Impact Of Lokpal And Lokayukta Act On Administrative Accountability
"Exhibiting accountability over time is a gateway to trust. When we see
someone acting with accountability, we gain the evidence we need to trust them."
- Mike Erwin and Willys Devoll
India ranks 86th out of 180 countries in the 2022 Corruption Perception Index,
scoring 40, which is below the global average of 43. According to Transparency
International's November 2020 Global Corruption Barometer (GCB), India has the
greatest rate of bribery (39%) in Asia and the highest percentage of people
(46%) who rely on personal connections to obtain public services. This is
disturbing information. The majority of respondents (89%) identified corruption
in government as the primary issue, with a significant portion (63%) fearing
retaliation if they were to report corruption.
The prevalence of corruption in India is undeniable, which initially prompted
the introduction of the Lokpal and Lokayukta bills with hopes of mitigating this
pervasive issue. However, whether these legislative measures have made a
substantial impact on India's corruption problem remains uncertain. This study
aims to explore and elucidate the efficacy of the Lokpal and Lokayukta bills in
addressing corruption in India.
This study is divided into two distinct themes:
Theme I focuses on the concept and historical evolution of the Lokpal and
Lokayukta Acts. This part explores the history of these Acts, following the
development of the concept of ombudsmanship in India as well as its conceptual
foundations.
Theme II delves into the impact and future of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Acts.
This section looks at how well these Acts work to promote administrative
accountability and fight corruption.
This article culminates with a conclusion that provides an analysis of the
overall effectiveness of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Acts.
Theme I
Conceptual Framework
Lokpal And Lokayukta Act
The foundation of any progressive administrative system hinges on the presence
of a mechanism to address grievances against administrative misconduct and the
acknowledgment of every citizen's right to access government information.The
Ombudsman, a Swedish notion, serves as the model for the Lokpal and Lokayukta
Acts, which perform this vital function.
In essence, an Ombudsman serves as the "watchdog of the administration,"
appointed by the government to investigate complaints against various entities,
including businesses, financial institutions, universities, and government
departments. Their primary goal is to resolve conflicts or concerns through
mediation or recommendations.
In India, a Lokayukta fulfils a comparable function at the state level and a
Lokpal operates as an anti-corruption authority protecting the public interest
at the federal level. Ensuring accountability in government affairs and taking
decisive action against corrupt officials are the responsibilities of both
bodies.
Enacted in 2013, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act established these bodies as
statutory entities without constitutional status. They serve as ombudsmen,
looking into claims of corruption made against certain public servants and
handling related issues.
Effective administrative structures must ultimately be accountable and
responsive to the people they serve.Nonetheless, people frequently feel excluded
from administrative processes due to their impersonal design. As administrative
agencies expand their influence into various aspects of citizens' lives, the
potential for errors affecting personal or property rights increases
significantly. This growing scope of administrative action has spurred the quest
for effective safeguards against misconduct, culminating in the creation of the
Lokayukta and Lokpal Acts.
Nevertheless, there were difficulties in the process of creating the Lokpal and
Lokayukta Acts. They nearly failed, were changed, and were eventually pushed
back before they could be completely implemented.Political complexities,
bureaucratic hurdles, and differing perspectives on the scope and powers of
these bodies all contributed to the delays and setbacks in their
implementation.Despite these challenges, efforts were made to refine and
strengthen/fortify the Acts over time. Amendments were introduced to address
some of the concerns raised, and procedures were put in place to enhance their
functioning and efficiency.
Historical Evolution Of Lokpal And Lokayukta Act ,2013
In 1809, Sweden officially inaugurated the institution of the ombudsman. When
New Zealand and Norway adopted this approach in 1962, it became very popular and
was a key factor in the global dissemination of its concept. In 1967, on the
heels of the Whyatt Report of 1961, Great Britain became the first major
democratic nation to embrace the ombudsman system. The first developing country
to use this novel strategy was Guyana, which appeared in the year 1966.
