Relevance (UPSC GS-II: Polity & Governance – statutory bodies, anti-corruption architecture)

What is at stake? The Lokpal of India was created to investigate corruption in the Union government, including ministers and senior officials. A decade later, headlines and court interventions show a gap between lofty mandate and limited impact.

What has gone wrong recently?

• In October 2025, a tender to buy seven luxury BMW cars worth over four crore rupees triggered public backlash about spending priorities at an anti-corruption body. The optics undercut credibility and raised questions on financial prudence.
• In February–March 2025, the Supreme Court stayed a Full Bench Lokpal order that tried to bring sitting High Court judges under Lokpal’s ambit, calling it “very disturbing.” The Court’s pushback highlights jurisdictional overreach and legal uncertainty.
• Capacity gaps persist. Lokpal has been filling posts on deputation (an approval for 81 posts was publicised in July 2025), indicating continuing staffing shortages. Vacancies weaken inquiry speed, legal scrutiny and public outreach.
• At the state level, Lokayuktas face similar stresses: for instance, the Odisha Lokayukta went effectively non-functional in 2024–25 due to vacancies, with the High Court pulling up delays in appointments. This shows a systemic problem beyond the Union body.

The law at a glance: Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013

• Establishment: Creates the Lokpal for the Union and expects States to set up Lokayuktas.
• Composition: One Chairperson and up to eight Members; at least 50 percent judicial members; and not less than 50 percent of the Chairperson/Members from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities and women (diversity mandate).
• Selection committee: Prime Minister, Speaker of Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition/Leader of the largest Opposition party, Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court Judge, and one eminent jurist.
• Jurisdiction: Covers the Prime Minister (with safeguards), ministers, Members of Parliament, Group A–D officials and certain bodies receiving public funds. Judiciary is outside Lokpal; judges are dealt with under separate mechanisms.
• Powers: Preliminary inquiry, investigation referral, prosecution sanction processing, and monitoring of referred probes; access to relevant records; power to recommend disciplinary action.
• Asset disclosures: Public servants must file asset and liability statements to the competent authority (rules refined over time).
• Lokayuktas: States create their own laws and structures; performance varies widely.
  

Structural reasons for under-performance

• Design frictions and overlaps: The Lokpal relies on agencies like the Central Vigilance Commission for preliminary inquiry in many cases; divided mandates slow decisions.
• Evolving law and compliance burden: The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 criminalises bribe-giving and tightens corporate liability, but also raises thresholds and procedures that require careful, skilled investigation teams—again stressing capacity.
• Credibility and case-outcomes: High-profile dismissals (for example, complaints against a former securities regulator chief were closed as unsubstantiated) show due process, but also feed a public perception that few cases end in prosecution, especially when many complaints are rejected on technical grounds. Perception risk remains high.
  

What would ‘course correction’ look like?

1. Clarify jurisdiction to avoid clashes with the judiciary’s own in-house mechanisms; respect the Supreme Court’s guidance.
2. Professionalise capacity: fill sanctioned posts quickly; build specialised investigation, forensics, and prosecution units under clear standard operating procedures.
3. Transparent metrics: publish complaints statistics, pendency, and disposal reasons in plain language to rebuild trust; the Lokpal portal already hosts data—make it regular, comparable and audit-ready.
4. Co-ordination protocols: streamline hand-offs with the Central Vigilance Commission and vigilance units to cut duplication and delays.
5. Symbolic restraint: avoid spending that appears extravagant for a watchdog; credibility is the first currency.
   

Key terms

• Lokpal: Central anti-corruption ombudsman for Union public servants and ministers.
• Lokayukta: State-level anti-corruption ombudsman.
• Jurisdiction: The legal area and officials an institution can act upon.
• Preventive and punitive corruption law: Rules to deter, investigate, and punish bribery (for example, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, amended in 2018).
• Advisory vs investigative roles: Bodies like the Central Vigilance Commission may do preliminary inquiry before a full investigation or prosecution happens.=
• Public perception gap: When legal closures or dismissals, even if justified, look like inaction to citizens.
  

Exam hook

• Use-cases in answers: Cite BMW procurement row (credibility), Supreme Court stay on judges’ jurisdiction (legal limits), vacancy drives (capacity), and Odisha Lokayukta inaction (systemic gaps).
  

Key takeaways

• India built a strong-on-paper watchdog, but capacity, clarity and credibility are lagging.
• Courts are drawing lines on what Lokpal can and cannot do.
• Staffing and transparent metrics are immediate fixes; symbolic restraint matters for public trust.
  

UPSC Mains question

“Despite a strong mandate, the Lokpal’s impact remains modest. Discuss the role of jurisdictional clarity, capacity building, and public credibility in making anti-corruption ombudsmen effective.”

One-line wrap:
India’s anti-corruption fight needs a Lokpal that is clear in law, strong in staff, and careful in optics—only then will the promise match the performance.