New Delhi: “There are some very special moments in the life of a nation. This is one such moment,” former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said as he began his speech on the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill in the Lok Sabha in December 2011 in his usual, sombre style. Two years later, the Lokpal Act finally became a reality after widespread protests and demonstrations across India. However, while the country expected a strong ombudsman to unearth the big-ticket corruption scandals against national-level public functionaries, the Lokpal does not seem to have lived up to the hype built around it.
ThePrint analysed a total of 620 final orders—those either rejecting the complaints or directing departmental inquiries, or prosecution sanctions or other steps taken on a complaint after preliminary enquiry—available on the Lokpal website since January 2023.
The analysis found that out of them, the few orders directing CBI investigations or prosecution sanctions involved complaints against the small fish in the sea, from bank officials to public servants “embezzling” salaries of employees and faking travel bills.
The only prominent names who faced investigations are Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Mahua Moitra and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) chief Shibu Soren, both dragged to the Lokpal through complaints by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey.
On the other hand, the Lokpal rejected a complaint against Prime Minister Narendra Modi last year. The status of four additional complaints filed against the PM remains unclear because the yearly statistics reveal that the Lokpal got a total of five complaints against the PM from April 2024 to March 2025. The Lokpal website does not disclose the status of pending complaints to maintain confidentiality, uploading only selected orders.
In total, over the last 12 years since the law passed and the five years since it began functioning, the Lokpal has ordered investigations in only 34 cases and granted prosecution for sanction in just seven cases, according to statistics available on its website. The appointments to the ombudsman have also raised questions over non-transparency.
The performance of the Lokpal has, so far, fallen short of the vision and fervour with which so many had advocated for the apex anti-corruption body.
“It was a quirk of circumstances in 2010-11 that led to the establishment of this institution,” Congress MP Manish Tewari told ThePrint. He points out that under the Indian constitutional scheme, there is a clear separation of powers between the executive, the judiciary, and the legislative and that the Constitution does not contemplate an institution such as the Lokpal.
“It has been 12 years since then, and perhaps the time has come to revisit, review and evaluate the efficacy and constitutional propriety of the whole concept itself,” Tewari asserted.
Right to Information (RTI) activist Anjali Bhardwaj has also had doubts over the functioning of the Lokpal. “There is a big question today as to why the Lokpal exists in the first place. And what is it that the Lokpal is doing?”
“Also, there is very, very little transparency in the way the Lokpal is functioning—the complaints coming to the Lokpal, how they get dealt with and what is finally decided—all of this does not have adequate transparency,” Bhardwaj added.
Responding to ThePrint, the Lokpal office said the view formed on the basis of ThePrint’s research “may not be entirely accurate”, asserting that over the years, the Lokpal has regularly received and taken up complaints “against public functionaries at high levels, including Members of Parliament and senior officers (sic)”.
“Although there had been a lack of awareness among the public in initial years, it has been observed that the complaints against high functionaries viz. CEOs/CMDs of Public Sector Undertakings, senior-level officials of the Central Government, and sitting/former Members of Parliament, including Ministers, are received in the last one year (sic),” it said in an email response.
As for allegations of non-transparency, it has said that the Lokpal operates in the “most transparent manner” while dealing with complaints received by it, and the action taken is uploaded on the website of Lokpal of India.
“The Lokpal has an obligation to protect the identity of the complainant, or the public servant who [the complainant] complained against, till the conclusion of inquiry or investigation,” it said.
Highlighting the process that it undertakes to deal with complaints, it has said, “Even after a complaint is taken up by Lokpal, all subsequent submissions/applications of the complainant are considered by the Bench during the pendency of the case and relevant orders passed by the bench are communicated to the parties concerned. Moreover, while the public servant is granted an opportunity of being heard as per the provisions of the Act of 2013, the complainant is also accorded an opportunity to appear and present his case to maintain the spirit of fairness and transparency (sic).”
Also Read: A whistleblower moved Lokpal against SAIL’s dealings. After CBI FIR & suspensions, came the boot
The mice
When Parliament passed the Lokpal and Lokayuktas law in 2013, the two initial drivers of the bill—Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal—parted ways and began to exchange barbs through media interviews against each other. Kejriwal claimed that the bill would not be able to send even a mouse to jail. Hazare, on the other hand, was quoted as saying, “You are talking about [a] mouse. I feel the bill has provisions to trap even a lion.”
Twelve years later, a chunk of the mice trapped so far by the law seem to be banking officials.
