‘Lokpal hasn’t prosecuted a single person till date’

Inordinate delays in complaints with CVC, Parliamentary panel informed.

Since its inception in 2013, the anti-corruption ombudsman, Lokpal, has not prosecuted a single person for graft till date, which has drawn the ire of the Parliamentary panel on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice headed by BJP MP Sushil Modi.

“The performance of Lokpal seems to be far from satisfactory. The Committee is of the view that Lokpal was established in an effort to promote clean and responsive governance and, therefore, it should act as an enabler rather than an inhibitor,” the Parliamentary panel said in a report it tabled in Parliament earlier this month.

Between 2019-20 and 2022-23, the Lokpal received 8,703 complaints, out of which it has only “fully investigated” three complaints, while 36 others are in a stage of preliminary inquiry. This brings to conclusion that the Lokpal has not been able to investigate even 1% of the total complaints it has received over these years.

“Lokpal has submitted to the Committee that it has not prosecuted even a single person accused of graft till date,” the Parliamentary panel in its report to the Parliament said.

In 2022-2023, the Lokpal received 2760 complaints out of which the Lokpal said 2518 complaints were not received in prescribed format. The anti-graft body also informed the Parliamentary panel that out of these 8,703 complaints that it received between 2019 and 2023, it disposed of 5,900 complaints, since most of them were not received by the anti-corruption body in a prescribed format.

“The Committee inferred from the data provided by Lokpal that a large number of complaints are being disposed of on the ground that the complaint is not in the prescribed format.” The committee also recommended the Lokpal not to reject complaints merely on the basis of technical grounds and for reasons for non-formatted complaints and has rather asked the Lokpal to deal with complaints in corruption diligently and to strengthen the anti-corruption landscapes within the country.

The panel also found that the post of the Chairman for the top anti-graft body has been vacant for over 10 months, which is against the Act under which the body was constituted in 2013. It also noted that at least 50 posts remain vacant within the Lokpal till date.

Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose who chaired the Lokpal, completed his term in May 2022 and since then, Justice Pradip Kumar Mohanty, Judicial Member of the anti-graft body, has been the officiating Chairman of Lokpal. However, Section 5 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 says that the President shall take or cause to be taken all necessary steps for the appointment of a new Chairperson and members at least three months before the expiry of the term of the Chairperson or Member, as the case may be, in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Act.

“The Committee notes that Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose demitted the office of Chairman of Lokpal in May 2022 on attaining the age of 70 years and since then Justice Pradip Kumar Mohanty, 75, has been acting as the Chairperson of Lokpal. The Committee further notes that vacancies of two Judicial Members have also not been filled up since the year 2020. The Committee desires to be apprised about the steps taken by the government to fill up vacancies of Chairperson and Judicial Members of Lokpal,” the Parliamentary panel on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in its report to the Parliament said.

Another anti-corruption body, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), that deals with complaints against Group A employees of the Central government, also faced the ire of the Parliamentary panel for its unsatisfactory performance. The Parliamentary panel noted that there is an “inordinate delay” in the disposal of vigilance cases despite timelines being stipulated for each and every stage, right from the stage of receipt of complaint to finalization of disciplinary action.

The Committee also informed the Parliament that the CVC has informed them that the delay was mainly because the department or organisations from which the officer belongs does not sanction the prosecution order for the respective officer.

“Delay is mainly at the stage of further processing of vigilance cases after the Commission has tendered its First Stage Advice (FSA). The Commission further said that there is delay on the part of the respective departments/organizations in initiating departmental action and taking further steps to bring the cases to logical conclusion,” the CVC informed the Parliamentary panel.

However, the panel recommended to the CVC to create a Dashboard on its website reflecting the status of each case right from the stage of filing of complaint to its disposal to ensure transparency and real-time tracking of the complaints by all individuals.