A Critical appraisal on the powers and function of the LOKPAL & LOK AYUKTA in India
Critical Appraisal of the Powers and Functions of Lokpal & Lokayukta in India
1. Introduction
The Lokpal (at the central level) and Lokayuktas (at the state level) are statutory bodies designed as ombudsman institutions to investigate allegations of corruption against public officials and promote transparency and accountability in governance.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 established the Lokpal.
States have enacted separate laws to constitute Lokayuktas.
They serve as anti-corruption watchdogs, with investigative and prosecutorial powers, aiming to reduce bureaucratic corruption and enhance public trust.
2. Powers and Functions of Lokpal
Jurisdiction: Lokpal has jurisdiction over the Prime Minister (limited scope), Ministers, Members of Parliament, Group A, B, C officials, and public servants.
Investigation and Prosecution: Lokpal can register complaints, conduct inquiries, supervise investigations, and prosecute corruption cases.
Coordination: Coordinates with Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) but has independent powers.
Transparency and Reporting: Required to submit annual reports to Parliament.
Protection of Whistleblowers: Supports safeguards for complainants.
3. Powers and Functions of Lokayukta
Jurisdiction: Lokayuktas operate at the state level with authority over Ministers, legislators, bureaucrats, and public servants in the state.
Investigation: Powers to investigate allegations of corruption and maladministration.
Advisory Role: Some Lokayuktas have advisory and recommendatory powers.
Varied Powers: The scope and effectiveness vary widely depending on the state legislation.
4. Critical Appraisal
Strengths
Independent Ombudsman: Lokpal and Lokayuktas provide independent bodies outside the executive.
Public Accessibility: Citizens can file complaints directly.
Checks on Corruption: Enable quicker investigations without political interference.
Whistleblower Protection: Encourages reporting of corruption.
Limitations
Limited Jurisdiction Over Prime Minister: Lokpal’s power over the PM is restricted.
Resource Constraints: Lokpal and many Lokayuktas suffer from understaffing and inadequate funding.
State Variations: Lokayuktas vary widely in powers, with some being weak or merely advisory.
Implementation Delays: Delays in appointments of members weaken effectiveness.
Judicial Challenges: Scope of powers is sometimes limited by judicial interpretation.
5. Important Case Laws
(A) Lok Prahari v. Union of India (2017) 3 SCC 180
Facts:
Petition challenging delays in appointment and functioning of the Lokpal.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional mandate to promptly appoint Lokpal members and ensure the institution’s effective functioning.
Significance:
Reinforced the need for timely constitution of Lokpal.
Highlighted the Court’s active role in ensuring anti-corruption mechanisms work effectively.
(B) PUCL v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399
Facts:
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of corruption and inefficiency in government departments.
Held:
The Court recognized the importance of institutions like Lokpal for effective investigation and accountability.
Significance:
Stressed the role of independent bodies to curb corruption and maladministration.
Called for empowerment and autonomy of Lokpal and Lokayuktas.
(C) State of Karnataka v. Appa Balu Ingale AIR 1993 SC 140
Facts:
Regarding the jurisdiction and powers of Lokayuktas in Karnataka.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that Lokayuktas derive powers only from the statute under which they are constituted and cannot act beyond those powers.
Significance:
Emphasized statutory limitations on Lokayuktas.
Courts will not extend powers beyond legislative intent.
(D) Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
Concerned police reforms and the need for accountability.
Held:
Supreme Court recognized the necessity of independent agencies like Lokayuktas to investigate misconduct and corruption within the police and administration.
Significance:
Advocated for strong and effective Lokayuktas.
Highlighted their role in improving governance and public trust.
(E) Arvind Kejriwal v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Petition challenging government actions obstructing the anti-corruption movement and Lokpal functioning.
Held:
The Delhi High Court stressed the importance of effective Lokpal functioning and transparent governance.
Significance:
Reinforced public expectations for Lokpal’s autonomy.
Demonstrated judicial support for anti-corruption bodies.
6. Conclusion
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas represent a significant step towards strengthening India’s anti-corruption framework. While they possess important powers for investigation and prosecution, their effectiveness depends on:
Proper implementation and resourcing.
Clear jurisdiction and autonomy from political influence.
Strengthening state Lokayuktas uniformly across India.
The judiciary has played a proactive role in ensuring these institutions function effectively but continuous efforts are required to overcome structural weaknesses and ensure accountability.
RELATED Blog
0 comments