Lokpal and Lokayuktas: India's ombudsman

Detail

1. The ombudsman idea

• An ombudsman is an independent official who looks into citizens' complaints of maladministration. Maladministration means bad or unfair administration, such as corruption, delay, bias or abuse of power by public authorities.
• Where it began and spread:
• Sweden, 1809: the first ombudsman.
• It then spread across Scandinavia.
• New Zealand, 1962: the first in the Commonwealth.

• UK, 1967: the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

• Sectoral ombudsmen in India: some ombudsmen cover only one sector. Examples are the RBI Integrated Ombudsman Scheme (2021) for bank customers and the Insurance Ombudsman. They deal with service complaints, not corruption by politicians.

• The Indian words:
• Lokpal means "protector of the people". It is the ombudsman at the Union level. Dr L.M. Singhvi coined the word in 1963.

• Lokayukta is the ombudsman at the state level.

• First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), 1966: chaired by Morarji Desai. Its interim report recommended two tiers: a Lokpal for the Union and Lokayuktas for the states.

2. The long road to a law (1968–2013)

• 1968: the first Lokpal Bill was introduced. The Lok Sabha passed it in 1969, but it lapsed when the Lok Sabha was dissolved.
• Bills were then introduced seven more times, the last in 2001. Each one lapsed, except in 1985, when the Bill was withdrawn [4].
• 2011: the India Against Corruption movement put strong pressure on the government (covered in civil-society-pressure-groups). On 8 April 2011, the government set up a Joint Drafting Committee with five government nominees and five nominees of Anna Hazare [4].
• December 2013: Parliament passed the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013.
• 1 January 2014: the President gave assent. The law is Act No. 1 of 2014 [2].

3. The 2013 Act: composition and appointment

Composition (s. 3)

• Chairperson: a serving or former Chief Justice of India, a serving or former Supreme Court judge, or an eminent person [2].
• Members: not more than 8.
• 50% of them must be Judicial Members, meaning serving or former SC judges or High Court Chief Justices.

• At least 50% must come from SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities and women [2].

• Non-judicial members: must have at least 25 years' expertise in anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, finance (including insurance and banking), law or management [2].

• Who cannot be appointed:
• an MP or MLA
• a member of a panchayat or municipality
• a person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude
• a person dismissed from government service
• a person younger than 45
• anyone linked to a political party [2]

Selection committee (s. 4). The President appoints the members on the committee's recommendation [2].

Member of the Selection Committee	Role
Prime Minister	Chairperson
Speaker of the Lok Sabha	Member
Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha	Member
CJI, or an SC judge nominated by the CJI	Member
One eminent jurist, recommended by the four above and nominated by the President	Member

• Vacancy rule (s. 4(2)): an appointment is not invalid just because a seat on the committee is empty [2]. This clause later mattered for the LoP issue (see section 5).

Term (s. 6): 5 years or until age 70, whichever comes first [2].

Removal (s. 37), step by step:

1. At least 100 MPs sign a petition for removal on grounds of misbehaviour.
2. The President sends the matter to the Supreme Court.
3. The SC holds an inquiry and reports whether the person should be removed.
4. The President orders removal. The President may suspend the person while the SC inquiry is going on [2]. - Note (s. 37(1)): the Lokpal itself cannot inquire into complaints against its own Chairperson or Members [2].

4. Jurisdiction: whom the Lokpal covers (s. 14)

The Prime Minister is covered, with two shields [2]:

• Excluded subjects: no inquiry on international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy and space.
• Special procedure:
• The full bench (the Chairperson and all Members) must consider the complaint.
• At least two-thirds of the members must approve the inquiry.
• The inquiry is held in camera (in private).
• If the complaint is dismissed, its records are never published [2].

Others covered:

• Union ministers, current and former [2].
• MPs, current and former. They cannot be charged for anything they say or any vote they give in the House, because Article 105 protects these acts.
• Group A and B officers of the Union. Group C and D officials are also covered, but their complaints go to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) first (s. 20) [2].
• People working in bodies set up by a Central Act, or funded or controlled by the Centre [2].
• Societies and trusts that get foreign contributions over ₹10 lakh a year under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 2010 [2].
• State officers: the Lokpal can act against them only with the state government's consent [2].

Time bar (s. 53): the Lokpal cannot take up a complaint made more than 7 years after the alleged offence [2].

5. Powers and procedure

Wings of the Lokpal:

• Inquiry Wing (s. 11): headed by a Director of Inquiry. It does preliminary inquiries (a first check of whether a complaint has substance) into offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 [2].
• Prosecution Wing (s. 12): headed by a Director of Prosecution. It prosecutes public servants (takes their cases to court) [2].
• Until both wings exist, the Central Government has to provide officers and staff to do this work [2].

Timelines under s. 20:

Stage	Time limit
Report by the Inquiry Wing or agency	60 days from reference
Preliminary inquiry	90 days, plus a further 90 days for recorded reasons
Investigation (e.g. by the CBI)	6 months, which can be extended by 6 months at a time
Trial in a Special Court (s. 35)	1 year, and at most 2 years in total

[2]

Other powers:

• Superintendence over the CBI (s. 25): the Lokpal supervises and directs the CBI (the Delhi Special Police Establishment) in cases it refers. It cannot tell the agency how to decide a case [2].
• Civil-court powers: the Inquiry Wing can summon people and demand documents [2].
• Provisional attachment of property: the Lokpal can freeze corruption proceeds for up to 90 days [2].
• Special Courts (s. 35): the Centre must set up as many as the Lokpal recommends [2].
• Asset declarations (s. 44): every public servant must declare assets and liabilities within 30 days of taking office [2].
• Lokayuktas (s. 63): every state had to set up a Lokayukta by state law within one year of the Act coming into force [2].

