Lokpal and Lokayuktas in India: Role, Challenges, and Future of Anti-Corruption Framework

Lokpal and Lokayuktas in India: Navigating the Complexities of Anti-Corruption Governance

India's fight against corruption has been a long and arduous journey, marked by sustained public movements and legislative efforts. Central to this battle are the institutions of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas, designed as independent watchdogs to investigate and prosecute allegations of graft against public functionaries. While envisioned as powerful instruments for transparency and accountability, their journey has been fraught with challenges, raising critical questions about their impact and future trajectory. This comprehensive blog post delves into the foundational concepts, historical evolution, legal framework, operational challenges, perceived impact, and potential future directions of these crucial anti-corruption bodies.

Introduction: The Ombudsmanic Ideal in India

The concept of an ombudsman, a public official appointed to investigate complaints against maladministration, originated in Sweden in 1809. This institutional innovation aims to bridge the gap between citizens and the state, providing an accessible and impartial mechanism for grievance redressal. In India, the idea of an ombudsman gained traction in the early 1960s when the then Law Minister Ashok Kumar Sen first proposed the concept of a constitutional ombudsman in Parliament. The terms "Lokpal" (caretaker of people) and "Lokayukta" were coined by Dr. L. M. Singhvi in 1963, encapsulating the essence of a people's protector against corruption and maladministration.

The imperative for such institutions in India arose from the pervasive nature of corruption and the perceived limitations of existing anti-corruption agencies, often criticized for their lack of independence and accountability. The Supreme Court, for instance, famously described the CBI as a "caged parrot," highlighting the need for truly autonomous investigative bodies. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas were thus conceived as a vital step towards ensuring clean governance and reinforcing public trust in the administrative machinery.

Historical Background and Evolution: A Long Road to Enactment

The journey to establish the Lokpal and Lokayuktas has been remarkably protracted, spanning over five decades of parliamentary debates, commission recommendations, and public movements.

• Early Recommendations (1960s): The First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), chaired by Morarji Desai, formally recommended the establishment of two independent authorities – the Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in the states – to address citizens' grievances related to corruption.
• Repeated Legislative Attempts (1968-2011): The first Lokpal Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1968 but lapsed with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Over the subsequent decades, at least eight more attempts were made to pass the Bill, but all met with failure, reflecting a consistent lack of political will.
• Commission Reports (2002 & 2005): The Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002), headed by M.N. Venkatachaliah, and the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2005), chaired by Veerappa Moily, both strongly reiterated the need for establishing the Lokpal and Lokayuktas without delay.
• The Anna Hazare Movement (2011): A watershed moment arrived in 2011 with the "India Against Corruption" movement led by Anna Hazare. This widespread civil society agitation, demanding a strong Lokpal, galvanized public support and brought unprecedented pressure on the government. The movement significantly influenced the political landscape, eventually leading to the enactment of the landmark legislation.

This sustained pressure culminated in the passage of The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, by Parliament in December 2013. It received Presidential assent on January 1, 2014, and came into force on January 16, 2014.

Constitutional Provisions and the Act of 2013

It is crucial to understand that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas are statutory bodies, meaning they are created by an Act of Parliament, not directly by the Constitution. They do not possess constitutional status.

However, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, itself was passed under Article 252 of the Constitution of India. This article empowers Parliament to legislate for two or more states by their consent, and for the adoption of such legislation by any other state. This provision was utilized to ensure the establishment of Lokayuktas across states, although states retain the authority to decide the specific nature and scope of their respective Lokayukta Acts.

Key Features of The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013:

• Establishment: The Act provides for the establishment of a Lokpal for the Union (Centre) and Lokayuktas for the States.

• Composition of Lokpal:

  • A Chairperson, who is a former Chief Justice of India, a former Supreme Court Judge, or an eminent person with impeccable integrity and special knowledge and experience in anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, finance, law, and management.
  • A maximum of eight members, of whom 50% must be judicial members.
  • At least 50% of the total members must be from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Minorities, and women.
  • The Chairperson and members hold office for a term of 5 years or until they attain the age of 70 years.
  • The age of the Chairperson or a member must not be less than 45 years on the date of assuming office.

