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 and 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:

Abuse of administrative discretion
Maladministration
Administrative corruption
Nepotism
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

Must be independent & impartial
Investigations should be private and informal
Appointment should be non-political
Status comparable to highest judicial functionaries
Should deal with injustice, corruption, favouritism
Their proceedings should not face judicial interference
Should have maximum freedom for collecting information
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:

1968 – Indira Gandhi
1971 – Indira Gandhi
1977 – Morarji Desai
1985 – Rajiv Gandhi
1989 – V.P. Singh
1996 – Deve Gowda
1998 – A.B. Vajpayee
2001 – A.B. Vajpayee
August 2011 – Manmohan Singh
December 2011 – Manmohan Singh

Why did so many bills fail?

Dissolution of Lok Sabha (1968, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1996, 1998, 2001)
Withdrawal of Bills (1989, Aug 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.

The 50-Year Legislative Journey at a Glance

From the First ARC recommendation to the final Act, the Lokpal idea went through a remarkable — and frustrating — legislative odyssey. Ten Bills were introduced, most of them dying in silence as Parliament dissolved.

Year / Stage	What Happened	Outcome
First ARC (1966)	Recommended Lokpal at Centre + Lokayuktas in States	✅ Recommendation made
1968–2011	Ten separate Lokpal Bills introduced in Lok Sabha	❌ Seven lapsed on dissolution
1985 and Aug 2011 Bill	Bills that did not lapse on dissolution	❌ Later withdrawn
2011 – Anna Movement	Anna Hazare’s Jan Lokpal agitation forces government’s hand	⚡ Political pressure
Joint Drafting Comm.	Govt + Anna’s team jointly drafted the Bill	📋 Draft prepared
Dec 2011	Lokpal & Lokayuktas Bill passed in Lok Sabha; Constitution 116th Amendment Bill failed	⚠️ Half-victory
2013	Parliament finally passed The Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013	✅ Presidential assent 1.1.2014

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.

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
PSU Officials
High Income Bodies officials (partly funded by Govt.)
NGOs/Societies/Trusts.(receiving >10lakh)

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 and Women

This ensures fairness and inclusivity.

4. Selection Committee for Lokpal

A powerful, bipartisan Selection Committee:

Prime Minister – Chairperson
Speaker, Lok Sabha
Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
Chief Justice of India (or his nominee)
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:

Directorate of Prosecution under CBI
Appointment of Director of Prosecution via CVC
Panel of advocates (approved by Lokpal)
No transfer of CBI officers investigating Lokpal cases without Lokpal’s approval
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.

🚫 Post-Tenure Restrictions

• After tenure, Lokpal members CANNOT hold any Central or State government office • CANNOT contest elections for Parliament, State Assemblies, or local bodies for 5 years after tenure • This prevents the “revolving door” problem where watchdogs return as those watched

Inquiry Wing and Prosecution Wing

Traditional practice placed investigative and prosecution agencies under executive control. CBI, for instance, reports to the government. This created an obvious conflict of interest in corruption cases against government functionaries. Lokpal corrects this by having its own in-house wings:

🔍 Inquiry Wing	⚖️ Prosecution Wing
Headed by the Director of Inquiry	Headed by the Director of Prosecution
Conducts preliminary inquiry into corruption allegations	Prosecutes public servants in the Special Court after investigation
Can use CBI for investigation after prima facie case is established	Files charge sheets or closure reports before Special Court
Reports to a bench of ≥3 Lokpal members	Acts on Lokpal bench’s direction to initiate prosecution

The Complaint-to-Conviction Pipeline

One of Lokpal’s most important contributions is a clearly defined complaint-handling procedure — a pipeline from receiving a complaint to final prosecution. Think of it as an assembly line, where each station has a specific job.

📋 Step-by-Step Complaint Procedure

① Complaint received by Lokpal
② Lokpal bench decides: Proceed or Close (frivolous complaints closed)
③ Preliminary Inquiry ordered — Inquiry Wing or CBI ascertains prima facie case → Group C/D complaints sent to CVC for preliminary inquiry; CVC submits report to Lokpal
④ Public servant given opportunity to be heard
⑤ Bench of ≥3 Members reviews preliminary inquiry report
⑥ If prima facie case: Investigation by CBI/agency ordered (to be completed within 6 months)
⑦ Bench of 3 Members reviews investigation report
⑧ Lokpal directs: Chargesheet filed OR Departmental proceedings OR Case Closed
⑨ Prosecution Wing files chargesheet in Special Court
⑩ Special Court trial and verdict

No Prior Sanction — Removing the Bureaucratic Shield

Before Lokpal, three laws created a wall of protection around senior officials. Any investigation or prosecution required the government’s prior approval — which, unsurprisingly, was often withheld or delayed:

Law	Section	What It Required
Code of Criminal Procedure	Section 197	Prior approval of government to prosecute public servants
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act	Section 6A	Prior approval to investigate senior officers
Prevention of Corruption Act	Section 19	Sanction from competent authority before prosecution

✅ Lokpal’s Game-Changer: No Prior Sanction Required

• When Lokpal orders preliminary inquiry, investigation, or prosecution — NO sanction/approval from any authority is required
• This removes the biggest procedural shield corrupt officials used to delay action
• Exception: Constitutional office-holders who are removable only by special procedures laid down in the Constitution
• Result: Faster, cleaner investigations without political interference

Asset Attachment Powers

Lokpal does not just investigate — it can freeze the proceeds of corruption. In practical terms, this means a corrupt official cannot quietly transfer or liquidate ill-gotten assets while the case is ongoing:

Lokpal can ATTACH the cash and assets of a public servant during investigation
Attachment can last up to 90 days; extended further with Special Court approval
If convicted: Attached assets CONFISCATED by the Central Government
If acquitted: Assets returned to the public servant
Special Court can also order recovery of losses caused to the public exchequer from convicted officials

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.

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:

Chief Minister → Included in some States, Excluded in others
1. Ministers & Senior Civil Servants → Included in almost all States.
1. MLAs → Included in some; excluded in others.
1. Local Bodies & Corporations → Most States allow jurisdiction over: Municipal corporations, Companies and 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.

Lokpal vs Lokayukta: Quick Comparison

Students often confuse Lokpal and Lokayukta. Here’s a clear distinction — think of Lokpal as the “National Level” watchdog and Lokayukta as the “State Level” watchdog.

Dimension	Lokpal	Lokayukta
Level	Central Government	State Government
Established by	Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act, 2013	State Legislature laws (varying by state)
Appointment	By President on Selection Committee recommendations	By Governor, generally on recommendation of CM/CJ
Jurisdiction	PM, Ministers, MPs, Central Govt servants, PSU officials, NGOs	State CM, Ministers, MLAs, State Govt servants
Uniformity	Uniform national framework	Varies widely — Karnataka (1984) vs others
CVC Link	Can send Group C/D cases to CVC	Typically no CVC link
Judicial Review	Special Courts for Lokpal cases	Varies by State law

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 and supportive political will

The Great Debates: Five Controversial Issues

The Lokpal bill did not sail through smoothly. It was hammered on the anvil of intense debate between the government, Anna’s team, parliamentary committees, legal experts, and political parties. Five issues divided opinion most sharply. Think of this as a debate club where every side had a legitimate point.

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE 1: Should the Prime Minister be Under Lokpal?

This was the most politically explosive question. Three distinct camps emerged, each with its own logic:

Position	Argument	Final Act Provision
Exclude PM Entirely	PM is head of government; investigating the PM would paralyse governance and endanger national security	❌ Not adopted
Include PM Without Restrictions	No one is above the law; PM is the most powerful and most prone to corruption	❌ Not adopted fully
Include PM With Subject-Matter Exclusions (Middle Path)	PM can be investigated for general corruption, but sensitive areas like security/foreign policy need protection	✅ Adopted — this is the law

🔐 What the Act Actually Says About the PM

• Lokpal CANNOT inquire into PM complaints relating to: International Relations, External & Internal Security, Public Order, Atomic Energy, Space
• Lokpal CAN inquire into other corruption allegations against PM (financial, administrative)
• SAFEGUARD: Full bench of Lokpal (Chairperson + ALL Members) must consider it; ≥2/3 must approve
• Any such inquiry is held IN CAMERA (in private)
• If complaint dismissed, records are NOT published or shared

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE 2: Should Conduct of MPs Inside Parliament Be Covered?

A concrete example makes this vivid: Can Lokpal investigate an MP who took a bribe to vote in a particular way? Here the Constitution itself is the starting point — Article 105(2) protects an MP’s speech, vote, and conduct inside the House from external scrutiny.

🏛️ Anna’s Team: Include MPs	⚖️ Government/Committee: Exclude
Article 105(2) does not protect corrupt vote or corrupt speech — it only protects honest deliberation	Article 105(2) is ancient and time-tested; its purpose is to allow free thought without external fetters
If Article 105 does protect corruption, then it must be amended	Any external investigation into vote/speech would “whittle down parliamentary autonomy to vanishing point”
Bribery to vote is a crime, not a legislative act	Parliament itself has strong disciplinary powers — the Cash-for-Questions scam led to expulsion of 11 MPs

📜 What the Act Says: Article 105(2) Shield Maintained

• Lokpal shall NOT inquire into any matter arising from an MP’s vote, speech, or conduct in Parliament covered under Article 105(2)
• Parliament retains disciplinary control over its members for in-House conduct
• The Cash-for-Questions Scam precedent: 11 MPs expelled; Supreme Court upheld expulsion — showing Parliament CAN act

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE 3: Should Group C & D Employees Be Included?

