Lesson-11

Corruption and Anti-Corruption Bodies

Structure
11.0 Introduction
11.1 Learning objectives
11.2 Corruption : Nature and Definition
11.3 Causes of Corruption
11.4 Extent of Corruption
11.5 Forms of Corruption
11.6 Anti-Corruption Efforts in India
11.6.1 The Legal Framework
11.6.2 The Institutional Framework/Anti-Corruption Bodies
11.7 Ombudsman
11.7.1 Meaning and Origin
11.7.2 Ombudsman in India
11.8 Lok Pal and Lokayukta
11.8.1 History
11.8.2 The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013
11.8.3 Lok Pal and Lokayukta : Some Features
11.8.4 Jurisdiction
11.9 Summary
11.10 Check Your Progress
11.11 Glossary
11.12 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercise
11.13 Suggested Readings
11.14 Terminal Questions
11.0 Introduction
Regarded as the world's largest democracy the success of India's democratic performance
stands at a crossroads with increasing restrictions on fundamental freedoms and a crackdown on those
speaking against the government. Corruption remains an endemic problem that affects various areas in
the public and private sectors, including institutions such as the police and judiciary, while affecting all
levels of governance. The vast majority of human rights abuses in the country are enabled via a corrupt
environment. The government has crippled critical law enforcement and accountability institutions at the
central and the state levels by the twin devices of amending the anti-corruption laws to curb their
effectiveness, functional autonomy and politicising the appointments to human rights commissions,
94
information commissions and anti-corruption agencies like Lokpal and Lokayuktas, Systemic corruption
has resulted in the curbing of voices of dissent raised by anti-corruption campaigners, transparency and
accountability advocates and human rights activists, Journalists reporting corruption are particularly at
risk in an increasingly curtailed civil space.
11.1 Learning Objectives:
After going through this lesson, the learners will be able to:
 discuss the meaning and nature of corruption
 describe the main causes, forms and extent of corruption
 know about the anti-corruption efforts made in India : Legal as well as institutional
 know about some anti-corruption bodies like Lokpal and Lokayukta
11.2 Corruption
Nature and Definition : Corruption in public service is antithical to integrity and probity. The
latter concept which is one of the fundamental features of modern public administration is of recent
origin. It is an outcome of the modern legal system based on "Rule of Law". In the earlier societies, both
ancient and medieval, payment for getting favour or service from the Government was the rule. Thus,
justice was given to the highest bidder; likewise when an individual went to a high official, he had, first,
to offer him a Nazarana (offerings for getting the audience of the official) and also a Shukrana after
getting a service performed by the official to the petitioner. However, as "modern concepts" of state
sovereignty and citizenship became prevalent, this system with its built-in corruption began to be
considered reprehensible and hence, was gradually replaced by a system of salaries to be paid by the
Government to its officials and employees for the work they performed for the State; and the
Government began to recover this from the citizens in the form of taxes. With this arose the concept of
integrity of public servants, a concept which implied that they should not use their official position and
status for obtaining any kind of financial or other advantages for themselves, their relatives or friends.
The concomitant of this principle of civil service integrity is that public servants shall be recruited strictly
on the basis of merit and kept in public service on a permanent basis, through an equitable system of
incremental salary and promotions, only so long as they perform their duties efficiently and honestly.
Those, who do not do so, violate the essential condition of their official status and are, thus, liable for
perversion of corruption of public service.
But before proceeding further with the subject-matter of corruption, it would be proper to define
the term accurately. In its broadest sense, corruption may be defined as "behaviour which deviates
from the formal duties of a public role because of private-regarding (personal, close family, private
clique) pecuniary or status gains; or violates rules against exercise of certain types of private-regarding
influence".
This definition includes such behaviour as bribery i.e., use of a reward to pervert the judgment
of a person in a position of trust; nepotism i.e. bestowal of patronage by reason of ascriptive
relationship rather than merit; and misappropriation, i.e., illegal appropriation of public resources for
private uses. In its narrow sense, the term "corruption is confined to pecuniary benefits or bribe. But in
its wider sense, it covers a whole host of vices attributable to the misuse of public office or authority for
private ends. When used in this sense, it would include all forms of dishonest gains in cash, kind or
position by public servants. It is in this sense that the term is defined in public administration.
