By Categories: Polity

Lokpal & Lokayukta — All that you need to know

Lokpal is a statutory body (NOT constitutional). It is India’s national anti-corruption ombudsman, established under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

1. Origin and Background

  • Concept borrowed from Sweden’s Ombudsman institution (Scandinavian origin).
  • The term “Lokpal” was coined by Dr. L.M. Singhvi in 1963.
  • First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), 1966–70 — chaired by Morarji Desai — first recommended setting up a Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in states.
  • The First Lokpal Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1968 (Indira Gandhi government) — lapsed with dissolution of Lok Sabha.
  • Bills were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005, 2008 — all lapsed.
  • Anna Hazare movement (2011) demanding Jan Lokpal Bill renewed public pressure.
  • The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was finally passed — came into force on 16 Jan 2014.
Prelims Fact: It took 45 years and 9 attempts (1968–2013) for a Lokpal law to finally be enacted in India.

2. Lokpal — Composition

Feature Detail
Nature Multi-member statutory body
Composition 1 Chairperson + up to 8 Members
Judicial Members Minimum 50% of all members must be judicial members
SC/ST/OBC/Minorities/Women Minimum 50% of members must be from these categories
Chairperson Eligibility Former CJI OR former SC Judge OR eminent person with 25+ years in anti-corruption matters
Member Eligibility Judicial: Former SC judge. Non-judicial: Eminent person with same qualifications as Chairperson

3. Lokpal — Appointment

  • Appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a Selection Committee.

Selection Committee

Member Role
Prime Minister Chairperson
Speaker of Lok Sabha Member
Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha Member
Chief Justice of India (or SC Judge nominated by CJI) Member
One eminent jurist (nominated by President on recommendation of above four) Member
  • A Search Committee (8 members; at least 50% from SC/ST/OBC/minorities/women) assists the Selection Committee in preparing a panel of names.

4. Lokpal — Term, Salary & Removal

Feature Detail
Term of Office 5 years or age of 70 years, whichever is earlier
Re-appointment Not eligible for reappointment
Chairperson Salary Equal to Chief Justice of India
Member Salary Equal to a Judge of the Supreme Court
Removal By President on address by each House of Parliament — majority of total membership AND 2/3 of members present and voting (same as SC Judge removal)

5. Lokpal — Jurisdiction

  • The Prime Minister (with significant restrictions — see below)
  • Union Ministers
  • Members of Parliament
  • Officers of Groups A, B, C, D of the Central Government
  • Chairpersons, members, officers and directors of Central Government bodies, boards, corporations, societies, trusts, autonomous bodies
  • Any person associated with an NGO receiving over Rs. 10 lakh annually from foreign sources OR over Rs. 1 crore from the Central Government

PM — Restrictions on Inquiry

Important: The PM can be investigated by Lokpal — but NOT for matters relating to:

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

Also: Inquiry against PM must be approved by full bench of Lokpal (all members) and proceedings must be held in camera (secret).

Not Under Lokpal Jurisdiction: MPs cannot be investigated for their conduct inside Parliament — covered under Article 105 parliamentary privileges.

6. Lokpal — Powers and Functions

  • Can receive and inquire into complaints of corruption against public servants.
  • Has its own Inquiry Wing (Director of Inquiry) and Prosecution Wing (Director of Prosecution).
  • Has powers of a civil court for inquiries.
  • Can order CBI investigation; investigating officer cannot be transferred without Lokpal’s approval once a case is referred.
  • Superintendence over CBI only in cases referred to it — not general superintendence.
  • Can attach and confiscate assets of public servants while inquiry is pending.
  • Complaints must be filed within 7 years of the alleged offence.
  • False and frivolous complaints: complainant may be penalised up to Rs. 1 lakh fine.

7. First Lokpal of India

Prelims Fact: Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose (retired SC Judge) was appointed as the first Lokpal of India in March 2019 — a full 5 years after the Act came into force.

8. Lokayukta

Feature Detail
Nature State-level anti-corruption ombudsman
Constitutional Status NOT mentioned in the Constitution
Established by State legislation
First State Maharashtra1971
Second State Bihar — 1973
Mandate under 2013 Act States must establish Lokayukta within 1 year of the Act coming into force
Uniformity No uniform structure — each state has its own law
Note on Odisha: Odisha was first to pass a bill for Lokayukta (1970), but Maharashtra was first to actually establish and operationalise it (1971).

9. Key Committees Related to Lokpal

Committee / Commission Year Recommendation
First ARC (Morarji Desai) 1966 Recommended Lokpal at Centre and Lokayukta in states
L.M. Singhvi Committee 1971 Coined the term “Lokpal”; detailed recommendations on structure
Sarkaria Commission 1983 Recommended Lokayukta in every state
Second ARC (Veerappa Moily) 2005 Strongly recommended an independent Lokpal with wide jurisdiction

10. Quick Comparison — Lokpal vs. CVC

Feature Lokpal CVC
Nature Statutory (2013) Statutory (2003)
Scope Elected representatives + bureaucrats Only bureaucrats (Group A & B)
PM in jurisdiction Yes (with restrictions) No
Ministers / MPs Yes No
Prosecution power Yes (own Prosecution Wing) No (advisory role only)
CBI relationship Superintendence in referred cases General superintendence over CBI
Share is Caring, Choose Your Platform!

Receive Daily Updates

Stay updated with current events, tests, material and UPSC related news

Recent Posts

  • Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,

    [wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]

    Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.

    This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.

    It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.

    The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.

    Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.

    India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.

    More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.

    An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.

    India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.

    Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.

    And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.

    A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.

    We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.

    We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.

    In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.