Source: The Hindu
Citing the top anti-corruption ombudsman’s interpretation, the Supreme Court on Thursday delayed a Lokpal ruling that would have placed High Court justices under its purview.
A special bench consisting of three senior Supreme Court judges and members of the collegium took Suo Motu’s cognizance of the January 27 Lokpal order and declared that it had an effect on the judiciary’s independence.
A complaint that an Additional High Court judge had swayed an Additional District judge and then another High Court judge to rule in favor of a private firm served as the basis for the Lokpal’s ruling, which was presided over by a former Supreme Court judge. During the judge’s earlier years as an advocate, the firm was allegedly a client of the judge.
The Lokpal determined that High Court judges were public servants and were under the purview of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013 in a 13-page ruling.
Since the High Courts in India were established by British Parliamentary Acts—the Indian High Courts Act of 1861 and the Government of India Act of 1935—as well as British Monarchy letters patent, the anti-corruption body assumed jurisdiction to inquire about or look into complaints regarding High Court judges. This is in contrast to the Supreme Court. The Lokpal reasoned that the High Courts actually existed before the Constitution.
The existence of the High Courts was only implicitly acknowledged by Article 214 of the Constitution, which stated that each state would have a High Court. The High Courts were not created by the constitution. The Supreme Court, however, was entirely a product of the constitution. The Supreme Court was formed by Article 124 of the Constitution.
The Lokpal has jurisdiction over “any person who is or has been a chairperson or member or officer or employee in any body or board or corporation or authority or company or society or trust or autonomous body established by an act of Parliament or wholly or partly financed by the Central government or controlled by it,” according to a clause in Section 14. The clause’s definition of “any person” would include a judge of a High Court that was founded by a parliamentary act.
Model Question:
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, was enacted to strengthen anti-corruption mechanisms in India. Critically analyze the effectiveness of the Lokpal in tackling corruption, and suggest measures for its better implementation. (250 words, 15 marks)
Model Answer:
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was enacted to establish an independent ombudsman to investigate corruption allegations against public officials. However, its implementation has faced challenges, raising concerns about its effectiveness.
Effectiveness of Lokpal in Tackling Corruption
Strengths:
- Independent Body: Lokpal has jurisdiction over high-level public officials, including the Prime Minister (with exceptions).
- Investigative Powers: Can direct CBI to investigate corruption cases.
- Whistleblower Protection: Encourages reporting of corruption without fear of retaliation.
Challenges:
- Delayed Appointment: Lokpal was operationalized only in 2019, six years after the Act was passed.
- Lack of Proactive Investigations: Limited suo motu powers weaken its effectiveness.
- Dependence on Government Agencies: Relies on CBI and vigilance bodies, affecting its autonomy.
- Exclusion of Judiciary & NGOs: Judiciary is outside its ambit, and coverage of NGOs creates ambiguity.
Way Forward
- Strengthen Independence: Provide Lokpal with its own investigative wing.
- Expand Jurisdiction: Include judiciary and corporate entities under its purview.
- Timely Appointments: Ensure transparent selection of chairperson and members.
- Enhance Public Awareness: Strengthen citizen participation in reporting corruption.
While the Lokpal is a crucial step in fighting corruption, its effectiveness depends on autonomy, accountability, and swift action. Strengthening its powers and removing operational bottlenecks will enhance its role as an anti-corruption institution.