  Organogram: Structure of the Lokpal

  graph TD
      A[Lokpal Institution] --> B(Chairperson);
      A --> C(Members - Max 8);
      B -- Eligibility --> B1(Former CJI);
      B1 -- OR --> B2(Former SC Judge);
      B2 -- OR --> B3(Eminent Person);
      C -- Composition --> C1(50% Judicial Members);
      C1 -- And --> C2(50% from SC/ST/OBC/Minorities/Women);
      B,C -- Term --> D(5 years or till 70 years of age);
      B,C -- Minimum Age --> E(45 years);
  

• Selection Committee for Lokpal: The Chairperson and members of the Lokpal are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. This committee consists of:

  • The Prime Minister (Chairperson)
  • The Speaker of the Lok Sabha
  • The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha (or the leader of the single largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha in case there is no recognized Leader of Opposition, an amendment made in 2016)
  • The Chief Justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the CJI
  • One eminent jurist to be nominated by the President on the recommendation of the other four members of the selection committee.

• Jurisdiction of Lokpal: The Lokpal's jurisdiction is extensive and includes:

  • The Prime Minister, with certain safeguards (e.g., allegations related to international relations, security, public order, atomic energy, and space are excluded).
  • Union Ministers
  • Members of Parliament (except for anything said or vote given in Parliament)
  • Group A, B, C, and D officers and officials of the Central Government.
  • Chairpersons, members, officers, and directors of any board, corporation, society, trust, or autonomous body established by an Act of Parliament or wholly or partly funded by the Centre.
  • Any society or trust or body that receives foreign contributions above ₹10 lakh.

• Powers and Functions of Lokpal: The Lokpal is vested with significant investigative and prosecutorial powers:

  • Superintendence over Investigating Agencies: It has powers of superintendence and direction over the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE), including the CBI, for cases referred to it. The investigating officer cannot be transferred without Lokpal's prior approval.
  • Search and Seizure: Can authorize agencies to search for and seize documents and property relevant to an investigation.
  • Civil Court Powers: Its Inquiry Wing has powers akin to a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for preliminary inquiry.
  • Recommendation for Prosecution: Can approve the concerned investigating agency to initiate prosecution in special courts even before filing a charge sheet.
  • Asset Attachment/Confiscation: Has the authority to order the attachment and confiscation of assets acquired through corrupt means.
  • Directions for Preservation of Records: Can direct the preservation of records relevant to an investigation.
  • Special Courts: The Act mandates setting up special courts for speedy trials of cases referred by Lokpal, with clear timelines for inquiry (3 months, extendable), investigation (6 months, extendable), and trial (1 year, extendable).
  • Enhanced Punishment: Enhances the maximum punishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act from 7 to 10 years.

• Lokayuktas in States:

  • The Act requires states to establish Lokayukta institutions through state legislation within 365 days of the Act coming into effect.
  • However, many states had established Lokayuktas even before the 2013 Act, with Maharashtra being the first in 1971.
  • The structure, eligibility, term, and appointment method of Lokayuktas vary significantly from state to state.
  • Generally, the Governor appoints the Lokayukta after consulting the Chief Justice of the state High Court and the Leader of the Opposition in the State Legislative Assembly.
  • Their jurisdiction typically covers state government personnel, including ministers, MLAs, government officials, and local government representatives, though the extent of coverage (e.g., Chief Minister) varies by state.

Challenges in Implementation and Functioning

Despite the robust legal framework, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas have faced numerous challenges since their enactment, hindering their effectiveness and undermining public expectations.