It has been thus defined in the Indian Penal Code, Section 161—

95
 "Whoever being or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept, or
attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification
whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forebearing to do
any official act or for showing or forebearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions,
favour or disfavour to any person, or for rendering or attempting to render any service or
disservice to any person, with the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the
Legislature of any State or with any local authority, Corporation or Government Company
referred to in Section 21, or with any public servant, as such shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both."
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, goes a step further and includes within its scope the
following types of misdemeanour :
"Section 5(1): A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct—
(a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any
person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal
remuneration) as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 of the Indian
Penal Code; or
(b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or
for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration
which he knows to be inadequate, from any person whom he knows to have been, or to
be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to
be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of
any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be
interested in or related to the person so concerned ; or
(c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use
any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other
person so to do, or
(d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant,
obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or
(e) if he or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of
his office, been in possession, for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account,
of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income,
(2) any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to seven years
and shall also be liable to fine:
Provided that the court may, for any special reasons recorded in writing, impose a sentence of
imprisonment of less than one year."
The Representation of the People Act, 1950, includes within its definition political mal-practices
also. Thus Section 123 of the afore-said Act declares the following as corrupt practices:
"(i) Bribery
(ii) Undue influence.
(iii) Appeals to vote or refrain from voting on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community
or language or the use of, or appeal to religious or national symbols.

96
 (iv) Promotion or attempt to promote enmity between classes
(v) Publication of false statements as to personal character or conduct or candidature of
candidates.
(vi) Hiring or procuring of vehicles for the conveyance of electors to or from polling stations.
(vii) Incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the R.P. Act.
(viii) Obtaining or procuring the assistance of persons in Government service."
11.3 Causes of Corruption. Corruption is endemic to the Government. This is so because a large
number of individuals have to handle vast sums of money and quantity of material which does not
specifically belong to any definite person, but belongs to the public in general. However, the problem is
more acute in the developing societies than in the developed societies. There it is not only more
widespread but it also causes more harm to the Government and the Society.
There may be as many causes of corruption in particular cases as the countries themselves; but
there are certain causes common to all the developing countries which will be studied here:
1. Historical Causes. In the newly emancipated countries of Asia and Africa, the root of
corruption in public service are legacies of their colonial past. The erstwhile rulers who belonged to
Western Europe so built up the system of administration as to reserve all the superior and important
positions in administration for their own nationals who were paid very lavishly but the lowest positions,
where the civil servants had to come in day-today contact with the people, were reserved for the
natives and they were designedly paid very low salaries. The result was that these natives, occupying
these low- paid positions in the Civil Service, had to extract money and provisions for their subsistence
from the people they went to serve. This was presented as a contrast between the morality of the rulers
and that of the ruled. The longer period of scarcities during the World War II spread this virus of bribery
and corruption among all ranks of the civil service. The disease became more poignant and wide-
spread when, after attaining their independence, the National Governments of these countries
undertook programmes of economic development. With scarce money and resources, the
Governments of these countries attempted to telescope the development of centuries into decades. For
this, they had to put control over goods and services and had to ration their supplies to the consumers
and producers. In the wake of these regulations came the system of permits, licences, and quotas
which opened up possibilities of black-marketing. The black money thus earned by unscrupulous
persons had its repercussion over the behaviour and morals of the the civil servants too. Thus what
was before independence an evil of petty bribery now became a large-scale racket of wholesale
corruption.
2. Environmental. The second important cause of corruption in public service is the
environment of the fast urbanizing and industrializing civilization where material possessions, position
and economic power determined the status and prestige of a person in the society. This factor is as
applicable to a developed society as to a developing one, but in a developing society, the environment
is more susceptible to corruption. These countries were living through acute scarcities and the
resources of the Government do not allow it to pay living wages to its employees. Outside the
Government the system of permits, licences and quotas induces black marketing and, therefore, there
is tremendous amount of black money flowing in undesirable channels. In the words of C.
Rajagopalachari, "the system of permits, licences, allocation of transport routes, quotas and similar
attempts to administer the economy of a big and busy nation from the Secretariat instead of leaving
such things to the consumer and competition in the market, is at the root of corruption...... The contact
between the official and party bosses on the one side, and the very clever, far too clever, businessman
on the other, with a tremendous lot of money expected in the business, produces the national malady

97
we call corruption...... Unless we minimize official intervention and ministerial power, making or marring
the fortunes of businessmen and industrialists, unless we reduce controls upto the level called for by
international trade and exchange pressures and bravely decide to knock out the rest and try out the
consequences, we are bound to suffer this newly-introduced and widespread malady of corruption at
the, ministerial and secretariat levels."
