Twelve years on, government sections weigh changes to Lokpal law for smoother functioning

Nearly a dozen years after the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act came into force, parts of the law may require tightening to address operational grey areas that have emerged during its implementation, senior government officials have indicated, according to a report in The Times of India (TOI).

Government sources told TOI that the intent and architecture of the law remain strong, but certain ambiguities and broad discretionary powers are affecting the Lokpal’s efficiency.

“The ambiguities may have been inadvertent and discretion relied upon in good faith while framing the law,” a government functionary was quoted as saying.

Concerns over functioning of benches

One of the most pointed concerns relates to how the Lokpal hears complaints.

While the Act envisages multiple benches to promote division of work, the current chairperson, Justice A M Khanwilkar, has opted to preside over all cases in a single bench comprising all members. Section 16(1)(a) of the Act says that “the jurisdiction of Lokpal may be exercised by benches thereof,” giving the chairperson discretion to constitute benches.

Previous chairperson Justice (Retd) Pinaki Chandra Ghose had formed multiple benches, but Khanwilkar’s approach is driven by a preference that all members collectively decide every complaint.

However, officials cited by TOI argued this may limit diverse judicial viewpoints and slow down the disposal of cases, which could otherwise be faster with multiple panels.

The report also notes that the chairperson has shown reluctance to send case files through the Lokpal secretary, adding to concerns around procedural deviations.

Debate over oversight and sanction powers

The Lokpal is empowered to take up corruption complaints against the prime minister, ministers, MPs and government officials, although it cannot initiate investigations on its own in a suo motu capacity.

Yet another issue under discussion is whether the Lokpal should retain the power to override the “competent authority” when deciding on prosecution sanction. “There is a view the competent authority is in a better position to take this call,” a government functionary told TOI.

Although the law allows the Lokpal to independently run investigation and prosecution wings, they have not been established yet. Instead, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) currently carry out these functions under Lokpal supervision. According to sources quoted in the report, both agencies already possess institutional capability, manpower and investigative experience, leading to questions over whether separate wings are necessary.

Scope of preliminary scrutiny

The Act gives the Lokpal leeway to examine officials at any stage, including shortly after a complaint is received—something that CBI and CVC typically do not do at the preliminary inquiry stage.

One officer cited in the report said the law attempts to balance integrity in public service with the need to allow officials to perform their duties without intimidation.

“The intent of the law is to strike a balance between probity and letting a public servant discharge their duties freely, without the sword of scrutiny hanging over them. Examination before PI risks loss of the respondent’s reputation,” the officer was quoted as saying.