Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Corruption in India is a pervasive issue, deeply embedded within the socio-political fabric. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, was enacted with the intent of establishing an independent ombudsman to investigate allegations of corruption against public functionaries. However, the assertion that “One Lok Pal, howsoever strong it may be, cannot eliminate corruption in the politico-administrative system in India” holds significant weight. While the Lokpal represents a crucial step towards accountability, it operates within a complex system riddled with structural vulnerabilities that necessitate a multi-pronged approach to effectively combat corruption. This answer will analyze the limitations of the Lokpal in addressing the systemic roots of corruption in India.
Understanding the Lokpal and its Mandate
The Lokpal is an independent authority established under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Its primary function is to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain categories of public servants, including the Prime Minister (with exceptions), ministers, and Group A & B officers. The Lokpal has powers similar to those of a civil court, including the power to summon witnesses, examine documents, and recommend prosecution. However, its jurisdiction is limited to specific offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and it lacks the power to initiate suo moto investigations.
Systemic Factors Contributing to Corruption
Political Corruption
- Criminalization of Politics: According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, 23% of the elected MPs had criminal cases pending against them. This creates a culture of impunity and facilitates corrupt practices.
- Political Funding: Lack of transparency in political funding allows for quid pro quo arrangements and undue influence of vested interests. The Electoral Bond scheme, while intended to bring transparency, has been criticized for its potential to obscure the source of funds.
- Patronage and Nepotism: The practice of rewarding political loyalty through appointments and contracts undermines meritocracy and fosters corruption.
Administrative Corruption
- Bureaucratic Delays and Red Tape: Complex procedures and lengthy delays create opportunities for rent-seeking behavior by public officials.
- Lack of Accountability and Transparency: Weak enforcement of accountability mechanisms and limited access to information contribute to a culture of impunity. The Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, has been a positive step, but its implementation remains uneven.
- Low Salaries and Poor Service Conditions: Inadequate remuneration and challenging working conditions can make public servants susceptible to corruption.
Socio-Economic Factors
- Poverty and Inequality: Economic desperation can drive individuals to engage in corrupt practices.
- Lack of Ethical Values: A decline in ethical standards and a culture of tolerance towards corruption contribute to its perpetuation.
- Weak Civil Society: A less active and empowered civil society limits the ability to monitor and expose corruption.
Limitations of the Lokpal in Addressing Systemic Corruption
Despite its powers, the Lokpal faces several limitations:
- Limited Jurisdiction: The Lokpal’s jurisdiction is restricted to specific categories of public servants and offenses. It cannot address corruption in the private sector or investigate allegations against judges (which fall under the purview of in-house procedures).
- Dependence on Investigation Agencies: The Lokpal relies on existing investigation agencies like the CBI and state vigilance commissions for investigations. The effectiveness of the Lokpal is therefore contingent on the independence and efficiency of these agencies.
- Political Interference: The selection process of the Lokpal members involves political actors, raising concerns about potential bias and interference.
- Lack of Proactive Measures: The Lokpal is primarily a reactive body, responding to complaints rather than proactively preventing corruption.
- Implementation Challenges: The Lokpal has faced challenges in its operationalization, including a lack of adequate infrastructure and staffing.
Comparative Analysis: Other Anti-Corruption Bodies
| Body | Jurisdiction | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) | Central Government employees | Advisory role, limited investigative powers |
| State Vigilance Commissions | State Government employees | Varying degrees of independence and effectiveness |
| Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | All public servants | Requires strong enforcement mechanisms |
The experience of other countries also demonstrates that a single anti-corruption body is insufficient. Hong Kong’s Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), often cited as a success story, operates within a broader framework of strong rule of law, independent judiciary, and a robust civil society.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Lokpal is a significant institutional mechanism for combating corruption, it is not a panacea. The deeply entrenched systemic issues – political corruption, administrative inefficiencies, and socio-economic vulnerabilities – require a holistic and multi-faceted approach. This includes electoral reforms, greater transparency in political funding, strengthening of investigative agencies, promoting ethical values, and empowering civil society. A strong Lokpal is necessary, but it must be complemented by broader systemic reforms to effectively eliminate corruption in the Indian politico-administrative system.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.