3. Economic Causes. Corruption in public service also arises due to rapid economic
growth. When lot of money is collected through various means from within and outside the country and
it is rapidly poured into an economy which for centuries has been stagnant, its wheels begin to crumble
under the weight of this pressure and the easiest and best way to grease such a crumbling machinery
is through bribery and through pulls and pushes. Inflation and foreign aid on a large scale are
particularly responsible for increasing corruption. In a country where the bulk of the public servants and
the mass of people have to lead a life of frugality and privations, paying high salaries to a few persons
at the top creates its own social and economic problems which takes away the confidence of the
common man in the sense of justice and fair play of the Government. This becomes an important cause
of breakdown of all public standards of morality. Increasing development of the financial resources of
the businessmen and the industrialists is also a factor tending towards corruption in public service.
Corruption in public service can exist' only when there is someone willing to corrupt and when such a
large percentage of the newly emerging class of monied people begin to arise, then there is no dearth
of the corrupters.
4. Procedural Causes. The weakness of anti-corruption law and procedures with which
the legal systems of the developing societies suffer is another cause of corruption in public service. The
Railway Corruption Enquiry Committee had pointed out the defects in rules and regulations which leave
loopholes for corruption. The Santhanam Committee also made similar observations and it also said
that the procedures in Government offices are so cumbersome and dilatory, and there is such a maze
of rules and regulations and the administrative machinery is sprawling like an octopus, causing delay in
inefficiency that these provide a fertile field for hidden corruption. Red-tape and passing the buck have
become the besetting sins of administration in the developing countries and these create problems for
enterprising businessmen who have to spend lot of "speed money" in order to get things done. It clearly
shows that corruption is largest in those departments where Government enters into the activities of the
private citizens, like the Ministry of Transport and Communications, Ministry of Commerce and Industry,
Central Public Works Department, etc. etc. Redtapism and technicalities of administration have created
another form of corruption in public service and it is that civil servants, who towards the close of their
official career, begin to show extra favour to their prospective employers and after retirement they get
back the favours shown to these businessmen by becoming the liaison officers of business houses.
5. Special Causes. Due to the low standard of political and civic consciousness among the
people in the developing societies, there is great public apathy, ignorance and indifference in ventilating
their grievances. This is taken advantage of by the public servants. This attitude helps the anti-social
elements to rationalize their illegal behaviour and also encourages the public officials to go about with
nefarious activities without any fear of public reprisals. In fact, the general tendency on the part of the
public in countries, like India, is to shield such officers against whom the Government has legitimate
reasons to take action. We are perturbed only when a wrong is done to us individually, but we do not
care a fig so long as others are being harmed by the evil deeds of the public officials.
11.4 Extent of Corruption.
It is very difficult to ascertain, accurately, the extent of corruption in public service in any
country. The only way to make some sort of an estimate of corruption is to calculate the statistics of
corruption cases detected and punished by the Government. But this may be more a proof of the
effectiveness of the anti-corruption measures adopted by the Government rather than the index or the
98
extent of corruption. Even then, this is by far the best way to give an estimate, even though a rough
one, of the corruption existing in public services in India.
India ranks 85 out of 180 countries with a score of 40 in Transparency International's 2021
Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).
The 2021 TRACE Bribery Risk Matrix places India in the "medium" risk category, ranking it 82
out of 194 countries, with a risk score of 44 (TRACE International 2021a; TRACE International 2021b).
Transparency International's Global Corruption Barometer (GCB) Asia 2020 reports that:
 89 per cent of respondents believe that government corruption is a big problem.
 India has the "highest overall bribery rate" as well as the "highest rate of citizens using
personal connections" in the region, standing at 39 per cent and 46 per cent,
respectively.
 50 per cent of the respondents that had paid a bribe stated that they were asked to pay
a bribe to access a particular service.
 36 per cent of those using personal connections believed that they would be unable to
access services without using such connections.
 the percentage of respondents who either experienced sextortion themselves or knew
someone who had stood at 11 per cent.
 18 per cent of respondents had been offered bribes in exchange for votes.