Anna’s team wanted Lokpal to cover everyone, including the patwari and police constable who are the most direct exploiters of ordinary citizens. The government countered with a numbers argument that is actually quite compelling.

📊 The Numbers That Ended the Debate

• Total Central Govt employees (2011): ~65 lakh
• Group C & D alone: ~57–58 lakh (88% of total!)
• At 1 policing officer per 200 employees: Lokpal would need ~35,000 officers just to monitor C & D
• Select Committee: This would create a “huge parallel bureaucracy” — a super Lokpal would then need a Dharampal!
• Group A & B alone: ~7.75 lakh — a manageable number for Lokpal

The Act’s practical solution: Group C & D ARE under Lokpal’s purview, but Lokpal can transmit their complaints to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), which takes final decisions. This preserves coverage without overwhelming Lokpal’s capacity.

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE 4: Should the Judiciary Be Under Lokpal?

This question goes to the heart of the separation of powers. The judiciary is India’s third pillar — not under the executive, not under Parliament. Can Lokpal (an executive-type body) investigate judges?

⚖️ Arguments for Including Judiciary	🏛️ Arguments for Excluding Judiciary
Public clamour for judicial accountability is strong; judges are not immune from corruption	Separation of judicial power from executive is fundamental — Article 50 of the Constitution
High Court and Supreme Court judges can ONLY be removed by impeachment (near impossible)	Lower judiciary is under High Court disciplinary control (Article 235)
Collegium system for appointments is opaque; self-disciplinary mechanisms are no longer effective	Conduct of higher judiciary cannot even be discussed in Parliament except during removal proceedings
Anna’s proposal: Separate Judicial Conduct Commission, independent of both government and judiciary	Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill was already proposed for internal disciplinary mechanisms

🏛️ Final Position: Judiciary Kept OUT of Lokpal

• Consensus: Judiciary should be excluded from Lokpal’s ambit
• Reason: Need to protect judicial independence; separate mechanisms are more appropriate
• BUT: Urgent need for a comprehensive Judicial Standards and Accountability law (proposed but not yet enacted)
• Select Committee called for a National Judicial Commission (NJC) for transparent judicial appointments
• Collegium system criticised as “self-appointed common law mechanism operating since early 1990s”

CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE 5: Can the Centre Make a Law on Lokayuktas?

This is a federalism question. India’s Constitution divides legislative powers into a Central List, State List, and Concurrent List. States govern public servants at the state level. Can Parliament force States to create Lokayuktas?

🗺️ The Federal Tightrope

• Anna’s Demand: The Bill must mandate Lokayuktas in all states with uniform standards
• State Rights Argument: Creating Lokayuktas for state servants falls in the State List — Centre cannot legislate on it
• Centre’s Justification: UN Convention Against Corruption (a treaty India signed) gives Centre legislative competence
• Ministry of Law’s Warning: Using treaty obligations to override state rights could set a dangerous precedent
• Practical Problem: Existing Lokayuktas differ wildly in structure, powers, and procedures across states
• Final Solution: Act says every State SHALL establish a Lokayukta within 1 year — it mandates the outcome, not the design

Conclusion: The Significance of Lokpal

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act is, “a welcome addition to the mechanisms for fighting corruption.” It represents more than just a new institution — it represents a democratic consensus: government, civil society, political parties, experts, and the public agreeing that the old system was broken and needed fixing.

But institutions are only as good as the political will behind them. Lokpal was enacted in 2013 and its first Chairperson was appointed only in 2019 — six years of institutional dormancy after a 50-year legislative battle. The lesson for UPSC aspirants — and for citizens — is clear: passing a law is the beginning, not the end.

“The Lokpal is not a magic wand. It is a legal framework. Whether it fights corruption or becomes another bureaucratic layer depends entirely on the integrity of those who man it, and the vigilance of the citizens who demand accountability.”

🏆 The Big Picture: Where Lokpal Fits in India’s Anti-Corruption Architecture

• CVC → Vigilance in Central Govt departments (Group A & B; advisory role)
• CBI → Investigation of major corruption cases (under CVC superintendence for PC Act cases)
• ED → Financial crimes, money laundering, foreign exchange violations
• CAG → Audit of government expenditure and accounts
• Lokpal → Independent investigation AND prosecution of corruption at ALL levels of Central Govt
• Lokayuktas → Same function at State level → Lokpal is the APEX of this pyramid — the institution that can investigate all others

This topic is covered under the Polity and Governance UPSC notes series designed for UPSC Prelims, Mains, and Interview preparation.