The anti-corruption movement in India has a disappointing past and a staggering present. The plea for a Lokpal to fight corruption was often linked with the political and electoral interests of the day. Once these interests are fulfilled, no one bothers about the contamination in the system. In 2011, the agitation led by Anna Hazare showed a different brand of civil society movement that questioned the culture of kickbacks and bribery at all levels of power. The protestors demanded installation of a Lokpal to fight the hazards of corruption effectively. This struggle led by Hazare even changed the political equations in the country. The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act was passed by Parliament in 2013. The Act came into force from 16 January 2014. Nevertheless, the voice of the agitators was substantially reflected in the election result that followed. The Congress-led coalition was unseated and a new regime under Narendra Modi was put in place.
It took years, thereafter, to materialise the devices stipulated in the statute. The Supreme Court in Common Cause V. Union of India (2017) hoped that the proposed Lokpal and Lokayuktas would further “strengthen the existing legal and institutional mechanism” to ensure cleanliness in public life. The judgment reiterated the rhetoric of “zero tolerance against corruption”. The court appreciated the legislative gesture and hoped for a better and more efficient anti-corruption ombudsman in India. The court aptly quoted Justice Krishna Iyer from Special Courts Bill, 1978: “Law is what law does, not what law says and the moral gap between word and deed menaces people’s faith in life and law. The tragedy, then, is that democracy becomes a casualty.”
It was only in 2019 that the Centre could establish a Lokpal. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, a former judge of the Supreme Court, was appointed as the chairman of the body. Apart from the chairperson, the Lokpal is supposed to have eight members at the maximum. This institution must deal with allegations of corruption against persons in power—both political and administrative, as indicated in the enactment.
In the year 2019, the Lokpal received 1,427 complaints. In 2020–21, the number dipped to a mere 110. Reports say that during the first half of 2021, only 30 complaints were filed before the Lokpal. The reduced number of complaints does not indicate the decline of corruption. According to the Corruption Perception Index Report released by Transparency International this year, India ranks at 85 among the 180 countries surveyed. The steep reduction in the number of cases before the Lokpal only indicates the institutional failure and trust deficit. This fall was not accidental. The Centre’s role in it was very clear. One judicial member, Justice Dilip B Bhosale, a former chief justice of the Allahabad High Court, resigned from the Lokpal on the ground that the body was essentially dysfunctional. Budgetary allocations were drastically curtailed. There was delay even in forming the procedural rules to facilitate and process the complaints. Lokpal suffered due to lack of human resources and infrastructural facilities. It was a failure. An amount of about `60 crore spent for the body did not yield any substantial public good. During the last three years, no remarkable achievement could be credited to the Lokpal.
The Lokayuktas in the states followed suit. In Kerala, by way of a controversial ordinance, the Left government has recently amended Section 14 of the Lok Ayukta Act in the state. As a result, the report of the Lok Ayukta becomes merely recommendatory, whereas before the amendment, it could effectively unseat a public servant or a minister when there were adverse remarks. In West Bengal too, the Lokayukta has been reduced to a powerless body. The situation in almost all other states is similar.
India’s Lokpal-Lokayukta experiments and experiences prompt us to ask if this ombudsman system even suits us. We started to debate about Lokpal in Parliament since 1963. In a talk delivered in 1968 at the Patna University, K Hanumanthaiya rightly said that conceptually, the ombudsman as an establishment must be free from the executive, legislature and judiciary. Historically, this Scandinavian invention performed well in some small countries, while it failed in several other nations including India. Other bodies like the Human Rights Commissions and the Commissions for Women in India also have a poor track record.
We need to revamp the system perceptually, structurally and functionally. The tragedy of Lokpal indicates the agonies of a body that is excessively dependent upon all the three wings of the state for survival. In India, it suffered a setback as it was neglected by all of them.
For the Lokpal to become an independent body, we need to evolve a select committee that is equally independent. At present, the domination of the political wing of the state is writ large in the committee that selects the Lokpal and its members. The predominance now given to retired judges in the Lokpal also needs reconsideration. Lokpal should be a body of persons from different walks of life who have impeccable integrity and who are held in high esteem by the public. It is necessary to ensure that its recommendations have tremendous moral force and popular acceptability. The very objective of an anti-corruption ombudsman is this ethical check. But due to an unimaginative legislation followed by the executive’s apathy and judicial insensitivity, accompanied by people’s lapse of memory, the Lokpal-Lokayukta System in India has touched a new low.
Kaleeswaram Raj
Lawyer, Supreme Court of India
(kaleeswaramraj@gmail.com)
(Tweets @KaleeswaramR)