Lokpal and Lokayuktas
Lokpal and Lokayuktas
Lokpal and Lokayuktas are anti-corruption ombudsman institutions in India.
Lokpal operates at the central level.
Lokayuktas operate at the state level.
Objective
The primary objective of both is to investigate allegations of corruption against public officials, including the Prime Minister, ministers, members of Parliament, and government officials, and to ensure accountability and transparency in the government.
Lokpal
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was enacted to establish the institution of Lokpal at the center and Lokayuktas in states.
Lokpal can inquire into complaints against the central government officials and ministers.
The Lokpal is a statutory body with judicial powers.
Lokayuktas
Lokayuktas are appointed by respective state governments to deal with complaints against state government officials.
The structure, powers, and functions vary from state to state as per respective state acts.
Important Case Laws Related to Lokpal and Lokayuktas
1. In Re: Special Reference No. 1 of 2012 (Supreme Court)
Background: The Supreme Court was requested to decide whether the Lokpal Bill was constitutionally valid.
Decision: The Court gave a detailed opinion upholding the constitutional validity of the Lokpal Act.
Significance: It clarified the role of Lokpal in relation to the judiciary and stated that the judiciary is independent and Lokpal cannot interfere in judicial matters.
2. Anukul Chandra Pradhan vs Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1
Background: The petitioner challenged the delay in the appointment of the Lokpal.
Decision: The Supreme Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the timely appointment of Lokpal and directed the government to expedite the process.
Significance: This case highlighted the judiciary’s proactive role in enforcing the implementation of the Lokpal Act.
3. State of Rajasthan vs Union of India (1977) 3 SCC 592
Background: Although this case predates the Lokpal Act, it laid down important principles on federalism and the relationship between central and state governments.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that states have the right to frame their own Lokayukta acts without interference from the center.
Significance: It confirmed the autonomy of states in appointing Lokayuktas, maintaining the federal balance.
4. PUCL vs Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399
Background: This case was related to transparency and accountability in public office.
Decision: The Court ruled in favor of greater transparency, which indirectly supported the establishment of bodies like Lokpal and Lokayuktas.
Significance: Reinforced the idea that the fight against corruption is part of the fundamental duty of the government.
5. State of Maharashtra vs Bharat Shanti Lal Shah AIR 1982 SC 171
Background: This case involved the powers and limitations of anti-corruption agencies.
Decision: The Court held that the powers of investigating agencies should be clearly defined, and they cannot be arbitrary.
Significance: This principle is essential for the Lokpal and Lokayuktas to function within the framework of the Constitution and protect the rights of public servants.
Summary of Key Points:
| Case | Key Point |
|---|---|
| In Re: Special Reference No.1 of 2012 | Constitutional validity of Lokpal Act |
| Anukul Chandra Pradhan (2014) | Timely appointment of Lokpal is mandatory |
| State of Rajasthan vs Union of India (1977) | Autonomy of states in appointing Lokayuktas |
| PUCL vs Union of India (2003) | Support for transparency and anti-corruption |
| State of Maharashtra vs Bharat Shanti Lal Shah (1982) | Clear powers and limits of anti-corruption agencies |
RELATED Blog
0 comments