1. Delayed Appointments: The most glaring challenge has been the significant delay in appointing the Lokpal and Lokayuktas. The Lokpal at the central level was not appointed until March 2019, several years after the Act came into force in 2014. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose was appointed as the first Lokpal Chairperson. Similar delays have plagued the establishment of Lokayuktas in many states; only 16 states had established Lokayuktas a year after the Act.
2. Lack of Constitutional Backing: As statutory bodies, Lokpal and Lokayuktas lack the constitutional protection and inherent authority that a constitutional body would possess. This makes them more susceptible to political influence and legislative amendments that could dilute their powers.
3. Limited Jurisdiction and Exclusions:
   • While the Prime Minister is under the Lokpal's purview, critical areas like international relations, security, atomic energy, and space are excluded.
   • The judiciary has been kept entirely outside the purview of the Lokpal. This is a significant lacuna, as judicial corruption remains a concern.
   • The Lokpal does not have jurisdiction over Ministers and MPs for anything said or vote given in Parliament, which is protected under parliamentary privileges.
4. Political Influence in Appointments: The composition of the selection committee, which includes political members, raises concerns about potential political influence in the appointment process. The absence of clear criteria for an "eminent jurist" further exacerbates this issue, allowing for discretionary appointments.
5. Lack of Independent Investigative Machinery and Reliance on CBI: The Lokpal largely relies on the CBI for investigations, even though it has superintendence powers. The CBI itself has often been criticized for lacking independence and being influenced by the government of the day ("caged parrot" syndrome). The lack of a separate, fully independent prosecution wing as envisaged in the Act is also a drawback.
6. No Suo Motu Powers: The Lokpal cannot initiate action on its own (suo motu); it can only proceed based on a formal complaint. This limits its proactive role in uncovering corruption.
7. Inadequate Whistleblower Protection: The Act has been criticized for failing to provide concrete immunity to whistleblowers. Provisions allowing for inquiry against complainants if the accused is found innocent may deter people from filing complaints, especially without robust protection.
8. Procedural Hurdles and Complaint Handling: Many complaints have reportedly been dismissed on technicalities rather than substantive investigations, or for not being in the prescribed format. There have been delays in formulating proper rules for complaint processing and asset disclosure.
9. Resource Constraints and Infrastructure: Lokpal and Lokayukta offices often face resource constraints, including inadequate staffing, infrastructure, and budgetary allocations, affecting their ability to handle a large number of complaints effectively.
10. Lack of Awareness: Many citizens remain unaware of the existence and functions of Lokpal and Lokayuktas, limiting the number of complaints filed and reducing their potential impact.
11. Poor Track Record and Low Prosecution Rates: A parliamentary panel in 2023 noted zero prosecutions under the Lokpal & Lokayuktas Act 2013, raising serious concerns about its operational effectiveness. Reports indicate a significant dip in complaints received by the Lokpal after an initial surge, and a high percentage of complaints disposed of without action.

Impact on Governance and Accountability

The impact of Lokpal and Lokayuktas on India's governance and administrative accountability has been a subject of considerable debate.

• Symbolic Importance: The very establishment of these institutions, particularly after a long public struggle, holds significant symbolic importance. It signifies a legislative commitment to combating corruption and addressing public demand for accountability.
• Deterrent Effect (Limited): The existence of these bodies is intended to act as a deterrent against corrupt practices among public servants. However, given the challenges in their operational effectiveness and low prosecution rates, the actual deterrent effect remains questionable.
• Transparency and Public Trust (Unrealized Potential): By bringing high-ranking officials under scrutiny, the Act aims to reinforce public trust. However, delayed appointments, procedural issues, and lack of tangible outcomes have eroded public confidence, leading to a perception that the institutions are "powerless" or "toothless."
• State-Level Variations: The effectiveness of Lokayuktas varies widely across states. While some states like Karnataka have had relatively active Lokayuktas in the past, others have seen their powers diluted (e.g., Kerala amending its Lok Ayukta Act to make its reports merely recommendatory) or face similar challenges as the Lokpal.
• Low Complaint Numbers: The declining number of complaints received by the Lokpal (e.g., 1,427 in 2019-20, dipping to 110 in 2020-21, and only 30 in the first half of 2021) is indicative of either a lack of public awareness, loss of faith in the institution, or the procedural difficulties involved in filing complaints. This does not necessarily mean a decline in corruption, as India's ranking in the Corruption Perception Index remains a concern.

Landmark Judgments and Judicial Intervention

The judiciary has played a crucial role in pushing for the implementation and upholding the independence of these bodies, especially in the context of Lokayuktas.

• Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India (2017): In this landmark case, the Supreme Court expressed hope that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas would "strengthen the existing legal and institutional mechanism" to ensure cleanliness in public life and reiterated the rhetoric of "zero tolerance against corruption." The Court's intervention was instrumental in prompting the government to finally initiate the appointment process for the Lokpal.
• C. Rangaswamaiah and others Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta and others (1998): The Supreme Court emphasized the "independence of Lokayukta and its effective functioning are the matters of utmost importance." This highlights the judiciary's consistent stance on safeguarding the autonomy of anti-corruption bodies.
• Institution of A.P. Lokayukta/Upalokayukta Vs. T. Ramasubba Reddy (1997): The Court held that "when the institution of Lokayukta is headed by high judicial dignitaries, such authorities should be armed with appropriate powers so that their orders and opinions do not become mere paper directions." This judgment underscores the need for substantive powers for these institutions to be effective.
• Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) Vs. Janekere C. Krishna and others (2013): This case delved into the history, object, and purpose of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and the consultation process for appointing the Lokayukta, emphasizing adherence to established procedures.
• Supreme Court Stay on Lokpal Jurisdiction over High Court Judges: In a recent development, the Supreme Court stayed a Lokpal order that sought to bring High Court judges under its jurisdiction, terming the Lokpal's interpretation "very disturbing." This indicates ongoing legal scrutiny and the judiciary's role in defining the precise boundaries of the Lokpal's authority, especially concerning judicial independence.

Comparison with Global Systems: Lessons from the Ombudsman Model

Comparing India's Lokpal and Lokayukta system with ombudsman institutions in other countries, particularly Sweden and the UK, offers valuable insights.

• Sweden (The Classic Ombudsman):

  • Independence and Authority: The Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman (JO) is highly independent and autonomous, investigating complaints against government agencies without undue executive influence. This fosters public trust in the impartiality of investigations.
  • Broad Mandate: The Swedish Ombudsman has a broad mandate, including inspecting public bodies and addressing systemic and organizational problems in public administration, beyond just individual complaints.
  • Whistleblower Protection: Sweden has strong legislation protecting whistleblowers, encouraging reporting of corruption without fear of retaliation.
  • Judiciary under Purview: Notably, in Sweden, the judiciary falls within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, unlike in India.

• United Kingdom (Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration):

  • The UK adopted the ombudsman system in 1967.
  • The UK has specialized ombudsman institutions for different sectors, such as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (for central government departments), Health Service Ombudsman, Local Government Ombudsman, etc.
  • These bodies operate independently and are accountable to the legislature.

Key Differences and Learning Points for India:

India can learn from the Swedish model by strengthening the independence and autonomy of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas, expanding their mandate to include systemic issues, and providing robust whistleblower protection. Bringing the judiciary under the Lokpal's purview, with appropriate safeguards for judicial independence, could also be considered for a truly comprehensive anti-corruption framework.

Future Directions and Necessary Reforms

To transform the Lokpal and Lokayuktas into truly effective instruments against corruption, a multi-pronged approach involving legislative, administrative, and attitudinal changes is essential.

1. Strengthening Independence and Autonomy:

   • Constitutional Status: While challenging, a long-term goal could be to consider providing constitutional backing to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas, which would grant them greater statutory protection and autonomy from political interference.
   • Independent Selection Committee: The selection committee should be made more independent and broad-based, perhaps by including civil society members or requiring a higher consensus for appointments. Clear, objective criteria for "eminent jurists" should be defined.
   • Financial and Administrative Independence: Ensure full financial, administrative, and legal independence, including their own independent investigative and prosecution wings, reducing reliance on agencies like the CBI.

2. Expanding Jurisdiction and Powers:

   • Include Judiciary (with safeguards): Initiate a carefully deliberated process to bring the higher judiciary under the Lokpal's purview, ensuring robust mechanisms to protect judicial independence while addressing concerns of corruption.
   • Prime Minister's Full Ambit: Review the exclusions for the Prime Minister's office to ensure comprehensive accountability, while balancing national security concerns.
   • Suo Motu Powers: Grant Lokpal and Lokayuktas suo motu powers to initiate investigations without waiting for a formal complaint, especially in cases of widely reported corruption or systemic issues.
   • Bureaucrats and NGOs: Explicitly bring all levels of bureaucrats and government-funded NGOs under the clear ambit of Lokayuktas and Lokpal, respectively.
   • Powers of Contempt: Grant them powers to initiate contempt proceedings to ensure compliance with their directions and recommendations.

3. Procedural Streamlining and Whistleblower Protection:

   • Simplify Complaint Procedures: Simplify the complaint filing process, ensuring that genuine complaints are not dismissed on technical grounds.
   • Robust Whistleblower Protection Act: Enact a stronger Whistleblower Protection Act with explicit and comprehensive immunity provisions, ensuring safety and confidentiality for those reporting corruption.
   • Time-bound Investigations: Strictly adhere to and enforce the prescribed timelines for preliminary inquiry, investigation, and trial, ensuring speedy disposal of cases.