India saw its first proposal for a constitutional ombudsman in the early 1960s,
championed by then Law Minister Ashok Kumar Sen. The titles "Lokpal" and "Lokayukta"
were first used by Dr. L. M. Singhvi. In 1966, the First Administrative Reforms
Commission proposed the creation of two independent authorities, one at the
federal level and one at the state level, to handle complaints against public
servants.
The Lokpal bill made its debut in the Lok Sabha in 1968, but subsequent attempts
to pass it failed repeatedly.The appointment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas did not
acquire traction until 2002, during the tenure of the Commission to Review the
Working of the Constitution, which was presided over by M.N. Venkatachaliah. In
2005, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission led by Veerappa Moily echoed
the urgency of establishing the Lokpal office.
The demand for a Lokpal surged in 2011 when social activist Anna Hazare's hunger
strike garnered immense public support for a robust anti-corruption law. In
response, the government formed a joint committee composed of members from civil
society and the government to draft a new Lokpal Bill.As a result, in August
2011, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill was introduced in Parliament.Despite several
revisions and debates, it received presidential assent on January 1, 2014, and
came into force on January 16, 2014.
However, the journey didn't end there. The Supreme Court intervened, prompting
amendments to strengthen the effectiveness of the bill. In July 2016, the Lokpal
and Lokayukta Act, 2013 was amended to make it operational. Despite these
milestones, the actual establishment of the Lokpal was pushed back by the
government for over five years until 2019. During this period, critical
amendments were made, diluting the powers and reach of the Lokpal.
A meeting of the Lokpal selection panel was called by Attorney General K.K.
Venugopal at the request of the Supreme Court, and the appointment of the Lokpal
took place on March 23, 2019. India's first Lokpal, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose,
a former Supreme Court judge, was appointed, which was a major turning point in
the nation's anti-corruption campaign.
Theme II
Assessing Its Impact
Impact Of The Act - In Thorns Of Misfortune
Since its beginning, the foremost challenge faced by the act has been its
arduous journey towards effective implementation. While the mandate stipulates
the establishment of the Lokayukta office in each state, only 20 states and 2
Union Territories have so far managed to establish an office but most are
defunct. Only Kerala , Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka were able to make the
Lokayukta office a success. Furthermore, even among those with a functioning
Lokayukta, deficiencies abound, ranging from a lack of prosecutorial authority
to inadequate resources and personnel. In 2018, the Supreme Court raised
concerns regarding the absence of Lokayukta offices in a significant number of
states, totaling 12, which notably included Delhi, the nation's capital.
Compounding these issues is the sluggish pace of appointments, with numerous
states failing to appoint a Lokayukta within the stipulated time frame. For
example, Karnataka has purposefully delayed choosing a new Lokayukta, which has
made it harder to fight corruption in a timely manner.
Despite the Lokpal's attempts to revamp India's administrative framework to
tackle corruption head-on, persistent loopholes persist, undermining its
efficacy.
Additionally, the composition of the appointing committee raises concerns about
political interference, as it comprises members from political parties without
clear criteria to discern individuals of integrity or eminent jurists. The act's
goals are further complicated by the fact that some politicians and candidates
have been able to use the necessity for a Lokpal as a platform to achieve their
own political and electoral agendas due to this sensitivity to political
influence.
In essence, while the Lokpal seeks to fortify India's anti-corruption
mechanisms, its journey has been marred by bureaucratic inertia.
Even in states and at the union level where the Lokayukta and Lokpal offices are
operational, their performance has left much to be desired. In spite of its
mandate to fight corruption, neither of these agencies has been able to
successfully prosecute those who are suspected of graft. Notably, there has been
a lot of criticism of the Lokpal's effectiveness because it has not yet begun to
prosecute any person involved in charges of corruption.
Moreover, concerns have been raised regarding the manner in which complaints are
handled by the Lokpal. There are concerns regarding the fairness and
accessibility of the complaint resolution process since it has been noted that a
number of complaints are summarily dismissed for not following the required
format..For example, during 2022–2023 the Lokpal received 2,518 complaints
(which were not in the required format).Up to 242 of the complaints that were
received during that time were in the format that was required. 191 of them were
disposed of.
