Lokpal and Lokayuktas

To understand Lokpal and Lokayuktas properly, we must begin with the global background—because these institutions are not uniquely Indian; they evolved from a long tradition of democratic accountability.

Global Scenario: Why Did the World Need an Ombudsman?

Modern democracies increasingly adopted a welfare role:

• Large governments
• Expanded bureaucracy
• Increased discretionary power
• More approvals, inspections, sanctions, permits

As bureaucracy expanded, so did the possibility of abuse of power, leading to:

• Harassment
• Maladministration
• Corruption
• Nepotism
• Delay
• Discourtesy

Naturally, citizens’ grievances began rising.

The success of democracy depends on how quickly and effectively these grievances are redressed.

Hence, countries across the world invented institutional mechanisms to check administrative injustice.

Global Models of Grievance Redressal

Three major systems evolved:

1. Ombudsman System

• Origin: Sweden, 1809
• The most influential and widely copied model.

2. Administrative Courts System

• Origin: France
• Specialized courts to correct administrative wrongs.

3. Procurator System

• Used in USSR (now Russia) and China
• A prosecuting authority checking legality of administrative actions.

The Ombudsman: The World’s First Grievance Redressal Institution

Donald C. Rowat, an expert on Ombudsman, calls it:

“A uniquely appropriate institution for dealing with average citizens’ complaints against unfair administrative actions.”

Meaning of Ombudsman

The word ‘Ombud’ is Swedish—meaning representative or agent.

Who is an Ombudsman?

According to Rowat:

“An officer appointed by the legislature to handle complaints against administrative and judicial actions.”

What Does the Swedish Ombudsman Do?

Handles complaints related to:

1. Abuse of administrative discretion
2. Maladministration
3. Administrative corruption
4. Nepotism
5. Discourtesy

Powers

• Constitutional authority
• Supervises public officials—civil, judicial, military
• Ensures impartial, legal, objective functioning
• Can act on citizen complaints or suo motu
• Can prosecute erring officials, including judges
• Cannot punish directly; reports to higher authorities

Spread of Ombudsman System

From Sweden → Finland (1919) → Denmark (1955) → Norway (1962)

Then spread to:

• New Zealand (1962) – first Commonwealth nation
• UK (1967) – Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration

Today, most democracies have Ombudsman-like institutions.

Indian Version of Ombudsman

➡ Lokpal (Centre)
➡ Lokayukta (States)

Scholars describe the Ombudsman as:

• “Bulwark against tyranny of officialdom” (Rowat)
• “Institutionalised public conscience” (Caiden)

Position in India: Existing Anti-Corruption Mechanisms

Before the Lokpal Act, India already had a wide network of laws and institutions:

Anti-corruption & disciplinary laws

• Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850
• IPC, 1860
• Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Benami Transactions Act, 1988

Conduct & discipline rules

• All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968
• Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964
• All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969
• CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965
• Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966

Investigative/Vigilance agencies

• CBI (1963)
• CVC (1964)
• State Vigilance Commissions
• Anti-corruption Bureaus in States

Ombudsman & grievance redress mechanisms

• Lokpal (Centre)
• Lokayuktas (States)
• Directorate of Public Grievances (1988)
• Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions

Constitutional Commissions

• National Commission for SCs
• National Commission for STs
• National Commission for BCs
• National Commission for Minorities

Judicial/quasi-judicial organs

• Supreme Court
• High Courts
• Administrative Tribunals

Modern grievance portals

• CPGRAMS (2007)
• Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014

This shows that India had multiple layers of grievance redress—yet corruption persisted, proving the need for an independent, empowered Lokpal.

Origin of Lokpal in India

First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), 1966–70

ARC recommended creation of:

• Lokpal – For complaints against Ministers and Secretaries at Centre & States
• Lokayukta – For complaints against senior officials

ARC suggested keeping judiciary outside its purview (like New Zealand), unlike Sweden where judiciary is included.