4. Enhancing Effectiveness and Public Awareness:

   • Adequate Resources: Provide sufficient human resources, infrastructure, and budgetary allocations to enable efficient functioning and handle a large caseload.
   • Public Awareness Campaigns: Launch extensive public awareness campaigns to educate citizens about the existence, functions, and complaint mechanisms of Lokpal and Lokayuktas, encouraging greater public participation.
   • Regular Reporting and Transparency: Publish regular, detailed reports on complaints received, investigations initiated, and outcomes, enhancing transparency and accountability of the institutions themselves.

5. State-Level Harmonization and Strengthening:

   • Encourage states to enact and effectively implement strong Lokayukta laws, drawing lessons from successful models like Maharashtra (despite some recent dilution) and Karnataka.
   • Work towards greater uniformity in the powers, jurisdiction, and appointment processes of Lokayuktas across states to prevent arbitrary variations and ensure consistent anti-corruption efforts.

In conclusion, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas represent a crucial, albeit challenging, chapter in India's governance reforms. While the legislative framework is largely in place, their true potential as guardians of public integrity remains largely unrealized. Overcoming the existing hurdles through concerted political will, legislative reforms, and administrative strengthening is paramount to ensure that these institutions effectively fulfill their mandate of combating corruption and fostering a transparent and accountable governance system in India. The journey to a corruption-free India hinges significantly on the robust and independent functioning of these ombudsmanic bodies.

Interactive Q&A / Practice Exercises

To test your understanding of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas in India, attempt the following questions:

I. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. The concept of 'Ombudsman' originated in which country? a) United Kingdom b) India c) Sweden d) New Zealand

2. The terms 'Lokpal' and 'Lokayukta' were coined by: a) Morarji Desai b) Ashok Kumar Sen c) Anna Hazare d) Dr. L. M. Singhvi

3. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is a: a) Constitutional body b) Statutory body c) Executive order d) Quasi-judicial body with constitutional status

4. Which of the following is NOT part of the Selection Committee for the Lokpal Chairperson and Members? a) Prime Minister b) Speaker of Lok Sabha c) President of India d) Chief Justice of India

5. The Lokpal's jurisdiction includes the Prime Minister, but excludes allegations related to: a) Public order b) Atomic energy c) International relations d) All of the above

6. Which Indian state was the first to establish the institution of Lokayukta? a) Odisha b) Maharashtra c) Karnataka d) Uttar Pradesh

7. As per the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the Chairperson and Members of Lokpal hold office for a term of: a) 3 years or till the age of 65 years b) 5 years or till the age of 65 years c) 5 years or till the age of 70 years d) 6 years or till the age of 70 years

II. Scenario-Based Questions

1. Scenario: A senior Group 'A' officer of the Central Government is accused of misusing public funds for personal gain. An individual wants to file a complaint with the Lokpal.

   • Question a: Does the Lokpal have jurisdiction over this officer? Explain.
   • Question b: Can the Lokpal initiate an investigation into this matter on its own, based on media reports, without a formal complaint? Justify your answer.

2. Scenario: The state government of XYZ passes an ordinance that amends its existing Lokayukta Act, making the Lokayukta's findings and recommendations against ministers merely advisory, rather than binding.

   • Question a: Is this action by the state government permissible under the spirit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013?
   • Question b: What is the likely impact of such an amendment on the effectiveness and independence of the Lokayukta in that state?

III. Chronological Order

Arrange the following events in chronological order from earliest to latest:

1. Formation of the First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC).
2. Dr. L. M. Singhvi coins the terms 'Lokpal' and 'Lokayukta'.
3. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act comes into force.
4. Anna Hazare's "India Against Corruption" movement.
5. Maharashtra establishes the first Lokayukta.

IV. Diagram-Based Question

Refer to the "Organogram: Structure of the Lokpal" provided in the blog post.

• Question: Based on the diagram and the blog content, what are the two main categories of members in the Lokpal, and what specific demographic representation is mandated for the overall membership?

Answer Key and Explanations

I. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

1. c) Sweden

   • Explanation: The institution of ombudsman was inaugurated officially in Sweden in 1809.