For context, the 2013 law empowers the Lokpal to order a full investigation against public servants accused of corruption or departmental proceedings against them following the conduct of a preliminary inquiry.
Under the Act, Section 20 empowers the Lokpal to grant sanctions to prosecute public servants—a power that earlier lay with the government or the competent authority. That means, after examining the investigation report, the Lokpal can grant the investigating agency the sanction to file a charge sheet in a related court. Then, the trial can begin.
Among the 620 orders available on the website, ThePrint found five cases in which the Lokpal granted prosecution sanction, with three of these orders involving bank officials.
One of the cases involved the branch manager of a State Bank of India (SBI) branch in Uttar Pradesh. The allegation against him was that he demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs 4 lakh for processing a loan. The Lokpal granted sanction for prosecution against not only the branch manager but also the complainant himself for allegedly giving the bribe.
The order came out on 21 February this year.
In another such order passed in December last year, the Lokpal granted the sanction to prosecute four officials of UCO Bank in Bhopal and Balaghat over allegations of grants of loans to undeserving entities.
In a third order passed in October 2024, the Lokpal granted sanction for the prosecution of three officials with the Bank of India, Coimbatore branch, and a proprietor of a company over allegations of a criminal conspiracy for the delivery of pecuniary benefits in the form of cash credit limit of Rs 7 crore to the company.
The fourth prosecution sanction was granted in August 2024 against a senior office assistant at the India Government Mint, Noida, for “embezzlement” in disbursal of salaries to the employees, causing a “wrongful gain” of Rs 53,061 to herself.
The fifth sanction for prosecution was against current and former officials of the National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) over their alleged involvement in irregularities and violations of prescribed procedures and guidelines during the tendering and awarding of a project to a construction company as well as during its execution stage.
Speaking to ThePrint, Justice Abhilasha Kumari, an ex-judicial member of Lokpal, accepted that “banks did form a major chunk of the complaints”. She, however, also pointed to other complaints involving public sector undertakings (PSUs), such as SAIL, to the Lokpal.
The Lokpal, Bhardwaj explained, was envisioned as an independent and empowered anti-corruption body that would investigate and prosecute cases of big-ticket corruption.
The idea was that other agencies could tackle petty corruption cases lodged against lower-level officials. “But the real problem was when very high-ranking public functionaries, like ministers, PM, and very senior officials, were involved, the accusation against organisations such as CBI was that they remained caged, and therefore, to look into those big-ticket cases of corruption involving high-level functionaries came the demand for a Lokpal,” she asserted.
The lions
Among the 620 orders made public by the Lokpal, Moitra and Soren seem to be the only prominent names against whom the Lokpal ordered a full-fledged investigation.
Moitra has been both a complainant and a respondent before the Lokpal. In 2023, Moitra faced a complaint against her in the Lokpal by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey. The complaint said Supreme Court advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai wrote a letter to Dubey, making serious allegations against Moitra.
Moitra allegedly shared her Lok Sabha login credentials, including her user ID and password, with Dubai-based businessman Darshan Hiranandani, and he used the credentials to post questions to Parliament in her name while she was abroad. The complaint alleged that Hiranandani posted questions of his own choice that furthered his private agenda of profit and business rivalry.
In a 19 March 2024 order, a three-judge bench of the Lokpal said that it felt a “deeper probe is required to establish the truth”, asserting that the same was “vital in view of the position and status” held by Moitra. It then directed a CBI investigation into the allegations, after which the CBI registered an FIR against her.
In September 2024, Moitra lodged a complaint with the Lokpal against Madhabi Puri Buch, the former chairperson of the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), over allegations published in the US-based Hindenburg Research report against her. The Lokpal rejected the complaint in May.
My LokPal complaint against Ms. Puri-Buch been filed electronically & in physical form. LokPal must within 30 days refer it to CBI/ED for a preliminary investigation and then a full FIR enquiry. Every single entity involved needs to be summoned & every link investigated.… pic.twitter.com/5aZ4f2se9n
— Mahua Moitra (@MahuaMoitra) September 13, 2024
As for Soren, the complaint against him was also filed by Dubey, alleging that he indulged in rampant corruption and amassed wealth, assets, and properties—disproportionate to his known and declared sources of income—by adopting unscrupulous and corrupt means, in his name and the names of his family members, friends, associates, and various companies.
In a 4 March 2024 order, the Lokpal then ordered the CBI to investigate two such properties acquired in the name of his party, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM). However, on an appeal challenging the order by JMM, the Delhi High Court directed the Lokpal not to take any steps against the party till the next date of hearing in May 2024. This interim protection remains in place, still.