Appointment of Lokpal (as per ARC)

ARC suggested Lokpal be appointed by the President after consulting:

• Chief Justice of India
• Speaker, Lok Sabha
• Chairman, Rajya Sabha

ARC’s Key Features for Lokpal/Lokayukta

1. Must be independent & impartial
2. Investigations should be private and informal
3. Appointment should be non-political
4. Status comparable to highest judicial functionaries
5. Should deal with injustice, corruption, favouritism
6. Their proceedings should not face judicial interference
7. Should have maximum freedom for collecting information
8. Should not seek any benefit from Government

The Government accepted ARC’s recommendations—but implementing them took decades.

The Long Legislative Journey (10 Attempts!)

Between 1968–2013, ten attempts were made to enact a Lokpal Bill:

Bills Introduced:

1. 1968 – Indira Gandhi
2. 1971 – Indira Gandhi
3. 1977 – Morarji Desai
4. 1985 – Rajiv Gandhi
5. 1989 – V.P. Singh
6. 1996 – Deve Gowda
7. 1998 – A.B. Vajpayee
8. 2001 – A.B. Vajpayee
9. August 2011 – Manmohan Singh
10. December 2011 – Manmohan Singh

Why did so many bills fail?

• Dissolution of Lok Sabha (1968, 1971, 1977, 1996, 1998, 2001)
• Withdrawal of Bills (1989, 2011)
• Lack of political consensus
• Complexity of jurisdiction
• Debates over inclusion of PM, judiciary, MPs

Finally, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 became law as the:

Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

This was catalysed by the 2011 anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare.

In Summary

The idea of Lokpal is rooted deeply in global democratic traditions and was recommended in India nearly five decades before its actual enactment. Its evolution reflects:

• The growth of bureaucracy
• Rising public demand for accountability
• Need for an independent watchdog
• Persistent efforts across 10 legislative attempts

Lokpal And Lokayuktas Act, 2013

(India’s Landmark Anti-Corruption Legislation)

After nearly five decades of deliberation, ten unsuccessful Bills, and a nationwide anti-corruption movement in 2011, India finally enacted the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

Let’s understand its features, drawbacks, and the nature of Lokayuktas across the States.

A. Salient Features of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act (2013)

The 2013 Act aims to create a uniform anti-corruption mechanism at both Centre and State levels.

Let’s understand the major features:

1. Institution of Lokpal (Centre) and Lokayukta (State)

A uniform vigilance framework for the whole country.

Lokpal’s jurisdiction includes:

• Prime Minister
• Union Ministers
• Members of Parliament
• Group A, B, C, and D Central Government officials

2. Composition of Lokpal

• 1 Chairperson
• Maximum 8 Members
• 50% must be judicial members

3. Social Representation

At least 50% of Lokpal members must belong to:

• SCs
• STs
• OBCs
• Minorities
• Women

This ensures fairness and inclusivity.

4. Selection Committee for Lokpal

A powerful, bipartisan Selection Committee:

1. Prime Minister – Chairperson
2. Speaker, Lok Sabha
3. Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
4. Chief Justice of India (or his nominee)
5. Eminent jurist (nominated by President on recommendation of the above four)

5. Search Committee

Assists the Selection Committee.

• 50% of Search Committee members must also be from SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, and women.

6. PM Under Lokpal’s Purview (With Safeguards)

The Prime Minister is included, but with subject-matter exclusions, especially:

• International relations
• External and internal security
• Public order
• Atomic energy

Complaints involving PM follow a special procedure to protect national security.

7. Coverage of All Public Servants

Lokpal can investigate:

• Group A, B, C, and D government employees
• Central Government bodies

Flow of enquiry:

• For Group A & B → CVC sends report back to Lokpal
• For Group C & D → CVC proceeds independently, but reports to Lokpal

8. Superintendence Over Investigating Agencies (Including CBI)

For cases referred by Lokpal, it can:

• Direct investigations
• Monitor progress
• Guide CBI’s functioning

9. High-Powered Committee for CBI Director

The same committee that selects the Lokpal also recommends the CBI Director.

10. Attachment/Confiscation of Corrupt Assets

Even before trial completes, illegal assets of corrupt officials can be confiscated.

