Role of Lokpal and Lokayukta as an ombudsman in India
✅ Introduction: Lokpal and Lokayukta as Ombudsman in India
The Lokpal and Lokayukta are statutory bodies established to act as ombudsmen—independent authorities investigating allegations of corruption against public functionaries. Their primary goal is to ensure accountability, transparency, and integrity in governance.
🏛️ Origin and Background
The concept of an Ombudsman originated in Sweden in 1809.
In India, the idea of a similar institution was first proposed in 1966 by the First Administrative Reforms Commission.
Over the years, various Lokpal Bills were introduced, but none became law until the public movement led by Anna Hazare in 2011 pressured the government to act.
📜 Statutory Framework
🔹 The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
Came into force on January 16, 2014.
Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas at the state level.
Objective: To investigate allegations of corruption against public servants and recommend prosecution and disciplinary action.
🧑⚖️ Who Can Be Investigated?
Under Lokpal:
Prime Minister (with limitations)
Union Ministers
Members of Parliament
Group A, B, C, D Government officials
Chairpersons and members of NGOs receiving significant foreign or government funds
Under Lokayukta:
Chief Ministers
State Ministers
State government employees
Local bodies and public sector units
🛠️ Powers and Functions
| Function | Lokpal/Lokayukta Role |
|---|---|
| Investigative | Inquire into allegations of corruption |
| Prosecution | Recommend prosecution to relevant agencies (CBI, etc.) |
| Disciplinary | Recommend departmental action |
| Monitoring | Monitor and direct investigations |
| Jurisdiction | Covers all public servants (central/state) including political and bureaucratic |
🔍 Features Ensuring Independence
Lokpal consists of a Chairperson + up to 8 members (at least 50% judicial).
Selection Committee includes PM, Speaker, CJI (or SC judge nominated), Leader of Opposition, and an eminent jurist.
Lokpal is independent of government control.
⚖️ Key Case Law Illustrating Role and Issues
Below are six detailed case laws that help understand the role, challenges, and judicial interpretation surrounding the Lokpal and Lokayukta.
1. Common Cause v. Union of India (2014)
Citation: (2014) 6 SCC 552
Facts: PIL was filed alleging government delay in implementing the Lokpal Act and appointing the Lokpal.
Issue: Whether the absence of the Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha could stall the formation of the Lokpal Selection Committee.
Held: The Court ruled that the absence of LoP cannot be a ground to delay the formation of Lokpal. A person recognized as the largest party's leader can function as LoP for the purpose of the Act.
Significance: Enabled the government to move forward with the appointment process, overcoming technical hurdles.
2. Justice K.P. Mohapatra v. State of Orissa (1997)
Facts: Allegations were made against high-ranking officials in Orissa, and the Lokayukta sought investigation.
Issue: Whether Lokayukta's recommendations are binding.
Held: The Orissa High Court held that while Lokayukta's recommendations are not binding, they carry great persuasive value, and authorities must act upon them or give strong reasons for not doing so.
Significance: Clarified that the Lokayukta is not merely advisory but has moral and legal weight.
3. Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007)
Citation: (2007) 1 SCC 1
Facts: Former CM of Punjab was accused of corruption and misuse of office.
Issue: Whether Lokayukta’s findings formed the basis of a valid prosecution.
Held: Supreme Court upheld that Lokayukta’s findings can be used as a basis for prosecution, provided due process is followed.
Significance: Validated Lokayukta's role as a fact-finding body and not just advisory.
4. Sudhir Kumar Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012)
Facts: Complaint was filed before the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukta against a government engineer for disproportionate assets.
Issue: Whether Lokayukta has power to initiate action without government reference.
Held: Yes, Lokayukta can initiate suo moto investigations based on credible information.
Significance: Reinforced Lokayukta’s autonomy and proactive role.
5. Jan Lokpal Movement and Legal Developments (2011–2013)
(Not a single case but legal-political evolution)
Background: Massive civil society movement led by Anna Hazare demanded a strong anti-corruption institution.
Impact: Directly led to the passage of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Significance: Demonstrated public trust and demand for an independent watchdog. Though not a court case, this movement created the foundation for legal and institutional reform.
6. State of Karnataka v. Union of India (1977) – Sarkaria Commission Reference
Facts: Dealt with the role of state Lokayuktas in checking corruption and maintaining federal balance.
Held: Supreme Court emphasized the importance of an independent Lokayukta in strengthening democracy and good governance.
Significance: Though not directly interpreting the Lokpal Act, the case reaffirmed the importance of such institutions in federal accountability.
🚫 Limitations and Challenges
Delay in appointments: Lokpal was not appointed until 2019 despite the 2013 Act.
No prosecution powers: Lokpal can only recommend prosecution; actual filing is done by other agencies.
State compliance: Many states have either not established Lokayuktas or have created weak bodies.
Lack of awareness and use: Citizens often unaware or reluctant to approach these bodies.
Dependence on CBI/Police: Investigative powers not fully autonomous.
📌 Comparative Chart: Lokpal vs Lokayukta
| Feature | Lokpal (Central) | Lokayukta (State) |
|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Central govt officials, MPs, PM (with conditions) | State officials, MLAs, CM |
| Appointment | By central selection committee | By state-specific laws |
| Powers | Recommend prosecution/investigation | Varies by state |
| Established Under | Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 | State-specific legislation |
✅ Conclusion
Lokpal and Lokayukta play a crucial role in fighting corruption and ensuring transparency in public administration.
They serve as the people’s watchdog, providing an independent mechanism to investigate allegations against powerful public officials.
However, their effectiveness is limited by delays, lack of prosecutorial powers, and political interference.
For them to become truly impactful, there must be greater institutional support, citizen engagement, and reforms ensuring real autonomy and teeth.
RELATED Blog
0 comments