In comparison, the other cases in which the Lokpal ordered a CBI investigation include a case involving officials of the Steel Authority of India (SAIL) over irregularities in commercial dealings of the PSU in November 2022.
Another such order for an FIR was against officials of the West Central Railway for alleged tampering with OMR (Optical Mark Recognition) sheets, used for departmental promotion exams, in exchange for bribes.
In January last year, the Lokpal directed the CBI to probe a case involving an assistant director at Doordarshan Kendra for allegedly submitting fake stay and transport bills related to official tours.
Also Read: Centre disputes Lokpal order for probe against HC judge, says high courts are constitutional offices
‘Lok (Kalyan Marg) Pal?’
It is not as if the Lokpal does not get complaints against big names at all.
Last year brought three complaints against SEBI ex-chairperson Madhabi Puri Buch after a US-based Hindenburg Research published a report. The report, among other things, alleged that the SEBI chief and her husband invested substantial amounts in a fund linked to investments in the Adani Group of companies at the time it was under scrutiny before the SEBI for stock price manipulations.
The Lokpal rejected the complaint, asserting it arose “more on presumptions and assumptions and not supported by any verifiable material” and also did not include the ingredients for an offence of corruption.
Last year, the Lokpal also rejected a complaint against PM Modi and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The complainant sought a probe into a Modi speech during an election campaign in May 2024, questioning why Rahul Gandhi allegedly received black money from top Indian industrialists, including Mukesh Ambani and Gautam Adani.
Rejecting the complaint, the Lokpal said that the speech “borders on surmising and conjecturing; and is purely an election propaganda for cornering the opponent by posing a questionnaire to him based on assumed or so-to-say fictional facts”.
Following the order, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh posted on X, “Meanwhile, the Lokpal has certainly proved to be a Lok (Kalyan Marg) Pal?”
Who will hold the self-anointed non-biological PM accountable for the web of deceit he weaves?
We had demanded a ED and CBI investigstion of the tempo claim made by Mr. Modi on 8th May, 2024. That demand still stands. Meanwhile the Lokpal has certainly proved to be a Lok (Kalyan…
— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) July 19, 2024
ThePrint found orders on complaints involving a sitting additional judge of a high court, former Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, a “high official” of the Lokpal, two Union Cabinet Ministers, and two leaders of a political party. However, many complaints were frivolous or barred by limitations or did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Lokpal.
Former Supreme Court judge and former Karnataka Lokayukta Justice N. Santosh Hegde highlighted a lack of awareness about the institution. Initially, he told ThePrint, the Karnataka Lokayukta used to get very minor matters because people did not know how the institution would react. “Therefore, it is possible that serious matters are not coming up for consideration before the Lokpal. It will take some time till they start pouring.”
The ‘missing’ orders
The Lokpal website, unlike other high courts or the Supreme Court, does not have a portal designed to enable a case number search so the public can check the status of any complaint. For instance, in October and December last year, the Lokpal received three complaints against the highest functionary, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, according to the data available on its website.
It is unclear what the contents of those complaints were and whether the Lokpal passed any order on them.
Speaking to ThePrint, Justice Abhilasha Kumari explained it was during her tenure that the commission decided to place only its “final orders” on the website—ones disposing of a complaint, or ordering initiation of departmental proceedings, or directing closure of proceedings, or granting sanction for prosecution. “They took a decision that only the final order, not the interim order, could be posted because once publicised, the public servant may suffer if his name is circulated all over by people with vested interests. So, the Lokpal has been treading very cautiously and in a very low-key manner,” Justice Kumari added.
The latest 5 June Lokpal circular also laid down the procedure for dealing with complaints received, and the uploading of orders on its website.
This circular says the office shall upload the “final orders” disposing of a registered complaint as soon as possible. It defines final orders to include those that finally reject complaints at the outset, direct initiation of departmental proceedings, grant sanction to file a chargesheet or a closure report, or direct the closure of proceedings. The orders “not to be uploaded on the official website” shall have the heading “not to be uploaded”, and the Court Master shall ensure such orders are not uploaded to maintain confidentiality.
The orders that direct a full-fledged investigation after a preliminary inquiry are not part of the specifications above, but some orders that direct such an inquiry are among the 620 orders available on the website, whereas others are not.
For instance, orders directing CBI investigations in the cases of Moitra and Soren are on the website, but similar orders against a few other public servants are not.