In response to these issues, the Lokpal has been urged to refrain from rejecting
genuine complaints solely on procedural grounds and to adopt a more inclusive
approach to addressing corruption allegations.
"However, the performance of the Lokpal seems to be far from satisfactory," said
the report of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on
Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. Moreover, the report also said
that -"At this juncture when India is heading the G20 anti-corruption working
group, the Lokpal should rise to the occasion and make every effort to
strengthen the anti-corruption landscape in the country," .
The panel further emphasised how alarming it is that there are vacancies in the
Lokpal and Lokayukta offices. According to the panel's report, out of the
sanctioned strength of 82 posts for the Lokpal, only 32 positions are currently
filled. Additionally, the report highlighted the failure to fill vacancies for
two judicial members since the year 2020.
According to a report by The Hindu Lokpal disposed of 68% corruption complaints
against public servants without any action, only 3 complaints were actually
investigated while 90% of complaints were rejected.
The institutions entrusted with fighting corruption have been reduced to
symbolic roles under these harsh conditions, meaning they are no longer
effective. Although the Lokpal may seem like a step forward, in practice it is a
diluted form of the strong ombudsman that the Indian public had long yearned
for.Once regarded as a resolute protector against corruption and misconduct, the
Lokpal now lingers in the background, unable to carry out its duty due to
political scheming and bureaucratic apathy.
The Lokayukta office and Lokpal have practically turned into what one can refer
to as "toothless tigers."
What Lies Ahead?
It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the Lokpal and Lokayukta roles
in preventing corruption and guaranteeing the efficient operation of any
administrative system. In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (2017), the
Supreme Court expressed optimism that the establishment of the proposed Lokpal
and Lokayuktas would serve to enhance the prevailing legal and institutional
mechanisms, thereby reinforcing the crusade for integrity in public affairs.
However, their impact thus far has been marginal, necessitating a concerted
effort to bolster implementation.
Moreover, it is imperative to modify these institutions to give them more
independence and protect them from the sway of powerful politicians and business
interests. It is essential to make these changes to the acts that govern these
entities in order to cultivate a more transparent and accountable governance.
A fully independent select committee must be established in order for the Lokpal
to function as a separate legal body. Right now, the selection committee that
chooses the Lokpal's members is a clear example of the political faction's power
within the state. Moreover, the current emphasis on retired judges within the
Lokpal warrants reevaluation. The Lokpal needs to be composed of people from
various backgrounds who are all well-known for their uncompromising honesty and
well-respected standing in the public eye. This composition would guarantee that
the suggestions made by the Lokpal have significant moral weight and enjoy
widespread acceptance among the populace.
Additionally, the incorporation of an appeals provision into the Lokpal and
Lokayukta Act is crucial, as the current absence of such a mechanism limits the
institutions' effectiveness. Introducing an appeals system would empower these
bodies to address a wider spectrum of corruption cases, thereby enhancing
governmental and official accountability. Furthermore, the presence of an
appeals process would serve as a deterrent against corrupt practices, compelling
officials to think twice before engaging in dishonest behaviour.
With the implementation of these proposed modifications, there exists the
potential for the Lokpal and Lokayukta system in India to realise its
aspirational role as an ombudsman. To better carry out their purpose of
preventing corruption and guaranteeing administrative accountability, these
organisations should strengthen their independence, add greater diversity to
their membership, and establish an appeals process.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the journey of the Lokpal and Lokayukta system in India has been
marked by both aspiration and adversity.The system has encountered several
obstacles in its attempt to fight corruption and maintain administrative
accountability, even with the best of intentions. Overcoming bureaucratic
roadblocks and political meddling, among other things, has made it difficult to
fully realise these organisations' potential.
However, amidst these challenges lie opportunities for transformation and
reform. Through resolving concerns related to autonomy, variety, and
responsibility, the Lokpal and Lokayukta can develop into a powerful instrument
for transparency and accountability in the political process. With determination
the dream of a truly effective anti-corruption mechanism can become a reality.
Law Article in India
You May Like
Please Drop Your Comments