Role of Lokpal and Lokayukta in Governance
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 establishes Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas at the state level as statutory anti-corruption institutions. These bodies were created to investigate allegations of corruption against public officials, thereby strengthening transparency, accountability, and public trust in governance.
While Lokpal covers corruption cases involving the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Members of Parliament, and Central Government officials, Lokayuktas function in the states to deal with corruption at the state and local levels. Together, they represent India’s institutional response to long-standing demands for an independent anti-corruption watchdog.
Challenges in the Functioning of Lokpal and Lokayukta
Despite high expectations, these institutions face several challenges:
1. Selection-Related Issues
- Delay in appointments due to absence of a recognized Leader of Opposition in the 16th Lok Sabha
- Though clarified later by the Supreme Court of India, ambiguity stalled implementation
- A 2015 Parliamentary Committee recommended inclusion of the leader of the largest opposition party
2. Weak State-Level Implementation
- Many states have not aligned their Lokayukta laws with the 2013 Act
- States such as Assam, Bihar, and Uttar Pradesh have not made required amendments
- Few states have appointed both judicial and non-judicial members
3. Structural Entrenchment of Corruption
Corruption is deeply embedded in:
- Political systems
- Bureaucratic processes
- Social norms
Lokpal can recommend action, but cannot address root causes such as:
- Opaque decision-making
- Poor governance systems
- Lack of transparency
4. Other Key Shortcomings
- Anonymous complaints not allowed, discouraging whistleblowers
- Seven-year limitation period for complaints may be inadequate
- Harsh penalties for false complaints deter genuine reporting
- Reactive nature: Acts only after corruption occurs, not preventive
- Low civic engagement due to lack of awareness
- Limited transparency, especially in complaints involving the Prime Minister
- Lokpal cannot initiate investigations suo motu
Way Forward for Lokpal and Lokayukta
To enhance effectiveness, several reforms are necessary:
Institutional Strengthening
- Greater functional autonomy
- Financial and administrative independence from executive influence
Transparency and Leadership
- Transparent procedures
- Citizen empowerment
- Ethical leadership willing to be held accountable
Operational Reforms
- Timely disposal of cases
- Reduction of pendency
- Active role of opposition in appointments to ensure neutrality
Recommendations of the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC)
- Prime Minister should be kept outside Lokpal’s purview, as parliamentary accountability is sufficient
- Provide constitutional status and financial autonomy to Lokpal for greater legitimacy and independence
11th All India Lokayukta Conference (2012): Key Suggestions
- Make Lokayukta the nodal agency for corruption complaints
- Give Lokayukta jurisdiction over state-level probe agencies
- Bring bureaucrats under Lokayukta’s ambit
- Grant powers of search, seizure, and contempt
- Ensure administrative and financial autonomy
- Bring government-funded NGOs under Lokayukta jurisdiction
Concluding Perspective
The Lokpal and Lokayukta institutions represent a moral and institutional response to corruption, but they are not a silver bullet. Without strong political will, citizen awareness, preventive governance reforms, and systemic transparency, these bodies risk becoming reactive grievance-handlers rather than transformative accountability institutions.