As per recent reports, the central government has yet to appoint a director of inquiry over two years after the Lokpal’s establishment. This position is part of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, and requires an individual not below the rank of Joint Secretary to the Central Government. Section 20 (1) (b) of the same Act stipulates this role is responsible for handling complaints about public servants, which are referred by the Lokpal to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for preliminary investigation. The non-appointment suggests a lack of political will to strengthen the Lokpal institution in India.
Lokpal: A Brief Overview
The Lokpal, India’s anti-corruption authority and public interest representative, owes its concept to Sweden’s ombudsman idea. As a signatory to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, India established the Lokpal in March 2019 to investigate graft complaints against public officials. The First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) of India recommended creating two designated authorities, ‘Lokpal’ and ‘Lokayukta,’ in 1966–1970 for addressing citizens’ grievances.
While the Lokpal probes corruption charges nationally, the Lokayukta performs similar operations at the state level. The Lokpal has jurisdiction over all Members of Parliament and central government employees concerning corruption cases. Besides, it can look into anti-graft complaints about any institution receiving full or partial funding from the central government or under its control. Currently, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose chairs the Lokpal, a body comprising one chairperson and up to eight members.
The Challenges Facing Lokpal
However, the Lokpal system has significant flaws. For starters, it’s susceptible to political influence as the appointment committee consists of political party members. This selection committee includes the Prime Minister as the Chairperson, Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Chief Justice of India or a Judge nominated by him/her, and one eminent jurist.
The appointment process is also potentially manipulable since it lacks criteria for determining who qualifies as an ’eminent jurist’ or ‘a person of integrity.’ Additionally, the judiciary’s exclusion from Lokpal’s scope and the absence of constitutional backing are significant drawbacks. The Lokpal also provides insufficient provision for appeals, and corruption complaints can’t be registered after seven years from the alleged offence date.
Future Steps to Strengthen the System
Addressing these issues necessitates bolstering the ombudsman institution in terms of functional autonomy and manpower. Sufficient financial, administrative, and legal independence for Lokpal and Lokayukta from those they’re investigating and prosecuting is critical. The establishment of numerous decentralized institutions with adequate accountability mechanisms can help prevent excessive power concentration in a single authority or institution. Enhancing transparency, strengthening the Right to Information Act, implementing a robust Whistleblower protection regime, and promoting morally sound leadership open to public scrutiny could further fortify the system.
