Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The concept of an independent ombudsman to address corruption has been debated in India for decades. The enactment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, was a significant step towards establishing such an institution. However, the Indian political landscape is characterized by a pervasive lack of accountability, stemming from factors like criminalization of politics, opaque funding mechanisms, and weak enforcement of existing laws. This raises a critical question: can the Lokpal, even as an ideal institution, truly be effective in a system where minimal accountability is the dominant norm? This answer will explore the structural limitations of the Lokpal and assess its potential for meaningful impact.
Systemic Issues of Minimal Accountability
The Indian political system suffers from several inherent weaknesses that contribute to minimal accountability:
- Criminalization of Politics: According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, 23% of elected MPs had criminal cases pending against them. This undermines public trust and reduces accountability.
- Lack of Transparency in Political Funding: The opaque nature of political funding, particularly through electoral bonds (introduced in 2018), allows for quid pro quo arrangements and reduces accountability to the electorate.
- Weak Enforcement of Laws: Despite the existence of laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, enforcement is often lax, and conviction rates in corruption cases remain low.
- Political Interference in Bureaucracy: Frequent transfers and postings of civil servants based on political considerations compromise their independence and ability to act impartially.
Structural Limitations of the Lokpal
The Lokpal, despite its noble intentions, faces several structural limitations that hinder its effectiveness:
- Limited Jurisdiction: The Lokpal’s jurisdiction is primarily limited to investigating allegations against public servants and politicians in relation to specific offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It does not cover the private sector, which is often involved in corrupt practices.
- Investigative Powers: The Lokpal lacks independent investigative powers. It relies on existing agencies like the CBI for investigations, which can be susceptible to political influence.
- Appointment Process: The appointment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas is a complex process involving a selection committee comprising the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the Opposition, and eminent jurists. The absence of a Leader of Opposition in the past created hurdles.
- Lack of Adequate Infrastructure: The Lokpal has faced challenges in establishing adequate infrastructure and staffing, hindering its ability to handle a large volume of complaints.
- Dependence on State Governments for Lokayuktas: The effectiveness of the Lokpal is contingent on the establishment and functioning of Lokayuktas in all states, which has been uneven.
Potential for Effectiveness Despite Limitations
Despite these limitations, the Lokpal has the potential to be an effective institution, particularly if certain reforms are implemented:
- Strengthening Investigative Powers: Granting the Lokpal greater investigative powers, including the ability to directly question witnesses and collect evidence, would enhance its independence and effectiveness.
- Expanding Jurisdiction: Expanding the Lokpal’s jurisdiction to include the private sector and cases of corporate corruption would broaden its scope and impact.
- Ensuring Independence of CBI: Strengthening the independence of the CBI and insulating it from political interference is crucial for ensuring effective investigations.
- Promoting Transparency in Appointments: Making the appointment process of the Lokpal more transparent and objective would enhance its credibility.
- Raising Public Awareness: Increasing public awareness about the Lokpal’s functions and procedures would encourage citizens to report corruption.
Comparative Analysis: Ombudsman Institutions
A comparison with other successful ombudsman institutions globally can provide valuable insights:
| Country | Ombudsman Institution | Key Features |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | Justitieombudsmannen (JO) | Independent, investigates maladministration by public officials, strong powers to recommend corrective action. |
| Hong Kong | Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) | Independent, proactive investigations, strong enforcement powers, public education programs. |
| New Zealand | Office of the Ombudsman | Investigates complaints against government agencies, promotes good governance, accessible and impartial. |
These institutions demonstrate the importance of independence, strong investigative powers, and public engagement for effective anti-corruption efforts.
Conclusion
The Lokpal, while a significant step towards institutionalizing anti-corruption mechanisms in India, operates within a system plagued by minimal accountability. Its structural limitations, particularly its dependence on other agencies and limited jurisdiction, pose significant challenges to its effectiveness. However, with strategic reforms focused on strengthening its investigative powers, expanding its jurisdiction, and ensuring its independence, the Lokpal can evolve from an ideal institution to a meaningful force in combating corruption. Ultimately, the success of the Lokpal will depend not only on its own capabilities but also on broader systemic changes that promote transparency, accountability, and the rule of law.
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.