2. d) Dr. L. M. Singhvi

   • Explanation: Dr. L. M. Singhvi coined the terms 'Lokpal' and 'Lokayukta' in 1963.

3. b) Statutory body

   • Explanation: The Lokpal and Lokayuktas are statutory bodies, established by an Act of Parliament (The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013), and do not have constitutional status.

4. c) President of India

   • Explanation: The President appoints the Lokpal Chairperson and Members, but is not a member of the Selection Committee. The Selection Committee comprises the Prime Minister, Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition/single largest opposition party leader, CJI/his nominee, and one eminent jurist.

5. d) All of the above

   • Explanation: The Lokpal's jurisdiction over the Prime Minister excludes allegations of corruption relating to international relations, security, public order, atomic energy, and space.

6. b) Maharashtra

   • Explanation: Maharashtra was the first state to introduce Lokayukta through The Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act in 1971.

7. c) 5 years or till the age of 70 years

   • Explanation: The Chairperson and Members of Lokpal hold office for a term of 5 years or until they attain the age of 70 years, whichever is earlier.

II. Scenario-Based Questions

1. Scenario: A senior Group 'A' officer of the Central Government is accused of misusing public funds for personal gain. An individual wants to file a complaint with the Lokpal.

   • Question a: Does the Lokpal have jurisdiction over this officer? Explain.
     • Answer: Yes, the Lokpal has jurisdiction over Group A, B, C, and D officers and officials of the Central Government. Misuse of public funds falls squarely within its mandate to investigate corruption allegations.
   • Question b: Can the Lokpal initiate an investigation into this matter on its own, based on media reports, without a formal complaint? Justify your answer.
     • Answer: No, the Lokpal generally cannot initiate an investigation suo motu (on its own initiative) based on media reports. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, requires a formal complaint to be filed for it to take action. This is considered one of the limitations of the Act.

2. Scenario: The state government of XYZ passes an ordinance that amends its existing Lokayukta Act, making the Lokayukta's findings and recommendations against ministers merely advisory, rather than binding.

   • Question a: Is this action by the state government permissible under the spirit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013?
     • Answer: While states have the authority to decide the nature and scope of their Lokayukta Act, such an amendment goes against the spirit of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The central Act was established to provide an independent mechanism with effective powers to combat corruption. Making recommendations merely advisory significantly dilutes the institution's authority and effective enforceability, as seen in the case of Kerala. The objective is for these institutions to be watchdogs with "appropriate powers so that their orders and opinions do not become mere paper directions."
   • Question b: What is the likely impact of such an amendment on the effectiveness and independence of the Lokayukta in that state?
     • Answer: Such an amendment would severely cripple the effectiveness and independence of the Lokayukta. If its findings are only advisory, public officials, including ministers, would face little consequence for adverse remarks, diminishing accountability. It reduces the Lokayukta to a "toothless tiger", undermining its deterrent effect and public trust. Citizens would be less inclined to file complaints if they perceive the institution as powerless to bring about concrete action.

III. Chronological Order

1. 1. Formation of the First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC). (1966)
2. 2. Dr. L. M. Singhvi coins the terms 'Lokpal' and 'Lokayukta'. (1963)
3. 5. Maharashtra establishes the first Lokayukta. (1971)
4. 4. Anna Hazare's "India Against Corruption" movement. (2011)
5. 3. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act comes into force. (January 16, 2014)

Correct Chronological Order: 2, 1, 5, 4, 3

IV. Diagram-Based Question

• Question: Based on the diagram and the blog content, what are the two main categories of members in the Lokpal, and what specific demographic representation is mandated for the overall membership?
  • Answer:
    • The two main categories of members in the Lokpal are Judicial Members and Non-Judicial Members.
    • A minimum of 50% of the total members must be from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Minorities, and women.

Recommended Books

You can explore these highly recommended resources for a deeper understanding.

• Indian Polity (English) by M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE 2025 | 7th edition (latest) | Civil Services Exam - Prelims, Mains and Interview | State PSCs exams/ PCS exams - by M Laxmikanth
• Oswaal NCERT One For All Book for UPSC & State PSCs | Indian Polity Classes 6-12 - by Oswaal Editorial Board
• Bharat Ki Rajvyavastha (भारत की राजव्यवस्था) - M Laxmikanth for UPSC CSE