India Explained
ImplementedINCManmohan Singh, coalition government

Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

The Act created a Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in States to inquire into corruption allegations against public servants, including the Prime Minister with safeguards. The first Lokpal took office in 2019.

Anti-corruption

Facts

  • The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on 22 December 2011 and passed by it on 27 December 2011; a Rajya Sabha Select Committee reported on 23 November 2012; the Rajya Sabha passed the Bill on 17 December 2013 [2]. The Lok Sabha accepted the Rajya Sabha amendments on 18 December 2013 [5].
  • The Act received assent on 1 January 2014 and came into force on 16 January 2014 [1].
  • The Lokpal has one chairperson and up to eight members, half of whom must be judicial members; at least 50% of members must come from SC, ST, OBC, minority or women categories [2].
  • Members are appointed by the President on the recommendation of a Selection Committee that includes the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or a nominated Supreme Court judge, and an eminent jurist [1][2].
  • The Prime Minister is within the Lokpal's jurisdiction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, subject to safeguards: inquiries are in camera, need approval by two-thirds of the full bench, and exclude matters of international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy and space [2].
  • Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose was sworn in as the first Lokpal chairperson on 23 March 2019, about five years after the Act came into force [3].
  • Lokpal's own status sheet for 2023-24 (1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024) lists 169 complaints disposed: 88 for lack of jurisdiction, 51 for lack of merit, 27 after a preliminary inquiry report and 3 with sanction for prosecution after an investigation report; 32 preliminary inquiries and 8 investigations were ordered in the year [4]. A secondary summary gives 166 complaints registered and 161 disposed for the same year, and the figures have not been reconciled.

Why

Reasons given by those who did it

  • The Act provides for a Lokpal for the Union and Lokayuktas for States to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries [1].
  • As described for the Bill as passed, Parliament built in institutional safeguards: a selection committee including the Leader of Opposition and the judiciary, a search committee of at least seven members, and 50% judicial membership [2].

Criticism of that reasoning

  • The Prime Minister's coverage is conditional (in camera, two-thirds approval and subject exclusions); PRS records these conditions without taking a position, and the sources reviewed name no critic of this point [2].

Benefits and concerns

Benefits (2)

  • A statutory anti-corruption body with jurisdiction over ministers and the Prime Minister (with safeguards) and its own inquiry and prosecution wings.Act and PRS bill summary describe the Inquiry Wing, Prosecution Wing and Special Courts [1][2].
  • An operational complaints process with published statistics.169 complaints disposed in 2023-24 including 3 sanctions for prosecution, per Lokpal's April 2024 status sheet [4].

Concerns (3)

  • Delay between enactment and operation.Act in force 16 January 2014; first chairperson sworn in 23 March 2019 [1][3].
  • Few cases reach investigation or prosecution sanction relative to complaints received.In 2023-24, 8 investigations were ordered and 3 prosecution sanctions recorded against 169 disposals; 88 were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction [4].
  • Discrepancies across published figures for complaints registered and disposed.Official table totals 169 disposals while a secondary summary gives 161; another source cited only 24 'substantive' disposals, not verified [4].

Evidence points

+1.5
points, mean of two scorers (scale −25 to +25)
+1 to +2
range between the two scorers' totals
Medium confidence
scorers agree within 1 point on every criterion
ReachHow many people did the action materially affect?
Mean +0.5A 0B +1
Outcome evidenceDo official or independent data show the intended result (or its opposite), compared with the era baseline and peers?
Mean −1.0A −1B −1
Cost and sustainabilityIs the fiscal cost proportionate, and is the effect durable?
Mean 0.0A 0B 0
Process and rightsWas it made with debate, consultation and legal soundness, and did it respect rights and court rulings?
Mean +3.5A +4B +3
DeliveryWas it implemented as announced, on time and at scale?
Mean −1.5A −1B −2

Positive meanNegative meanScorer AScorer B

Scorer A. Passed with broad cross-party selection safeguards, but the first Lokpal took office five years later and few complaints reach investigation or prosecution sanction.

Scorer B. Broad parliamentary process, but operation began five years after enactment and few complaints reach investigation or prosecution sanction.

Context used when scoring

Era baseline
Before 2014 India had no national ombudsman for corruption; the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and CBI/CVC mechanisms operated without a Lokpal.
Lag before outcomes show
5 years
Uncertainty
Medium confidence. Scorer totals are +2 and +1. How uncertainty is shown.

In depth

The Act followed several earlier unpassed Lokpal bills and a 2011 to 2013 parliamentary process. Its design combines a multi-member body with a selection committee that includes members from the government, the opposition and the judiciary.

Supporters point to the existence of an independent complaint channel with jurisdiction over high office. The official 2023-24 sheet shows 169 disposals, most dismissed on jurisdiction or merit, and a handful of prosecution sanctions. Whether that reflects the quality of complaints, the Act’s jurisdictional limits or institutional capacity is disputed and not settled by the data reviewed here.

PRS describes the Bill’s procedure as follows: the Inquiry Wing is to examine a complaint within 60 days of reference, an investigation is to be completed within six months, and trials before Special Courts are to be completed within two years. The Bill also removed the requirement of prior sanction to begin an investigation or prosecution, and it applies to States only where they consent to set up Lokayuktas [2]. The Rajya Sabha Select Committee, chaired by Satyavrat Chaturvedi, was constituted in May 2012 [2].

The cumulative complaint totals since 2019 and the state-level Lokayukta position were not retrieved for this entry.

Sources

  1. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (text)
    PRS Legislative Research (Gazette text)Primary

Last reviewed .Report an error orchallenge a score.

Related actions

  • ImplementedBJPGovernance & Federalism

    Abrogation of Article 370 and reorganisation of Jammu and Kashmir

    In August 2019 the President ended the special constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir and Parliament split the state into two Union Territories; the Supreme Court upheld the abrogation in 2023.

    Evidence points +1.5 (range +1.0 to +2.0)

  • ImplementedINCGovernance & Federalism

    Right to Information Act, 2005

    Parliament created an enforceable right to request records held by public authorities, with Central and State Information Commissions as appellate bodies. Backlogs and a 2019 amendment are debated.

    Evidence points +15.0 (range +15.0 to +15.0)

  • ImplementedINCGovernance & Federalism

    States Reorganisation Act 1956

    Parliament redrew India's state boundaries largely along linguistic lines in 1956, replacing the Part A to D classification with 14 states and 6 union territories.

    Evidence points +15.5 (range +15.0 to +16.0)