Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013: Key Provisions, Effectiveness & Challenges

Why in news?

Supreme Court’s Recent Ruling on Lokpal’s Jurisdiction

• The Supreme Court of India recently suspended the Lokpal’s order that allowed probes against high court judges, stating that its interpretation of jurisdiction was “very disturbing.”
• This ruling has limited the anti-corruption authority of Lokpal, raising concerns about its effectiveness in combating judicial corruption.

What is Lokpal and Lokayukta?

• Lokpal and Lokayukta are public institutions established in India to investigate and prosecute corruption among public officials at the national and state levels.

Background and Genesis of Lokpal and Lokayukta

• Concept of Ombudsman: First introduced in Sweden in 1809 to investigate corruption.
• First Proposal in India: Law Minister Ashok Kumar Sen suggested the idea in the 1960s.
• Coined by Dr. L. M. Singhvi (1963): Introduced the terms Lokpal and Lokayukta.
• First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966): Recommended establishing independent anti-corruption authorities at the central and state levels.
• Repeated Attempts: The Lokpal Bill (1968) was introduced but lapsed multiple times.
• 2002 NCRWC & 2005 2nd ARC: Recommended setting up Lokpal and Lokayuktas.
• Anna Hazare’s Movement (2011): The India Against Corruption (IAC) movement demanded a strong anti-corruption law, leading to the passage of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013.

Key Provisions of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013

1. Selection Committee

• Prime Minister (Chairperson)
• Speaker of Lok Sabha
• Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
• Chief Justice of India (or nominee)
• Eminent jurist appointed by the President

2. Jurisdiction

• Covers Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, and Group A, B, C, and D government employees.
• Investigates foreign donations exceeding ₹10 lakh under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA), 2010.

3. Composition

• Lokpal consists of a Chairperson + Maximum of 8 members (50% judicial members).
• 50% representation from SC/ST/OBC/minorities/women.

4. Investigation Powers

• Supervises CBI in cases referred by Lokpal.

5. Mandatory Lokayukta in States

• Every state must establish a Lokayukta within one year of the Act’s implementation.

Existing Anti-Corruption Governance Framework in India

• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Key law to punish corrupt officials.
• Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI): Investigates high-profile corruption cases.
• Central Vigilance Commission (CVC): Supervises corruption complaints and ensures transparency.
• State Vigilance Commissions: Handle corruption cases at the state level.
• National Human Rights Commission (NHRC): Addresses corruption-related rights violations.
• All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968: Prevents government officials from engaging in corrupt activities.
• Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964: Maintains integrity among central government employees.
• Administrative Tribunals: Specialized courts for corruption-related disputes in administration.

Effectiveness of Lokpal and Lokayuktas

• Delayed Implementation: Lokpal was appointed only in 2019, despite the Act passing in 2013.
• Selection Committee Issues: Absence of a Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha delayed appointments.
• Lokayukta Implementation Gaps:
  • Nine states have not amended their Lokayukta Acts as per the 2013 law.
  • Only Bihar, Manipur, Odisha, and Tamil Nadu have fully functional Lokayuktas.

Limitations of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013

• Lack of Independence: Government influence in appointments compromises effectiveness.
• No Anonymous Complaints: Discourages whistleblowers from reporting corruption.
• 7-Year Limitation: Complaints cannot be filed after 7 years, restricting long-term accountability.
• Severe Punishment for False Complaints: Deters genuine complainants from exposing corruption.
• Lack of Transparency in PM’s Complaints: Special conditions make it difficult to investigate the Prime Minister.
• No Suo Moto Power: Lokpal cannot initiate investigations independently.
• Technical Issues in Complaints: Procedural barriers affect corruption cases’ effectiveness.

Way Forward: Strengthening Lokpal and Lokayuktas

• Greater Functional Autonomy: Lokpal must have independent decision-making powers.
• Financial & Administrative Independence: Reduce government control in appointments and funding.
• Transparency & Citizen Empowerment: Increase public participation in the corruption watchdog’s activities.
• Decentralization: Strengthen state-level vigilance bodies and improve coordination between Lokpal and Lokayuktas.

Conclusion

• While the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 was a landmark step in fighting corruption, several implementation gaps and legal limitations have weakened its impact.
• To ensure effective anti-corruption governance, India must strengthen Lokpal’s independence, remove procedural barriers, and empower state-level institutions like Lokayuktas.