Slow-Moving Lokpal Unable to Keep Up with India's Rampant Corruption

Twelve years have passed since the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act came into force on 18 December 2013, following nationwide protests demanding strong action against corruption. However, the Lokpal—once seen as a much-anticipated anti-corruption watchdog—has faced sharp criticism for failing to meet public expectations.

Back in December 2011, former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh delivered a speech on the bill in the Lok Sabha, calling it "one of those very special moments in the life of a nation." Two years later, the Lokpal Act became a reality after widespread demonstrations across India.

Since becoming functional in 2019, the Lokpal has received hundreds of complaints—including five against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2024–25 alone. Yet, out of the 620 final orders analyzed, the institution has ordered only 34 investigations and granted just 7 prosecution sanctions—mostly targeting low- and mid-level public officials such as bank employees^[1]. Investigations against high-profile politicians remain rare.

The main motive behind its establishment was to combat corruption involving powerful figures who were previously difficult to hold accountable. The Anna Andolan of 2011, or the Anti-Corruption Movement, led to the eventual passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013—but the outcome has fallen far short of the public anticipation that built up over years of protest.

So far, the only prominent politicians to face full-fledged CBI probes through Lokpal orders are TMC MP Mahua Moitra and JMM leader Hemant Soren—both based on complaints filed by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey. In contrast, complaints against top leaders like PM Modi, Rahul Gandhi, and SEBI’s former chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch were dismissed, with the Lokpal terming them as "election propaganda," citing either lack of evidence or political motivation.

While these dismissals were justified as protecting individuals from baseless or politically motivated claims, transparency advocates argue that such selective scrutiny undermines the Lokpal’s credibility. Bharatiya Liberal Party (BLP) President, Dr. Munish Kumar Raizada, has expressed concern over the watchdog’s failure to investigate big-ticket corruption and its opaque functioning.

A Legacy of Delays and Gaps

Despite being passed in 2013, the Lokpal was only constituted in 2019—delayed partly due to the government's claim that the absence of a Leader of Opposition (LoP) in the Lok Sabha prevented the formation of the selection committee. The Supreme Court, however, clarified in 2017 that the LoP’s absence should not be an obstacle.

The first chairperson, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, began operations from a makeshift office in a New Delhi hotel. Infrastructure, rules, and staff were built slowly. Yet, criticism began early—judicial member Justice D.B. Bhosale resigned just nine months into his term, citing lack of work. The Lokpal remained headless for almost two years after Ghose’s retirement, until Justice A.M. Khanwilkar was appointed in 2024—a move that drew skepticism due to his perceived pro-government rulings.

Issues in Appointments and Transparency

Right to Information (RTI) activist Anjali Bhardwaj also filed an RTI plea seeking records of the Lokpal selection committee’s meetings but was denied access, as the documents were marked “secret.” Her pending petition argues that appointments made without involving the LoP risk being influenced by the ruling party, undermining the Lokpal’s independence.

Under Section 4 of the Act, the Lokpal selection committee should include the PM, Speaker, LoP, the Chief Justice of India or a nominee, and an eminent jurist. Bhardwaj argues that since the LoP was not included, jurist nominations lacked independence, skewing the selection process in the government’s favour.

Another major concern is the absence of the Lokpal’s own inquiry and prosecution wings, as envisioned under the law. Until now, agencies like the CBI and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) have handled investigations. This not only slows proceedings but also raises questions about autonomy and efficiency. A parliamentary panel has recommended forming these wings within six months.

Another major concern is the absence of the Lokpal’s own inquiry and prosecution wings, as envisioned under the law. Until now, agencies like the CBI and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) have handled investigations. This not only slows proceedings but also raises questions about autonomy and efficiency. A parliamentary panel has recommended forming these wings within six months.

Justice Abhilasha Kumari, a former Lokpal member, stressed that relying solely on overburdened agencies like the CBI hinders quick, independent action.

The Lokpal has also been criticized for limited transparency. Its website lacks a search portal for tracking complaint statuses. Only final orders are typically uploaded—interim orders, including directions for investigation, are often kept confidential to avoid harming reputations. Even when the CBI acts on a Lokpal directive, the corresponding order is not always made public.

Since April 2023, the selective publication of interim orders has been allowed after redacting names. In June 2025, a committee was formed to recommend uploading notable procedural orders to increase transparency.

Despite being conceived to fight high-level corruption, the Lokpal’s few successful prosecutions mainly involve bank officials. Among five known prosecution sanctions, three target bank staff for bribery or loan misuse. Others involve a mint employee and officials from the ASI and a cultural conservation body. This trend contrasts sharply with the Lokpal’s original purpose of tackling “lions” of corruption—not just “mice.”

In early 2024, a Lokpal order claimed that sitting High Court judges fall under its purview. The Supreme Court stayed the order, calling it “disturbing,” and the central government agreed, emphasizing that constitutional authorities are beyond the Lokpal’s reach. This incident reignited debate over the institution’s jurisdictional limits.

Justice Santosh Hegde, former Karnataka Lokayukta, remains hopeful. Drawing from his experience, he believes that with time and public pressure, the Lokpal could become more effective. “No institution wants an efficient investigation agency against them. There is a public responsibility also,” Justice Santosh Hegde said.

He warned that no government willingly empowers institutions that might investigate them. The Lokpal’s journey—from a revolutionary idea to a struggling institution—has been marked by delays, limited reach, and questions of independence and transparency. Unless reformed, the Lokpal risks becoming a toothless body in India’s fight against corruption.

[Rh/Eth/VP]

Reference

1. Mandhani, Apoorva. "Five years on, Lokpal is now ‘god of small things’. It’s been catching ‘tiny fish’" The-Print, July 27, 2025. https://theprint.in/judiciary/five-years-on-lokpal-is-now-god-of-small-things-its-been-catching-tiny-fish/2681750/