Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
📘 Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
🧩 Background
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was enacted as a response to the public demand for strong anti-corruption institutions, especially following the India Against Corruption Movement led by Anna Hazare.
The Act seeks to establish:
Lokpal at the central level
Lokayuktas at the state level
📜 Objectives of the Act
Investigate corruption allegations against public servants.
Provide a mechanism for inquiry and prosecution.
Ensure independent functioning of anti-corruption bodies.
Cover high-ranking officials including the Prime Minister (with restrictions).
🏛️ Structure of Lokpal
✅ Composition
Lokpal consists of:
Chairperson: Must be a former Chief Justice of India, Judge of the SC, or an eminent person of integrity.
Up to 8 Members, 50% of whom must be judicial members.
✅ Appointment
Appointed by the President on the recommendation of a Selection Committee:
Prime Minister (Chair)
Speaker of Lok Sabha
Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
Chief Justice of India or SC Judge
Eminent jurist
✅ Tenure
5 years or until age 70, whichever is earlier.
👥 Jurisdiction of Lokpal
Lokpal can investigate allegations against:
Prime Minister (with restrictions)
Union Ministers
MPs
Group A, B, C, D Central Government employees
Officials of NGOs receiving over ₹1 crore from government or ₹10 lakh from foreign sources
❗ Prime Minister can be investigated only if:
The complaint is not related to international relations, national security, public order, space or atomic energy.
It is approved by two-thirds of Lokpal members.
🛠️ Powers of Lokpal
Power to supervise and direct CBI in corruption cases.
Power to order seizure, search, inquiry, etc.
Power to recommend disciplinary action or prosecution.
Can order confiscation of assets acquired through corruption.
🧾 Lokayuktas (State-Level)
States are required to establish Lokayuktas within 1 year of the enactment.
Composition and powers are decided by the state legislature, but should be broadly similar to Lokpal.
⚖️ Safeguards in the Act
Whistleblower protection under Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014.
Sanction for prosecution is not required if Lokpal orders prosecution.
The act provides for prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
🧑⚖️ Landmark Case Laws (Explained in Detail)
🔹 1. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
Facts:
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed challenging the non-appointment of Lokpal, despite the law being in force since 2014.
Issue:
Whether the government can delay the appointment of the Lokpal indefinitely due to the absence of Leader of Opposition.
Held:
The Supreme Court directed the government to make the appointment of Lokpal without further delay.
The absence of the Leader of Opposition cannot be a valid excuse.
Significance:
Reinforced that implementation of the Lokpal Act is mandatory, and delays cannot be justified on technical grounds.
🔹 2. Anjali Bhardwaj v. Union of India (2019)
Facts:
Another PIL filed for delay in operationalizing the Lokpal, including appointment of members.
Held:
The Supreme Court criticized the lack of political will and ordered that the Search Committee be constituted.
Significance:
Court emphasized that anti-corruption law must not be reduced to paper, and that the institutional framework must be activated.
🔹 3. Shanti Bhushan v. Union of India (2014)
Facts:
Constitutional validity of the appointment procedure of Lokpal was challenged for being politically biased.
Issue:
Whether the Prime Minister’s dominant role in the Selection Committee affects the independence of Lokpal.
Held:
The Court upheld the constitutional validity of the appointment process, stating there are sufficient checks and balances.
Significance:
Confirmed the legitimacy of the structure and dismissed fears of executive overreach.
🔹 4. Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI (2014)
Facts:
This case dealt with sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that delay in granting sanction for prosecution is against public interest.
Significance:
Strengthens the Lokpal’s power, as under the 2013 Act, sanction is not needed if Lokpal orders prosecution.
🔹 5. Rajya Sabha Report on Lokpal (Parliamentary Committee Remarks)
Though not a judgment, it influenced the judicial thinking and public interest litigation cases.
Recommended clearer guidelines for appointment and independence.
Emphasized the need for time-bound inquiries.
🔹 6. Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2011) – (Relevant Context)
Facts:
Though not about the Lokpal Act directly, this case laid the foundation for public expectations of accountability.
Held:
Supreme Court cancelled 2G spectrum licenses and emphasized the need for strong anti-corruption mechanisms.
Significance:
Led to political momentum for the passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act.
🧾 Criticisms and Challenges
Delay in Appointment:
The Act passed in 2013, but Lokpal was appointed only in 2019 after repeated court directions.
States' Non-Compliance:
Many states have not yet set up Lokayuktas, despite statutory mandate.
Dependence on Government Agencies:
Lokpal lacks its own investigation wing and depends on CBI and vigilance departments.
Limited Powers over PM:
Restrictions dilute the authority of Lokpal over the highest office.
Whistleblower Protection Not Strong Enough:
Fear of retaliation still discourages complaints.
✅ Achievements So Far
Lokpal has started accepting complaints since 2019.
Preliminary inquiries and some investigations have been initiated.
It has the potential to become a powerful anti-corruption institution, if strengthened.
🧠 Conclusion
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 is a landmark anti-corruption legislation in India. It provides for the institutional framework to investigate corruption at the highest levels. Though delayed in implementation, the judiciary has played a crucial role in upholding its provisions and ensuring accountability.
The success of the Lokpal depends not just on its existence but on political will, public support, and judicial vigilance.
📌 Quick Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Enacted | 2013 |
| Purpose | Investigate corruption in high offices |
| Covers | PM (with limitations), Ministers, MPs, govt officials, NGOs |
| Composition | Chairperson + up to 8 Members |
| Powers | Supervise CBI, order investigation, recommend prosecution |
| Key Cases | Common Cause (2018), Anjali Bhardwaj (2019), Shanti Bhushan (2014) |
| Issues | Delay in appointment, weak Lokayuktas, dependency on CBI |
RELATED Blog
0 comments