and banking, law and management.
The term of office for Lokpal Chairman and Members is 5 years or till
the age of 70 years.

The members are appointed by the president on the recommendation of a

Selection Committee.

The selection committee is composed of the Prime Minister who is the

Chairperson; Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha,
Chief Justice of India or a Judge nominated by him/her and One eminent
jurist.

For selecting the chairperson and the members, the selection committee
constitutes a search panel of at least eight persons
LOKPAL SEARCH COMMITTEE
• Under the Lokpal Act of 2013, the DoPT is supposed to put together a list of
candidates interested to be the chairperson or members of the Lokpal.
• This list would then go to the proposed eight-member search committee, which
would shortlist names and place them before the selection panel headed by the
Prime Minister.
• The selection panel may or may not pick names suggested by the search
committee.
• In August 2023, the government had reconstituted a search committee headed
by former Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
• Justice Pradip Kumar Mohanty, a judicial member of Lokpal, is currently the
"acting chairperson’’.
• The 2013 Act also provides that all states should set up the office of the
Lokayukta within one year from the commencement of the Act.
LOKPAL JURISDICTION AND POWERS
• Jurisdiction of Lokpal includes Prime Minister, Ministers, members of Parliament,
Groups A, B, C and D officers and officials of Central Government.
• Jurisdiction of the Lokpal included the Prime Minister except on allegations of
corruption relating to international relations, security, the public order, atomic
energy and space.
• The Lokpal does not have jurisdiction over Ministers and MPs in the matter of
anything said in Parliament or a vote given there.
• Its jurisdiction also includes any person who is or has been in charge (director/
manager/ secretary) of anybody/ society set up by central act or any other body
financed/ controlled by central government and any other person involved in act
of abetting, bribe giving or bribe taking.
• The Lokpal Act mandates that all public officials should furnish the assets and
liabilities of themselves as well as their respective dependents.
LOKPAL JURISDICTION AND POWERS…..
• It has the powers to superintendence over, and to give direction to CBI.
If Lokpal has referred a case to CBI, the investigating officer in such
case cannot be transferred without the approval of Lokpal.
• The Inquiry Wing of the Lokpal has been vested with the powers of a
civil court.
• Lokpal has powers of confiscation of assets, proceeds, receipts and
benefits arisen or procured by means of corruption in special
circumstances.
• Lokpal has the power to recommend transfer or suspension of public
servant connected with allegation of corruption.
• Lokpal has the power to give directions to prevent the destruction of
records during the preliminary inquiry.
LIMITATION OF THE ACT
• The institution of lokpal has tried to bring a much needed change in the
battle against corruption in the administrative structure of India but at the
same time, there are loopholes and lacunae which need to be corrected.
• Five years have passed since the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 was
passed by parliament, but not a single Lokpal has been appointed till date
indicating the lack of political will.
The Lokpal act also called upon states to appoint a Lokayukta within a year
of its coming to force. But only 16 states have established the Lokayukta.
• Lokpal is not free from political influence as the appointing committee
itself consist of members from political parties.
• The appointment of Lokpal can be manipulated in a way as there is no
criterion to decide who is an ‘eminent jurist’ or ‘a person of integrity.’
LIMITATION OF THE ACT…..
• The 2013 act did not provide concrete immunity to the whistle blowers. The
provision for initiation of inquiry against the complainant if the accused is
found innocent will only discourage people from complaining.
• The biggest lacuna is the exclusion of judiciary from the ambit of the Lokpal.
• The Lokpal is not given any constitutional backing and there is no adequate
provision for appeal against the Lokpal.
• The specific details in relation to the appointment of Lokayukta have been
left completely on the States. To some extent, the need for functional
independence of the CBI has been catered to by a change brought forth in the
selection process of its Director, by this Act.
• The complaint against corruption cannot be registered after a period of seven
years from the date on which the offence mentioned in such complaint is
alleged to have been committed.
SUGGESTIONS
• In order to tackle the problem of corruption, the institution of the ombudsman
should be strengthened both in terms of functional autonomy and availability of
manpower.
• Greater transparency, more right to information and empowerment of citizens
and citizen groups is required along with a good leadership that is willing to
subject itself to public scrutiny.
• Appointment of Lokpal in itself is not enough. The government should address
the issues based on which people are demanding a Lokpal. Merely adding to the
strength of investigative agencies will increase the size of the government but
not necessarily improve governance. The slogan adopted by the government of
“less government and more governance”, should be followed in letter and spirit.
• Moreover, Lokpal and Lokayukta must be financially, administratively and
legally independent of those whom they are called upon to investigate and
prosecute.
•CONCLUSION
India still ranks 85 in Transparency International’s
corruption index of 2022 so it indicates that the act is not
that much effective as it was expected.
• Lokpal and Lokayukta appointments must be done
transparently so as to minimize the chances of the wrong
sorts of people getting in.
• There is a need for a multiplicity of decentralized
institutions with appropriate accountability mechanisms,
to avoid the concentration of too much power, in any one
institution or authority.