Why in the News?
While the Lokpal’s decision to float a tender for seven luxury cars has triggered public outrage, the anti-graft body’s performance record shows a sharp decline in public engagement.
UPSC Relevance
GS2, Statutory, Regulatory and various Quasi-judicial Bodies.
These statutory bodies are often asked in Prelims
PYQ
2013 – ‘A national Lokpal, however strong it may be, cannot resolve the problems of immorality in public affairs’. Discuss.
2025 Prelims
Consider the following statements about Lokpal:
I. The power of Lokpal applies to public servants of India, but not to the Indian public servants posted outside India.
II. The Chairperson or a Member shall not be a Member of the Parliament or a Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, and only the Chief Justice of India, whether incumbent or retired, has to be its Chairperson.
III. The Chairperson or a Member shall not be a person of less than forty-five years of age on the date of assuming office as the Chairperson or Member, as the case may be.
IV. Lokpal cannot inquire into the allegations of corruption against a sitting Prime Minister of India.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- III only
- II and III
- I and IV
- None of the above statements is correct
Lokpal
The Lokpal is the central ombudsman for anti-corruption in India, established as a statutory body under The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 to inquire into and investigate allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries at the Union (Central) level and ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity in public administration.
Objective and Scope (Section 1):
- Establishes Lokpal for the Union (Center) to investigate corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Timeline
- 1963: The term ‘Lokpal’ (meaning ‘people’s protector’) was coined by jurist L.M. Singhvi.
- 1966: The First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), headed by Morarji Desai, recommended setting up the Lokpal at the Centre and the Lokayukta at the state level.
- 1968-2001: The Lokpal Bill was introduced in Parliament at least eight times (1968, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, and 2001) but failed to pass or lapsed each time.
- 2011: The massive ‘India Against Corruption’ movement, led by social activist Anna Hazare, demanded the enactment of a strong anti-corruption ombudsman (the Jan Lokpal Bill).
- December 2013: The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2013, was finally passed by both Houses of Parliament.
- January 2014: The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, came into force.
- March 2019: The Lokpal was finally constituted with the appointment of its first Chairperson, Justice (Retd.) Pinaki Chandra Ghose, and other members—over five years after the Act came into effect.
- Initial Functioning: The body formally began functioning in the fiscal year 2019-20, as mentioned in the summary text.
- Current Lokpal: The current Lokpal of India is Justice Ajay Manikrao Khanwilkar, who was appointed in March 2024. He is a retired judge of the Supreme Court of India
Definitions (Section2) and Jurisdiction (Section 14):
- The term Public Servant in the act under Section 2 includes:
- The Prime Minister (with certain restrictions, such as excluding matters related to international relations, security, public order, atomic energy, and space).
- Union Ministers and Members of Parliament (MPs).
- All categories of central government employees (Groups A, B, C, and D).
- Including those posted abroad or Indian Foreign Service officers.
- Heads and members of any body or board established by an Act of Parliament, or financed/controlled by the Central Government.
- Any society or trust receiving a foreign contribution above ₹10 lakh (as per the 2016 amendment) or government funding >₹1 crore.
- Extends to non-public servants involved in abetment/conspiracy.
- No inquiry into parliamentary speeches/votes (Article 105 protection).
- Time bar: Complaints >7 years old barred (Section 53).
- “Complaint”: Allegation of offense under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in prescribed form.
- “Preliminary Inquiry”: Inquiry to establish prima facie case; “Investigation” as per CrPC.
Appointment
The Chairperson and Members are appointed by the President of India by warrant under their hand and seal, based on the recommendations of a Selection Committee consisting of:
- Prime Minister (Chairperson)
- Speaker of the House of the People (Lok Sabha)
- Leader of Opposition in the House of the People (or the leader of the single largest Opposition party)
- Chief Justice of India (or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the CJI)
- One eminent jurist, nominated by the President on the recommendation of the other four members.
The Selection Committee also constitutes a Search Committee to prepare a panel of suitable persons for consideration.
Composition
| Role | Composition Details | Eligibility Criteria |
| Chairperson | 1 Chairperson | Must be or have been one of the following: * Chief Justice of India * Judge of the Supreme Court * An eminent person of impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, having special knowledge and expertise of not less than 25 years in matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, law, etc. |
| Members | Maximum 8 Members. | Minimum 50% must be Judicial Members. Minimum 50% of the total Members must be from amongst the persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC/Minorities and women. |
| Judicial Member | Up to 4 Judicial Members | Must be or have been one of the following: * Judge of the Supreme Court * Chief Justice of a High Court |
| Non-Judicial Member | Up to 4 Non-Judicial Members | Must be a person of impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, having special knowledge and expertise of not less than 25 years in matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, finance (including insurance and banking), law, and management. |
| Common Disqualifications | – | Must not be: * Less than 45 years of age on the date of assuming office. * A Member of Parliament or a Member of a State/Union Territory Legislature. * A Member of any Panchayat or Municipality. * A person convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude. * A person who has been removed or dismissed from service of the Union or a State. * A person who holds any office of trust or profit (other than his office as Chairperson or Member of Lokpal) or is affiliated with any political party or carries on any business or profession. |
Term and Tenure
- Term of Office: Five years from the date of entering the office or until the attainment of the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier.