11. Strict Timelines

To avoid endless investigations:

• Preliminary enquiry: 3 months (+3 months extension)
• Investigation: 6 months (+6 months extension)
• Trial: 1 year (+1 year extension)
• Special courts to handle such cases

12. Stronger Punishments (PC Act Amendments)

Under Prevention of Corruption Act:

• Maximum punishment → 10 years
• Minimum punishment under Sections 7, 8, 9, 12 → 3 years
• Minimum under Section 15 (attempt) → 2 years

13. Jurisdiction Over Government-Financed Institutions

Lokpal covers institutions fully or partly financed by Government.

But institutions only aided by the Government are excluded.

14. Protection for Honest Public Servants

Structural safeguards ensure whistle-blowing is not misused against upright officers.

15. Lokpal Can Grant Sanction for Prosecution

This power shifts from Government to Lokpal—ensuring independence.

16. Strengthening the CBI

The Act reforms CBI through:

1. Directorate of Prosecution under CBI
2. Appointment of Director of Prosecution via CVC
3. Panel of advocates (approved by Lokpal)
4. No transfer of CBI officers investigating Lokpal cases without Lokpal’s approval
5. Adequate funds for CBI investigations, protected from political interference

17. Foreign-Funded NGOs Under Lokpal

Any entity receiving more than ₹10 lakh per year under FCRA comes under Lokpal’s jurisdiction.

18. Mandate for Establishing Lokayuktas

Every State must establish a Lokayukta within 365 days of the Act.

But States are free to design the structure—ensuring flexibility in federalism.

B. Drawbacks of the Act

Despite its strengths, the law has shortcomings:

1. No Suo Motu Powers

Lokpal cannot start investigations on its own.
It must wait for a formal complaint.

2. Emphasis on Form Over Substance

Technical errors in complaints can lead to rejection—even when substance is strong.

3. Heavy Punishment for False Complaints

Fear of punishment may discourage genuine whistle-blowers.

4. Anonymous Complaints Not Allowed

No provision for anonymous submissions—even with evidence.

5. Legal Assistance for Accused Public Servant

This may make proceedings skewed in favour of the accused.

6. Seven-Year Limitation Period

Complaints cannot be filed about events older than 7 years.

7. Opaque Procedure for PM-Related Complaints

The process for handling complaints against the Prime Minister is not transparent.

C. Lokayuktas (State-Level Ombudsman)

Interestingly, several states had Lokayuktas even before 2013.

• First Lokayukta: Maharashtra (1971)
• First Act passed: Odisha (1970)

Features of Lokayuktas Across States

The structure varies widely across States.

1. Structure Varies

Some States have:

• Lokayukta + Upa-Lokayukta
  Others have only Lokayukta.

2. Appointment

Appointed by the Governor.

3. Qualifications

Judicial qualifications exist in some States, absent in others.

4. Tenure

Generally:
5 years or up to 65 years of age, whichever is earlier.

5. Jurisdiction Varies

Key variations:

a. Chief Minister

• Included in some States
• Excluded in others

b. Ministers & Senior Civil Servants

Included in almost all States.

c. MLAs

Included in some; excluded in others.

d. Local Bodies & Corporations

Most States allow jurisdiction over:

• Municipal corporations
• Companies
• Public societies

6. Initiation of Inquiry

Lokayukta can:

• Act on citizen complaints
• Act suo motu in most states

7. Types of Cases

In some States:

• Both grievances (maladministration) and allegations (corruption)

In others:

• Only corruption allegations

8. Reporting

Lokayukta submits an annual report to the Governor, who tables it in State Legislature.

9. Recommendations Are Advisory

Not binding on the State Government—reducing Lokayukta’s effectiveness.

Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2016

The 2016 amendment addressed practical difficulties, especially:

• Modified provisions related to declaration of assets and liabilities
• Allowed the leader of the largest opposition party in Lok Sabha to be part of the Selection Committee when a formal Leader of Opposition is absent

This amendment was crucial to resolve institutional deadlock.

Final Summary

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 represents India’s most comprehensive attempt to institutionalise an independent anti-corruption framework at both Central and State levels.

It is inspired by global Ombudsman traditions, enriched by ARC recommendations, shaped by decades of political debate, and finally enabled by public pressure during the 2011 anti-corruption movement.

However, its effectiveness depends heavily on:

• Independence
• Transparency
• Strong State-level Lokayuktas
• Supportive political will