ThePrint traced CBI FIRs mentioning Lokpal orders and directives for filing cases. However, such orders are not directly available on the website. For instance, an FIR against a sub-registrar in charge of the revenue department under the Delhi government and another over allegations of acceptance of bribes for overlooking stamp duty and flouting registration laws in registering certain documents. Another such FIR pertains to an official of CONCOR Ltd and another Nagpur-based company allegedly conducting illegal excavations at the CONCOR premises for material worth over Rs 1.6 crore.
For other such FIRs against officials of Engineering Projects (India) Ltd, a former defence estate officer of Delhi Cantt, an ex-secretary at the Department for Promotion of Industry & Internal Trade, and officials of the Bank of India, the corresponding Lokpal order remains unpublished.
The Lokpal office has told ThePrint that guidelines on uploading of orders have been in vogue since April 2023, to “maintain confidentiality and integrity of the processes, including mandate to preserve the identity of the complainant and the named public servant”.
It said that ordinarily, the final orders disposing of the complaint are uploaded on the website of Lokpal, whereas the interim orders are only sent to the agency concerned, whose role it is to take action.
It has further said that interim orders are uploaded on the website of Lokpal of India, after redacting the names of all individuals and entities, according to the direction of the Bench of Lokpal “in rare cases, on a case to case basis”.
“Further, such interim orders which clarify procedural issues about the processes of inquiry/investigation are also now being uploaded on the website, for the information of stake-holders and duty-holders and also a step forward towards transparency. This is needed to spread awareness amongst the public and duty-holders regarding the processes and procedures followed by the Lokpal,” it said.
It added that through a 3 June order passed by the chairperson, a committee of members has been constituted to recommend the uploading of orders, passed from time to time, explicating the procedural matters in handling of complaints before the Lokpal as “notable orders” on the official website.
Also Read: Complaint not in right format? No problem, Lokpal will scrutinise it to spot genuine grievances
A ‘non-transparent’ watchdog?
Appointments to the watchdog are also currently under scrutiny.
In 2018, Bhardwaj filed an RTI application seeking, among other things, a copy of the minutes of meetings or proceedings held by the Lokpal Selection Commission. But she was denied the information, based on the ground that “authorship of such documents, which include three to five high-level dignitaries, does not vest in the Department of Personnel & Training, and the same [documents] have been shared as secret documents”.
Independence of Lokpal completely compromised. Selection committee had preponderance of govt representatives since Leader of opposition has not been recognised. This coupled with opaqueness in selection process erodes public trust & defeats the purpose for which Lokpal was set up https://t.co/uRYl2qN4cw
— Anjali Bhardwaj (@AnjaliB_) February 29, 2024
She currently has a petition challenging the denial of information pending in the Delhi High Court. Bhardwaj asserted that for a Lokpal to remain independent, the executive or the ruling party must not control appointments to the body.
For this purpose, Section 4 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 speaks of a selection committee including the Prime Minister as chairman and four other members, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India, or a judge of the Supreme Court nominated by him, one eminent jurist as recommended by the chair and other members is to be nominated by the President.
This selection committee has to constitute a search committee consisting of at least seven “persons of standing and having special knowledge and expertise in the matters relating to anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, policy-making, finance, including insurance and banking, law and management, or in any other matter”.
Bhardwaj explained that the appointments to the Lokpal have so far been without taking the LoP in the loop. That, she said, meant that the nomination of the eminent jurist to the selection panel was also “by a body which had a preponderance of the government”.
“Effectively, entire independence has been subverted. And what we have seen is that repeatedly, there have been charges that people appointed are those who are known to be either close to the ruling dispensation and/or have worked in a manner that was conducive to the ruling dispensation,” Bhardwaj told ThePrint.
The petition, seen by ThePrint, asserts that the very purpose of the Lokpal Act is to enhance accountability in the functioning of public offices, “therefore, if information related to the selection of the Lokpal chairperson and members itself is withheld as secret information, then the same is antithetic to the letter and spirit of the Lokpal Act as well as RTI Act”.
Open questions, limited resources
There also remain gaps in the implementation of the law, as well as questions over its jurisdiction.
In March, a parliamentary panel recommended urgent steps to constitute two key divisions, the inquiry and prosecution wings of the Lokpal, within six months. Earlier last month, the Lokpal also sought applications from officials with experience in working with the Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate, Central Armed Police Forces, and Narcotics Control Bureau, among others, to join its inquiry wing on deputation.
Chapters III and IV of the 2013 Act envisage an independent inquiry wing and a prosecution wing. However, pending the constitution of the wings, agencies such as the Central Vigilance Commission and the CBI conduct functions related to preliminary inquiries and investigations under the Act.