6. Working record (2014–present)

Why it took five years to start

• After the 2014 Lok Sabha election, no party had 10% of the seats. So there was no recognised Leader of Opposition, and the government said the selection committee could not be completed.
• Common Cause v. Union of India (2017): the Supreme Court held that the Act is workable as it stands. The s. 4(2) vacancy clause allows appointments even without an LoP, so no amendment was needed.

Who has led it

• First Chairperson: Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, appointed in March 2019.
• Current Chairperson: Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar. He took the oath on 10 March 2024 [3].
• 2024: three members were sworn in, which brought the Lokpal to its full strength of nine, including the Chairperson [5].

How it has performed

• Inquiry and Prosecution Wings: set up only years after 2019. Until then it depended on staff lent by the government and on agencies such as the CBI and CVC.
• Complaints: most were rejected for not being in the prescribed format. Very few led to full investigations or sanctions for prosecution.

Notable matters

• Cash-for-query (2023–24): an MP was accused of taking money to ask questions in Parliament. The Lokpal referred the complaint to the CBI.
• High Court judges (2025):
• In January 2025, a Lokpal order said that High Court judges come under its jurisdiction.
• The Supreme Court stayed this order, because judicial independence was at stake.

7. Lokayuktas in the states

• A Lokayukta is the state-level ombudsman. It is set up under each state's own Act.
• Early history:
• Odisha passed a Lokayukta Act in 1970, but it took effect later.
• Maharashtra set up the first working Lokayukta in 1971.

• By 2011, 18 states had Lokayukta laws [4].

• The rules differ widely across states:

• whether the Chief Minister is covered
• whether the Lokayukta has its own investigators or borrows police officers

• whether its findings bind the government or are only advice

• Karnataka's illegal-mining report (2011): the Lokayukta under Justice N. Santosh Hegde reported on illegal mining.

• The report blamed the Chief Minister.
• CM B.S. Yediyurappa resigned.

• This is the best example of a strong Lokayukta at work.

• Karnataka's Anti-Corruption Bureau (2016):

• The state government created an ACB under its own control.
• The ACB took over the Lokayukta's police powers, which left the Lokayukta weak.

• The Karnataka High Court quashed the ACB in 2022, and those powers went back to the Lokayukta.

• Kerala Lokayukta (Amendment), 2022:

• Earlier: a Lokayukta declaration against a public servant had to be accepted, so the person had to leave office.
• After 2022: the government (the "competent authority") can hear and then reject the declaration. This weakens the Lokayukta.

8. Assessment: "one more body"?

• Why sanction matters: in many corruption cases, the government must give permission to prosecute its own officers. This permission is called sanction.
• By the end of 2010, the Centre had not replied to 236 CBI requests for sanction.

• Of these, 155 (66%) had been pending for over three months [4].

• What a working ombudsman needs:

• its own investigators, not officers on loan from the government
• freedom from executive control over sanctions, staff and budget

• time-bound processes that are actually met

• The risk: the Lokpal's thin output so far — few prosecutions, many complaints rejected on format, long delays in setting up its wings — supports the critique that it risks becoming "one more body", not a real check on corruption.

Prelims Hooks

• "Lokpal": the word was coined by L.M. Singhvi (1963). The First ARC (1966) recommended the two-tier Lokpal–Lokayukta system. The first ombudsman was Sweden's (1809).
• Act and date: the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 is Act No. 1 of 2014, assented on 1 January 2014.
• Composition: a Chairperson and up to 8 members. 50% are judicial, and at least 50% come from SC/ST/OBC/minorities/women. The minimum age is 45.
• Selection committee: PM, Speaker, LoP in the Lok Sabha, CJI or nominee, and an eminent jurist. Trap: the Rajya Sabha Chairman is NOT a member.
• The PM: covered, except on international relations, security, public order, atomic energy and space. An inquiry needs two-thirds of the full bench and is held in camera.
• Removal: by the President after a Supreme Court inquiry, on a petition by at least 100 MPs. Trap: this is not an impeachment-style vote in Parliament.
• Foreign contribution limit: bodies receiving more than ₹10 lakh a year under the FCRA 2010 are covered.
• Time bar: 7 years (s. 53). Special Court trials take 1 year, extendable to at most 2 years (s. 35).
• Common Cause (2017): the Lokpal can be appointed even without a recognised LoP.
• Lokayuktas: Maharashtra (1971) set up the first. s. 63 gave every state one year to set one up.

Mains Points

• Independence versus accountability:
• For independence: high-level selection, removal only after an SC inquiry, and a fixed term.
• Against: the Lokpal depends on the CBI and CVC for investigation, and on the executive for staff and sanctions. Its Inquiry and Prosecution Wings came years late.

• Reform: a dedicated investigation cadre and a sanction process that the government cannot block.

• Shielding the PM: the subject exclusions and the two-thirds, in-camera procedure protect the office from frivolous or political complaints. Critics say the same rules make a real inquiry almost impossible.

• Federalism and Lokayuktas:
• Section 63 obliged states to set up Lokayuktas but left their design to them. So coverage of the CM, investigating powers and binding effect vary.
• Karnataka's ACB (2016) and Kerala's 2022 amendment show how state governments can weaken their own watchdogs.

• Option: set minimum national standards, for example through model legislation.

• Is it working? Few prosecutions, complaints rejected for format, and five years of non-appointment (2014–19) support the "one more body" critique.

• Remedies: simpler complaint procedures, published case data, and enforcement of the s. 20 time limits.
• Also needed: stronger whistle-blower protection.