The institution of Lokayukta has been in the news recently, prompted by the retirement of Justice Prafulla Kumar Misra from his post as Goa Lokayukta. On his departure, he spoke about the issues faced by the state office and its proceedings. The history, role, benefits, and challenges of Lokayuktas are worth exploring to understand their importance today.
Origin and Purpose of Lokpal and Lokayuktas
The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 laid the groundwork for establishing the Lokpal at a Union level and Lokayuktas within individual States. It received approval from the President on 1st January 2014 and was implemented on 16th January 2014 following lobbying efforts by the “India Against Corruption Movement”. These bodies function as an ‘ombudsman’ or official appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against poor public service. Although they are statutory bodies, they do not enjoy constitutional status. Dr L.M. Singhvi was responsible for coining the terms Lokpal and Lokayukta.
The Goa Lokayukta Act
Prior to the 2013 Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, many states had already established Lokayukta institutions. Goa sent legislation to set up its Lokayukta to the Central government in 2003, but it only passed in the Assembly in October 2011 after being reintroduced. The Goa Lokayukta Act is modelled on similar laws in Karnataka and Kerala, but its provisions are somewhat less stringent. The Act aims to redress grievances against public administration malpractices. Complaints can be filed under this Act based on allegations or grievances.
Data Analysis: Case Load of the Lokayukta
During his tenure, Justice Misra’s office received 191 cases, 133 of which were resolved. Of the remaining 58 cases, 21 recommendations have been sent to the government but are still awaiting action.
Challenges Faced by the Goa Lokayukta
The office of the Lokayukta has faced challenges due to overburdening, lack of governance, limited power, and inadequate staffing. Many cases ended up with the Lokayukta because officials avoided registering FIRs, thereby stalling preliminary investigations. To address this, Justice Misra referenced the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh. He highlighted the bureaucratic and political apathy suggested by his reports across party lines.
Suggestions for Improvement
Justice Misra suggested that the Lokayukta be granted prosecution powers, as is the case in Karnataka and Kerala. He argued for a provision punishing contempt of the Lokayukta’s orders, currently absent from the Goa Act. Justice Misra also emphasized the need for an adequate number of qualified personnel within the Lokayukta’s investigative wing. Lastly, he underscored the commitment required to serve as Lokayukta, calling for steadfast dedication to serving without bias or ill-will.