Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013
Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013: Detailed Explanation with Case Law
1. Introduction
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was enacted to establish anti-corruption bodies at the central and state levels in India to investigate and prosecute corruption among public servants. It was a landmark law passed in response to massive public demand for greater transparency and accountability, notably following the 2011 anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare.
2. Objective of the Act
Establish the institution of Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas at the state level.
Inquire into allegations of corruption against public functionaries, including the Prime Minister, ministers, MPs, and public servants.
Strengthen the accountability of those in power.
Promote clean governance and transparency in public administration.
3. Key Features of the Act
A. Establishment of Lokpal
A statutory body with jurisdiction over central government employees, including:
The Prime Minister (with some limitations),
Union Ministers,
MPs,
Group A, B, C, and D officers.
B. Structure of Lokpal
Consists of a Chairperson and up to 8 members (50% must be judicial members).
50% of the members must be from SCs/STs/OBCs/women/minorities.
C. Appointment Committee
Prime Minister (Chairperson)
Speaker of the Lok Sabha
Leader of the Opposition in Lok Sabha
Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge nominated by him
An eminent jurist nominated by the President
D. Powers and Functions
Can inquire into allegations of corruption.
Has powers equivalent to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Can recommend disciplinary action or initiate prosecution.
Jurisdiction extends to NGOs receiving government funds above a threshold.
E. Establishment of Lokayuktas
States are required to establish Lokayuktas within one year of commencement of the Act.
State legislatures have the power to determine the structure and powers of Lokayuktas.
4. Important Provisions Related to the Prime Minister
Lokpal can inquire into the PM only:
If the complaint involves corruption (not related to international relations, public order, national security, etc.).
After approval from a full bench of Lokpal.
In-camera inquiry with safeguards for confidentiality.
5. Case Laws Related to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
While there have not been many judicial decisions directly under the Act due to its relatively recent implementation and administrative delays, multiple key cases influenced its enactment, scope, and legal interpretation.
1. Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226
Facts:
This case dealt with the failure of the CBI to investigate high-level political corruption (the Jain Hawala case).
Issue:
Whether political interference had paralyzed anti-corruption investigations.
Holding:
The Supreme Court issued directions to insulate the CBI and other agencies from political interference.
Significance to Lokpal Act:
Highlighted the need for an independent anti-corruption body.
Created momentum for institutional reform, paving the way for Lokpal.
2. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006) 8 SCC 1
Facts:
Petition sought police reforms to ensure independence from political control.
Issue:
Whether political interference undermines law enforcement.
Holding:
The court issued binding directives for establishing independent Police Complaints Authorities.
Significance to Lokpal Act:
Reinforced the principle of institutional independence, critical for the effectiveness of the Lokpal.
Strengthened the argument for an autonomous anti-corruption body.
3. Common Cause v. Union of India (2014) 6 SCC 552
Facts:
A PIL was filed challenging the delay in appointment of Lokpal.
Issue:
Whether the central government was violating the Lokpal Act by delaying appointments.
Holding:
The Supreme Court criticized the government for failing to establish the Lokpal and called for urgent implementation of the law.
Significance:
Ensured enforcement of the Act.
Signaled judicial commitment to uphold anti-corruption reforms.
4. Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019) 18 SCC 246
Facts:
A writ petition was filed regarding the non-constitution of the Lokpal Selection Committee and non-appointment of members.
Issue:
Whether the delay in the appointment of the Lokpal violated the statutory mandate.
Holding:
The Supreme Court directed the government to complete the selection process at the earliest.
Significance:
Forced the government to initiate the appointment of the first Lokpal in 2019.
Showed the role of public interest litigation in implementing anti-corruption laws.
5. R. R. Kishore v. Union of India (Delhi HC, 2020)
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the exclusion of certain NGO officers from the definition of "public servant" under the Act.
Issue:
Whether employees of NGOs receiving substantial public funds should be under Lokpal’s jurisdiction.
Holding:
The Delhi High Court upheld the inclusion of such NGO employees under Lokpal jurisdiction.
Significance:
Clarified the wide jurisdiction of the Lokpal.
Expanded accountability to quasi-public entities.
6. Challenges and Criticisms
Delay in Implementation: Though passed in 2013, the first Lokpal was appointed only in 2019.
States' Inaction: Many states have not effectively established Lokayuktas.
Lack of Infrastructure and Staff: Operational challenges still persist.
Exclusion of Judiciary and Media: Judiciary is not under Lokpal’s purview.
Dependency on CBI: Lokpal has no independent investigative wing and relies on CBI.
7. Present Status (As of 2025)
The first Lokpal (Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose) was appointed in March 2019.
There are increasing calls for:
Strengthening the institution,
Providing independent investigation resources,
Ensuring proactive functioning at the state level through Lokayuktas.
8. Conclusion
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 represents a significant attempt to institutionalize the fight against corruption in India. While judicial intervention has ensured partial implementation, the Act's success depends on political will, adequate funding, and administrative support.
The supporting case laws demonstrate how the judiciary has played a vital role in pushing for transparency, accountability, and the establishment of anti-corruption bodies, in line with constitutional principles and public expectations.
RELATED Blog
0 comments