It was only last month that the Lokpal constituted a prosecution wing to prosecute corrupt public servants.
“It does make a difference,” Justice Abhilasha Kumari said, explaining, “else, we only have a choice of CBI to give the investigation to. If you have your ‘own’ prosecution wing, it can be done faster. CBI is, of course, overburdened.”
The ombudsman also found itself at the centre of a controversy earlier this year. In a January order, a full bench of the Lokpal, led by former Supreme Court judge Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, ruled that sitting judges of high courts established by an Act of Parliament are within the purview of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act as “public servants”.
The orders were passed on a complaint alleging that an additional judge of a high court influenced an additional district judge and another high court judge to favour a private company in a suit filed against the complainant. This ruling was controversial, and the Supreme Court immediately sprang into action, taking suo motu cognisance of the Lokpal order. A bench of Justices Bhushan R. Gavai, Surya Kant, and Abhay S. Oka, calling the interpretation of the Lokpal “very disturbing”, stayed the order then.
The central government supported this view, saying that high courts are Constitutional offices, and high court judges hold a Constitutional office, and are, therefore, not subject to the jurisdiction of the Lokpal.
A five-star hotel
The Lokpal was off to a slow start, with the first chairperson of the ombudsman appointed only in 2019—Supreme Court former judge and National Human Rights Commission then-member Pinaki Chandra Ghose.
The government attributed the delay to the absence of a LoP in the Lok Sabha, supposed to be a part of the selection committee. But the Supreme Court in April 2017 observed that the mere absence of the LoP can not delay the Lokpal appointment process. The apex court’s repeated prodding and a firm deadline set the ball rolling.
Justice Abhilasha Kumari recalled how the institution began without an office or infrastructure, working out of “half a corridor” of The Ashok Hotel in New Delhi.
“People used to write that Lokpal is functioning from a five-star hotel. But the reality was very different … We hired vehicles and drivers initially from travel companies and functioned with minimal staff,” she recalled. “We were the first Lokpal body and built the institution brick by brick, framed rules and regulations and established a working procedure. All through the Covid epidemic, the Lokpal remained functional, though we tragically lost a judicial member, Justice Ajay Tripathi,” Justice Kumari told ThePrint.
The Lokpal’s criticism began early on, with judicial member Justice D.B. Bhosale resigning only nine months after his appointment. Before his resignation, the former chief justice of the Allahabad High Court had written letters to Justice Ghose, lamenting the lack of official work and the pace of work at the institution.
In the aftermath of Justice Ghose’s retirement in May 2022, the appointment of the next Lokpal took another two years, with former Supreme Court judge Justice A.M. Khanwilkar assuming the charge in February 2024. During his tenure as a Supreme Court judge, Justice Khanwilkar faced significant criticism for delivering a string of judgments, which, according to critics, align mostly with the stance of the government of the day.
Under the law, the Lokpal is supposed to have a chairperson and eight members, out of whom four are judicial members. Currently, the Lokpal has a chair and six members, including three judicial members.
‘The fear of God’
The overall performance of the Lokpal over the last five years is pushing critics to raise questions about the efficiency of the ombudsman.
“If one looks at the way the Lokpal has been conducting itself, what is very clear is that all the big corruption scams where one would have imagined the Lokpal would immediately take action, none of those, we see, have been taken up by the Lokpal,” Bhardwaj asserted.
For Justice Hegde, his experience with the Karnataka Lokayukta gives him hope for the future of India’s Lokpal.
He told ThePrint that it was only over 15 years after the Karnataka Lokayukta was set up in 1984, “when Justice N. Venkatachelaiah became the Lokayukta in the year 2000, that many people in Karnataka got to know about the institution”.
Justice Venkatachala is often credited with the rejuvenation of the state ombudsman, “putting the fear of God in the Karnataka administration,” having taken action against several high functionaries of the government in the decade that followed.
Justice Hegde pointed out that the Administrative Reforms Commission had recommended the set-up of independent authorities to probe complaints against public functionaries.
“It got implemented decades later because no government wanted any investigating body which would be efficient against them. To satisfy the public demand, they created an institution without any infrastructure,” Justice Hegde told ThePrint.
He, therefore, emphasised that there should be public pressure to build the Lokpal’s credibility. “No institution wants an efficient investigation agency against them. There is a public responsibility also.”
This article has been updated with the responses from the Lokpal office.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: 3 years since launch, Lokpal is a non-starter. Complaints dry up, questions rise over intent
Wonder what Mr Anna Hazare is doing nowadays.