Working of Lokpal Definitions, object, characteristics
🇮🇳 Lokpal in India: Detailed Explanation
🔹 Definition of Lokpal
The Lokpal is a statutory body established to inquire into allegations of corruption against public functionaries, including the Prime Minister, Ministers, and Members of Parliament, among others.
Created under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
It is India's version of an ombudsman for central government corruption complaints.
🔹 Objective of Lokpal
The main objectives of the Lokpal are:
Prevent corruption in public offices.
Ensure accountability of public servants.
Provide independent, transparent, and time-bound investigations into corruption allegations.
Strengthen public confidence in governance and public administration.
🔹 Characteristics of Lokpal
| Characteristic | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Statutory Body | Established under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. |
| Independent and Autonomous | Free from executive control; appointment involves judiciary and other bodies. |
| Wide Jurisdiction | Covers Prime Minister (with limitations), Ministers, MPs, civil servants, NGOs. |
| Investigative Powers | Can direct CBI for investigation; has own Inquiry Wing. |
| Time-bound Functioning | Must complete preliminary inquiry within 90 days; investigation in 6 months. |
| Penal Consequences | Can recommend disciplinary action or prosecution. |
🏛️ Structure of the Lokpal
Chairperson: Retired Chief Justice of India or Supreme Court Judge.
Members: Maximum 8 members (50% judicial).
Appointment Committee: PM, Speaker, Leader of Opposition, CJI or SC judge, and an eminent jurist.
🔍 Working of Lokpal: How It Functions
Complaint Filing
Any person can file a complaint against public officials, including the Prime Minister.
Preliminary Inquiry
Lokpal conducts a preliminary inquiry to determine if an investigation is warranted.
Investigation
If necessary, directs agencies like the CBI or uses its own Inquiry Wing.
Prosecution and Disciplinary Action
Can recommend prosecution or departmental action.
Transparency & Accountability
Lokpal must publish annual reports and maintain transparency in its functioning.
🧾 Key Case Law Related to Lokpal and Anti-Corruption Framework
1. Anna Hazare Movement & Public Interest Litigation (2011)
Context:
Though not a court case in the traditional sense, the mass anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare in 2011, accompanied by PILs filed in the Supreme Court, was instrumental in pressuring the government to enact the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
Impact:
The Supreme Court heard multiple PILs during the movement supporting the need for a strong, independent anti-corruption body.
Highlighted public frustration with the lack of accountability among high-ranking officials.
Significance:
Directly led to the enactment of the Lokpal Act and shaped public discourse on governance and corruption.
2. Common Cause v. Union of India (2017)
Facts:
A petition was filed in the Supreme Court to direct the government to appoint the Lokpal, as required under the 2013 Act.
Issue:
Despite the enactment of the law, no Lokpal had been appointed even after several years.
Holding:
The Supreme Court criticized the delay and directed the government to implement the law in letter and spirit.
Significance:
Judicial push to enforce the Lokpal Act.
Reaffirmed the importance of institutional anti-corruption mechanisms.
3. Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006)
Facts:
Though primarily a case about police reforms, it dealt with the lack of independence and accountability in public institutions.
Holding:
The court issued directives to insulate police and investigative agencies from political interference.
Significance for Lokpal:
Strengthened the call for independent investigative wings, which later influenced Lokpal's structure.
Inspired aspects of how Lokpal's Inquiry Wing and Prosecution Wing should function independently.
4. Centre for PIL v. Union of India (2011)
Facts:
A petition challenged the appointment of the CVC (Central Vigilance Commissioner) on grounds of lack of integrity.
Holding:
The Supreme Court quashed the appointment and emphasized the importance of integrity in anti-corruption institutions.
Significance for Lokpal:
Reinforced the need for high moral and ethical standards in appointing Lokpal members.
Influenced the eligibility criteria and selection process in the Lokpal Act.
5. Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India (2014)
Facts:
A challenge to the constitutional validity of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, was raised.
Holding:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act.
Significance:
Validated the structure and mechanism of Lokpal.
Ensured that the law could move forward without legal hurdles.
📝 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Key Issue | Impact on Lokpal |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anna Hazare Movement & PILs | 2011 | Demand for anti-corruption law | Triggered enactment of Lokpal Act |
| Common Cause v. Union of India | 2017 | Delay in appointment | Directed government to appoint Lokpal |
| Prakash Singh v. Union of India | 2006 | Police reform and independence | Influenced Lokpal’s structure (independent wings) |
| Centre for PIL v. Union of India | 2011 | Integrity in appointments | Emphasized clean record for Lokpal members |
| Manohar Lal Sharma v. Union of India | 2014 | Constitutionality of the Act | Upheld the validity of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act |
✅ Conclusion
The Lokpal is a vital step in institutionalizing anti-corruption measures in India. With its broad jurisdiction, independence, and statutory backing, it reflects the nation’s commitment to clean governance and public accountability. Courts have played an essential role in its evolution, ensuring that it functions effectively and within constitutional limits.
RELATED Blog
0 comments