Lokpal, the ombudsman institution in India, faced a tricky situation recently when it was approached by the wife of a deceased government official from Uttar Pradesh (UP). The official had allegedly died by suicide due to severe pressure from his superiors to sign completion certificates for projects under the Central Government’s initiative, Swadesh Darshan Scheme. The Lokpal refused to entertain the plea citing jurisdictional limitations since the complaint involved alleged criminal activities, which fall under criminal law and procedure.
Swadesh Darshan Scheme and the Role of Lokpal
The Swadesh Darshan Scheme was introduced by the central government in 2014-15 aiming at integrated development of theme-based tourist circuits. The ministry of tourism provides financial assistance to state governments for developing tourism infrastructure under this scheme. The scheme includes key circuits for promoting tourism such as Buddhist circuit, Ramayana circuit, Spiritual Circuit, etc.
In the case of the UP government official, despite facing jurisdictional constraints, the Lokpal decided to forward the complaint to the Union Tourism Secretary for further investigation.
About Lokpal and Its Functions
Established under the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, Lokpal is a statutory body without any constitutional status. Its primary role is to investigate allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries. Lokpal holds jurisdiction over Prime Ministers (PMs), Ministers, Members of Parliament (MPs), and Groups A, B, C and D officers and officials of Central Government. This jurisdiction also extends to those holding positions of director/manager/secretary in bodies controlled or financed by the central government, and anyone involved in corrupt practices. Lokpal is required by law to supervise and direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Concerns Pertaining to the Functioning of Lokpal
However, multiple concerns have been raised about Lokpal’s effectiveness. Firstly, the institution has not had a full-time chairperson since May 2022. Then, according to a report in April 2023, Lokpal hasn’t prosecuted any person accused of corruption to date, despite receiving a large number of complaints. Moreover, there’s criticism over the lack of transparency and accountability of Lokpal, thus questioning its credibility and effectiveness.
The Way Forward: Strengthening Lokpal
To effectively tackle corruption, the institution of the ombudsman should be strengthened through functional autonomy and manpower availability. Transparence, right to information access, citizen empowerment, and leadership subject to public scrutiny are crucial. The mere appointment of Lokpal and increase in government size do not necessarily improve governance. The ideal is “less government and more governance”, which should be implemented earnestly.
For Lokpal and Lokayukta to carry out effective investigation and prosecution, they need to be independent financially, administratively and legally. The appointments must be transparent to avoid any unsuitable persons filling these roles. Multiple decentralized institutions with appropriate accountability mechanisms are needed to prevent the concentration of too much power in one place.
Discussions around the efficiency and effectiveness of Lokpal are set to continue until the system is robust enough to handle corruption at various levels. Although powerful, as the recent case shows, the Lokpal still grapples with procedural and jurisdictional limitations. Bridging these gaps would require not just law amendments but also a change in mindset that prioritizes integrity and transparency above all else.