- Reappointment: The Chairperson or a Member is ineligible for reappointment to the same post. A Member, however, is eligible to be appointed as a Chairperson, provided their total tenure as Member and Chairperson does not exceed five years.
Salary and Conditions of Service
| Role | Equivalent to |
| Chairperson | The Chief Justice of India |
| Other Members | A Judge of the Supreme Court |
- The salary and allowances are charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India, and they cannot be varied to the disadvantage of the Chairperson or Member after their appointment.
Wings of Lokpal (Sections 11-12):
- Inquiry Wing: Headed by Director of Inquiry for preliminary inquiries.
- Prosecution Wing: Headed by Director of Prosecution for filing cases in Special Courts.
Powers of Lokpal (Sections 25-34):
- Supervisory over CBI for referred cases.
- Civil court powers: Summon witnesses, discover documents, receive affidavits.
- Search/seizure, provisional attachment of assets (90 days, extendable), confiscation.
- Recommend transfer/suspension of accused public servant.
- Delegate powers; issue directions to prevent record destruction.
Miscellaneous:
- Annual Report to President, laid in Parliament (Section 48).
- Asset Declaration: Public servants must declare assets/liabilities (amended in 2016 for retrospective effect, Section 44).
- Offences and Penalties (Sections 46-47): False complaints by individuals/societies: Imprisonment up to 1 year + fine; compensation to accused.
Preliminary Inquiry (Section 20)
- Receipt and Initial Decision: On receiving a complaint, the Lokpal decides whether to proceed further.
- Referral: If it proceeds, the Lokpal orders a preliminary inquiry by its own Inquiry Wing or refers the matter to an external agency like the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) or the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) to ascertain if a prima facie case exists.
| Public Servant Group | Preliminary Inquiry (PI) Authority | Role of Lokpal |
| Groups A and B (Senior Officials) | Conducted by the CVC or the Lokpal’s own Inquiry Wing. | The CVC sends the PI report to the Lokpal. The Lokpal then decides on further action (investigation, closure, or departmental proceedings). |
| Groups C and D (Junior Officials) | The Lokpal refers the complaint to the CVC. | The CVC is empowered to proceed with the inquiry and take action under the CVC Act, but is subject to reporting and review by the Lokpal. |
- Report and Hearing: The Inquiry Wing/agency conducts the inquiry and submits a report to the Lokpal, usually within 90 days. A bench of not less than three Lokpal Members considers this report and, after giving the public servant an opportunity to be heard, decides whether a prima facie case for investigation exists.
Investigation (Section 20)
- Direction to Investigate: If a prima facie case is established, the Lokpal directs an agency (like the CBI) to conduct a full investigation.The Lokpal has powers of superintendence and direction over the investigating agency for the cases referred by it.
- Timeframe: The investigation is to be completed within 6 months (extendable).
- Final Report and Action: Upon receiving the investigation report, the Lokpal bench, after obtaining comments from the competent authority and the public servant, may:
- Grant sanction to file a charge-sheet (prosecution) before a Special Court.
- Direct the competent authority to initiate departmental proceedings or other appropriate action.
- Direct the closure of the report.
Removal (Section 37)
The Chairperson or any Member of the Lokpal can be removed from office by the President of India as per the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
- Removal on the Ground of Misbehaviour
- Grounds: Proven misbehaviour (which includes a conflict of interest, such as being involved in a government contract) or incapacity.
- Procedure:
- A petition is signed by at least 100 Members of Parliament (MPs) and submitted to the President.
- The President then refers the matter to the Supreme Court of India for inquiry.
- The Supreme Court conducts the inquiry and submits its findings to the President.
- If the Supreme Court, after inquiry, reports that the person should be removed on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity, the President issues an order for their removal.
- Immediate Removal by the President– The President can also issue an order to remove the Chairperson or a Member directly on the following grounds, without the Supreme Court inquiry procedure:
- If the person is adjudged an insolvent (bankrupt).
- If the person engages, during their term of office, in any paid employment outside the duties of their office.
- If the person is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body.
- If the person is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for an offence that, in the opinion of the President, involves moral turpitude.
