Lokpal and
Lokayukta – part 1
1. Lokpal and Lokayukta (Amendment) Act 2016 – Key
Highlights
A. Reporting of
Assets and Liabilities
Original Act (2013), Section 44: Public officials
had to report assets and liabilities within 30 days of assuming
office.
Amendment (2016):
Ø Removed the strict 30-day requirement.
Ø Officials now report assets and liabilities as per government
guidelines.
B. Selection
Committee Changes
In the absence of a recognized Leader of
Opposition (LoP), the leader of the largest opposition party in Lok
Sabha can be part of the selection committee for appointing the
Lokpal.
C. Central
Vigilance Commission (CVC) Functions
Sections 8A & 8B added in CVC Act, 2003:
Ø CVC can inquire into references made by the
Lokpal regarding Group B, C, D officials of the central
government.
CVC granted superintendence powers over
CBI in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
ensuring objectivity and accountability.
2. Existing
Governance Framework to Check Corruption in India
|
Institution / Law |
Role |
|
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 |
Punishes corrupt public servants. |
|
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) |
Investigates corruption cases at central level. |
|
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) / State Vigilance |
Handle complaints and oversee investigations. |
|
National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) |
Citizens can file complaints if corruption violates human |
|
All-India Services Conduct Rules, 1968 |
Prohibit government employees from activities |
|
Central Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964 |
Similar conduct rules for central government employees. |
|
Administrative Tribunals (CAT) |
Specialized courts for disputes related to |
3. Effectiveness
and Implementation Issues
A. Selection
Committee Delays
Ø 2013 Act passed in 2014, but Lokpal not appointed due to absence
of LoP in 16th Lok Sabha.
Ø Supreme Court clarification: Absence of LoP cannot stall appointments.
Ø Parliamentary Standing Committee (2015) recommended using the largest
opposition party leader instead of LoP.
B. Lokayukta
Implementation
According to Transparency International:
Ø 9 states/UTs (Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Jharkhand, Kerala,
Madhya Pradesh, UP) not amended Lokayukta Acts to align with 2013
Act.
Ø Only 4 states (Bihar, Manipur, Odisha, Tamil Nadu) appointed
judicial & non-judicial members fully.
4. Limitations of
the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013
|
Limitation |
Explanation |
|
Lack of independence |
Government influence in appointments can compromise |
|
No anonymous complaints |
Discourages whistleblowers from reporting corruption. |
|
7-year limitation |
Time period to file complaints may be too short for |
|
Heavy punishment for false complaints |
May deter valid complaints due to fear of penalties. |
|
Lack of transparency |
Complaint handling, especially against PM, is |
|
Investigation limitations |
Lokpal cannot initiate cases on its own; form of |
5. Way Forward /
Recommendations
Functional Autonomy
Ø Strengthen manpower, investigative capacity, and decision-making
independence.
Financial & Administrative Independence
Ø Lokpal/Lokayukta must be independent of the government financially,
legally, and administratively.
Transparency & Leadership
Ø
Open procedures, citizen empowerment, access to
information.
Ø
Leadership must be accountable and credible.
Decentralized Institutions
Ø
Strengthen other anti-corruption institutions to
avoid concentrating power in one authority.
Whistleblower Protection
Ø
Ensure anonymity and protection for individuals
reporting corruption.
Conclusion
2016 strengthened the reporting framework for public officials and
clarified selection committee provisions. However, full
effectiveness depends on proper implementation, ensuring independence,
state-level adoption, and public awareness.
Leave a Reply