Challenges in Lokpal and Lokayukta

The Lokpal has endeavoured to bring about a much-needed change in India’s administrative structure in the battle against corruption, but there are still many gaps to be plugged in.
The office has only been formed in 19 states, and the bulk of them are defunct. Kerala, Karnataka, and Uttar Pradesh are the only states that have seen success. The Lokayuktas are limited even there by a lack of prosecution authority, basic facilities, and people.
Politicians in Karnataka have conveniently delayed the appointment of a new Lokayukta.

No Independent agency and also states have discretion on Appointments of Lokayukta:

Lokpal is not immune to political influence because the appointing committee is made up of members of political parties.
Lokpal’s appointment can be manipulated.
Because there is no criterion for determining who is an ‘eminent jurist’ or a ‘person of integrity,’ the appointment of Lokpal can be manipulated.
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 2013 did not grant whistleblowers special immunity. The stipulation that if the accused is proven to be innocent, an investigation will be launched against the complainant will only serve to dissuade individuals from registering complaints.
The most important flaw is Lokpal’s exclusion of the courts from its jurisdiction.
Why The Lokpal is not supported by the constitution, and there are no proper provisions for appeals against the Lokpal.
The specifics of the appointment of the Lokayukta have been left entirely up to the states.
To some extent, the CBI’s need for functional independence has been met by a change brought about by this Act in the selection process of its Director.
After seven years from the date on which the alleged offence is said to have occurred, a complaint against corruption cannot be filed.

Because the government claimed there was no Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, the chairperson and members of the Lokpal were not chosen for more than five years.
In April 2018, the Supreme Court declared that the government must appoint Lokpal and its members and that Lokpal and its members can be established even if no recognised Leader of the Opposition exists.
As a result, after much thought, the government chose Pinaki Chandra Ghosh as India’s first Lokpal in March 2019. As a result, the national government took nearly five years to appoint a Lokpal to deal with cases of corruption involving public officials.
There are no members of the Opposition on the Selection Committee.
The government invited the opposition as a “special invitee” rather than as the Leader of the Opposition Party or the Leader of the Single Largest Party when appointing the Chairperson & Members of Lokpal.
As an outcome of the lack of representation from the opposition, the selection committee remained very politically biassed towards a single political party.
Because of the unilateral selection, the Chairperson & Members of Lokpal may be more lenient on officials close to the ruling party in cases of corruption.
Other Lokpal members who are investigating charges of corruption involving highranking officials deemed close to the ruling majority are also put under pressure.

Despite the fact that the members of the Lokayukta and Lokpal have been in office for a year, the central government has yet to create norms for their proper operation, such as giving a complaint form.
The federal government has also failed to adopt laws governing public employees’ asset disclosure. Furthermore, no regulations governing the manner and procedure for conducting preliminary investigations and investigations have been enacted. Nonetheless, as of September 30, 2019, the government claims to have settled 1000 out of 1065 cases. This assertion by the government looks to be false and can be disputed in court.
As required by the Lokpal Act, the government has not established the Lokpal Inquiry & Corruption Wing or nominated its Directors.

The ombudsman’s institution should be reinforced in terms of functional autonomy and manpower availability to combat corruption.
Greater transparency, access to information, citizen and citizen group empowerment, as well as good leadership willing to be held accountable to the public, are all essential.
Why The appointment of a Lokpal is insufficient on its own. The administration should address the factors that led to the demand for a Lokpal. Increasing the size of the government by beefing up investigative agencies will expand the government’s size, but it will not necessarily improve governance. “Less government, more governance” is the government’s slogan, and it should be followed by the letter.
Lokpal and Lokayukta must also be financially, administratively, and legally distinct from those they are tasked with investigating and prosecuting.
Appointments to the Lokpal and Lokayukta must be made in a transparent way to avoid appointing the incorrect persons.
A range of decentralised institutions with suitable accountability mechanisms is required to avoid excessive concentrations of power in any one organisation or authority.