Shortcomings
| Shortcoming | Explanation |
| 1. Delayed Operationalization | Lack of Political Will: The Lokpal Act was passed in 2013, but the first Chairperson and members were appointed only in March 2019, a delay of over five years. This enormous time lag effectively defeated the original momentum and public mandate behind the anti-corruption movement. |
| 2. Low Disposal Rate of Complaints | Despite receiving thousands of complaints, the number of cases pursued to a final stage is very low. As of late 2025, out of a total of over 6,900 complaints received since its inception, most complaints have been dismissed on technicalities. Preliminary Inquiries were ordered in just 289 cases while the Prosecution Sanctions were granted in just 7 cases. |
| 3. Decline in Public Engagement | The number of complaints received by the Lokpal has reportedly sharply declined from a peak of around 2,469 in 2022-23 to just 233 subsequently (up to September 2025). Of the total 6,955 complaints received to date, 90% (6,264) were received in the first four years of its establishment (until 2023). This drop suggests waning public confidence in the body’s effectiveness. |
| 4. Lack of Independent Infrastructure | The institution has faced severe delays in setting up its core operational wings. The Lokpal’s Prosecution Wing—a critical body for taking corruption cases to court—was reportedly notified only in June 2025, over a decade after the Act was passed. It also lacked a permanent office for years. |
| 5. Political Influence in Appointments | Although the Selection Committee is high-powered, the absence of a recognized Leader of the Opposition (LoP) for a period created a legal vacuum. The subsequent 2016 amendment (allowing the leader of the single largest opposition party to be a member) was an improvement, but the overall process still raises concerns about the selection criteria for “eminent jurists” and “persons of integrity,” leading to fears of political bias. |
| 6. Limited Jurisdiction on High-Profile Cases | The Lokpal’s authority over the Prime Minister is restricted, as it cannot inquire into allegations relating to international relations, security, public order, atomic energy, and space. Furthermore, the Judiciary is completely excluded from its jurisdiction, creating a significant loophole for accountability. |
| 7. Lack of Protection for Complainants | The Act’s provision for launching an inquiry against a complainant if the accused public servant is found innocent can deter people from filing genuine complaints due to the fear of harassment and retribution. The Whistleblower Protection Act itself lacks strong, concrete immunity. |
| 8. Perceived Extravagance | The institution has occasionally drawn public scrutiny for perceived unnecessary expenditure. In October 2025, the Lokpal floated a tender to procure seven BMW 3 Series luxury cars for its members, which drew public criticism as an extravagance for an anti-corruption body meant to uphold simplicity and integrity. |
Reforms
| Reform Area | Suggestion | Examples |
| Selection Process | Broaden the ‘Eminent Jurist’ selection by making the process more transparent and consultative. The Search Committee’s work should be public, and the Selection Committee must select from the recommended panel to minimize political bias. | Sweden’s Parliamentary Ombudsman is directly elected by the Riksdag (Parliament), ensuring cross-party consensus and strong legislative backing, rather than solely executive appointment. |
| Financial Independence | Declare the Lokpal’s budget as a ‘charged expenditure’ on the Consolidated Fund of India (like the Supreme Court or Comptroller and Auditor General). This prevents the Executive from manipulating funds, ensuring timely and adequate resources. | Constitutional bodies in India (e.g., CAG) have charged expenditure to guarantee their independence from the annual government vote. |
| Institutional Staffing | Establish the Inquiry and Prosecution Wings permanently with dedicated, independent, and high-quality staff, minimizing reliance on officers seconded from government departments (who may have conflicts of interest). | Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) maintains its own dedicated, highly trained operational, investigative, and prevention branches, ensuring functional self-sufficiency. |
| Jurisdictional Clarity | Remove subjective restrictions on investigating the Prime Minister for issues like “public order” or “security.” The Lokpal must be fully empowered to investigate corruption allegations at the highest levels, with in-camera proceedings for sensitive information. | South Africa’s Public Protector has a broad constitutional mandate to investigate all organs of state, with a focus on high-profile public accountability cases, setting a powerful precedent. |
| Whistleblower Protection | Amend the Lokpal Act to fully integrate strong, separate immunity for complainants/whistleblowers, eliminating the provision that allows inquiry against a complainant if the accused is found innocent. | The Whistleblower Protection Act needs to be strongly enforced in India, ensuring zero risk of retribution, a practice common in many OECD countries. |
| Disposal Rate | Shift focus from technical compliance to substantive justice. The Lokpal must develop clear, streamlined rules for preliminary investigation, reducing the number of cases dismissed on minor technicalities like incorrect complaint format. | Karnataka’s Lokayukta (India), during its effective phase, was noted for its proactive and focused investigations against high-ranking officials, leading to tangible results. |
Tell Google you want more of this.
Add Anantam IAS as a preferred sourceOne tap, and this site shows up more often in your own Top Stories, AI Overviews and AI Mode. Remove it any time.
