The timing could not have been more significant. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill received the assent of the President on the 1st of January 2014 and was published in the Gazette of India as Act no. 1 of 2014 of the Indian Parliament. Truly deserves this historical perch having formed the dramatic background to all recent twists and turns in Indian politics and governance.

Inspired originally from the Ombudsman concept prevalent in Scandinavian countries, the idea of a Lokpal was introduced to the Indian Parliament in 1963. Dr. L.M. Singhvi’s M.P.’s speech (who coined the term Lokpal) in the LokSabha in 1965 perhaps best summed the context :

“…..an institution such as the Ombudsman must be brought into existence in our country. It is for the sake of securing justice and for cleansing the public life of the augean stable of corruption, real and imaginary, that such an institution must be brought into existence. It is in order to protect those in public life and those in administration itself that such an institution must be brought into existence. It is to provide an alternative to the cold and protracted formality of procedure in course of law that such an institution should be brought into existence. There is every conceivable reason today which impels to the consideration that such aninstitution isnow overdue in our country….”

What was “overdue” in 1965 came to fruition almost 48 years later! Many avatars of the Lokpal Bill viz. 1968, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2001 suffered from legislative inertia. It was the debilitating loss of the Delhi Assembly elections which spurred the Congress-led central government to pass the Bill at the tail end of 2013.

A few more administrative steps may be needed before this Act is implemented and a Lokpal formed at the Centre. The Government has notified the Act recently on the 16th of January and stated that the process of selecting and appointing the Lokpal has been commenced.

Any system designed to tackle and police corruption has to include the following elements: receiving and screening of complaints; preliminary investigation of complaints; further and final investigation; prosecution; adjudication and punishment and departmental action. The new Act seeks to divide and segregate these functions within the trinity of three organizations – The Lokpal, the CBI and the CVC. This triumvirate will henceforth comprise the anti corruption machinery in India. The CBI and the CVC have been made more robust and independent through amending provisions in the Lokpal Act itself including altering the appointment process of the CBI Director which now will include the PrimeMinister, the Leader of the Opposition and the CJI or his nominee. A separate Directorate of Prosecution would also be formed within the CBI. The Lokpal itself would have its own Inquiry Wing and a Prosecution Wing. For cases that are referred by the Lokpal to the CBI or the CVC, the Lokpal would have supervisory powers over the two organizations. The infamous provisions relating to prior sanctions viz. Section 6A of the DSPE Act (the CBI Act), section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 of the IPC have all been made inapplicable to the Lokpal who is empowered to direct prosecution of all persons under it’s jurisdiction.

The Lokpal’s jurisdiction includes the Prime Minister (albeit with some subject exceptions like security, atomic energy and international relations), Ministers, Members of Parliament, all officers of the Government (of Groups A, B, C or D) and of bodies which are wholly or partly financed by the Government. Even NGOs which receive foreign donations above Rs. 10lakhs annually would fall within it’s purview. The Lokpal is empowered to receive, inquire and get investigated complaints which relate to acts of corruption or of aiding and abetting it. “Corruption” continues to be as that defined in the Prevention of Corruption Act (POCA). The Lokpalgets powers to order provisional attachment of ill-gotten assets or their confiscation orrecommend suspension of a tainted public servant, pending further investigation.

Even as this augurs well for a clean up at the centre, the Lokpal Act leaves the position in the individual states open and ambiguous. Section 63 of the Act mandates that every State Legislature will establish a Lokayukta, if not so established, constituted or appointed, within a period of one year. The Parliament stopped short of proposing a Model Lokayukta Act for the States to emulate. Clearly regional sensitivities in a federal structure were kept in mind and the immense leverage state level parties enjoy in coalition politics.

Existing State Lokayukta Acts, however, suffer from serious disparity and deficiency. Till date only about 19 (out of 29 states) have a Lokayukta legislation, most of which are without real teeth or powers. Appointments to the Lokayukta office in some states like Gujarat have been mired in controversy while in others positions have been vacant forever. Uniform standards across the country are desirable while divergent standards would clearly be anomalous.

Model provisions for the Lokayukta in each State were suggested by the Parliamentary Standing Committee in 2011 but this was rejected later. Other models are also available. The deliberations of various existing Lokayuktas in the country resulted in a Model Draft Bill which was presentedto the Union Government. It should serve as a useful benchmark for States formulating their own legislations .

The AamAadmi Party is poised to deliver on its manifesto promise of having an effective Lokayukta in Delhi. And the Congress says that it shall enact the Lokayukta Act in all states that it is in power before end of February 2014. While we await their legislative proposals it is instructive to assess practical problems faced by existing or former Lokayuktas. The foremost being the ability of the government to ignore or reject recommendations of the Lokayukta. As with the former Delhi Lokayukta Retired Justice ManmohanSarin, many of his recommendations censuring the former Chief Minister Sheila Dixit or other powerful legislators, ministers or councillors were conveniently side-stepped by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. By one final stroke the detailed investigative process of the Lokayukta was rendered otiose. Ironically though, all those (except for one) who were censured by the Delhi Lokayukta, lost their seats in the recent Assembly Elections in Delhi including the former Chief Minister . What worked maybe was media reportage of the Lokayukta findings. The “naming and shaming” principle, free from statutory binds, is an effective route to influence public opinion.

The State Lokayukta’s bemoan lack of infrastructure, financial autonomy and the panoply of effective powers (including that of search and seizure, investigation and contempt) as serious inhibitors for successful functioning. A Lokayukta whose financial or administrative reins are in the hands of the ruling executive is a nonstarter and is prone to being choked by a self-serving government. The Supreme Court’s remark in Institution of A.P. Lokayukta v. T. Rama Subba Reddy that “the decisions of the Lokayukta therefore must be capable of being fully implemented. These authorities should not be reduced to mere paper tigers but must be armed with proper teeth and claws so that the effort put in by them are not wasted and their reports are not shelved by the disciplinary authorities concerned” are rightly censorious.

The new Lokpal Act leaves a few other issues untouched. Grievance redressal – a mechanism for complaints against maladministration (not corruption) has been left out, presumably for a separate enactment. The other is protection to whistleblowers. Globally we have witnessed a tendency to witch hunt whistleblowers and even while Indian Parliament has toyed with The Whistleblowers Bill 2010, it is yet to be finally debated and enacted.