 56 per cent of respondents thought that ordinary citizens could make a difference in the
fight against corruption.
11.5 Forms of corruption
There are various forms of corruption, including but not limited to petty corruption, nepotism,
patronage networks and grand corruption operating in India.
It ought to be noted that certain forms of corruption are intrinsically linked to discriminative
practices in the country. For example, nepotism is known to extend beyond kinship networks to :
(i) Petty corruption
As mentioned in the previous section, India has the highest bribery rate and the highest rate of
citizens using personal connections in Asia. A complicated and slow bureaucracy, excessive red tape
and ambiguous regulatory mechanisms enable a culture where citizens use "networks of familiarity and
petty corruption" to access basic services. Bribes are paid to both obtain and expedite services, such
as police protection, school admission, water supply and government assistance. However, what ought
to be noted is that the digitisation of several public services has given rise to newer forms of fraud and
corruption. In the context of India where banking literacy is low, there are several cases reported
wherein a nexus of corrupt businesses/banking correspondents on the pretext of providing access to
banking services rob beneficiaries entitled to wages, pensions, direct benefit transfers (DBT) and
scholarships.
Bribery and corruption are also widespread in business activities, Offering cash, entertainment,
personal gifts and misstating financial performance is acceptable for business survival.
A study on jugaad, which is a "regular way of doing business in India", shows that corruption,
especially petty corruption, is entrenched in the cultural fabric. Jugaad refers to "goal-oriented
improvisation, especially the use of informal social networks to advance one's interests". While being
99
understood as being possibly corrupt, jugaad is also regarded as essential for "getting by" and even as
a "virtuous practice" involving innovation.
A range of measures could be applied to address petty corruption in the country. These include
but are not limited to streamlining of administrative processes at the central and state levels, employing
preventative measures to counter nepotism and bribery, and setting up user-friendly online platforms to
offer quick and efficient service delivery with appropriate safeguards.
(ii) Political corruption
Political corruption severely undermines the rule of law in India. Officeholders engaging in
corrupt activities often make use of "political, legal or procedural loopholes" to avoid prosecution. There
are several ways in which political corruption manifests in India, ranging from voter suppression,
opacity in political party financing and cases of embezzlement and fraud involving influential political
actors, among others.
Political finance has been a major source of pervasive corruption in India, particularly as the
costs of elections in the country have "soared past the multi-billion-dollar mark".
New political party financing rules now allow corporations, including those firms owned by
foreign entities, to fund elections anonymously. One instrument in this regard, electoral bonds, was
argued by the incumbent powers to bring transparency into the usually murky realm of political finance.
The government-owned State Bank of India sells electoral bonds to anyone in denominations ranging
from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 10 million. Once these bonds are received by a political party, they can exchange
them for cash. These bonds do not list the donor's details and are exempt from taxation.
The bonds, coupled with other rules removing caps on corporate donation and allowing newly
formed companies to donate to political parties creates a scenario wherein shell companies can be set
up explicitly for the purpose of funding elections. It is important to note that these amendments did not
meet much resistance as parties, even in opposition, were suspected of benefiting from the lax rules.
Such changes in political financing rules have "only further legitimised anonymity, opacity and
obfuscation" in the sector.
Vote buying in Indian elections is such a common phenomenon that it has become a key feature
of election culture. It is a practice that cuts across political parties operating at the national and regional
levels. Candidates are known to distribute handouts - primarily cash and gifts in kind before elections
as voters have come to expect them.
(iii) Crony capitalism
"Big-ticket corruption" scams continue to emerge. For example, the €7.87 billion Indo-French
Rafale deal for fighter aircrafts signed in 2016 bypassed mandatory procedures and was deemed to be
inflated. A French portal, Mediapart, alleges that aircraft manufacturer Dassault Aviation had paid
bribes amounting to €1 million to an intermediary to secure the deal.
The Punjab National Bank (PNB) scam also showcases how fraudulent guarantees worth
US$1.8 billion were obtained over seven years to secure loans from lenders outside India through
collusion between Nirav Modi, his uncle Mehul Choksi, and other relatives and a few PNB employees.
While these cases that have emerged over the last few years are indicative of large-scale
corruption, major transactions involving these scams occurred during the time of the previous United
Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime headed by the Indian National Congress Party. Representatives of
the current government claim that not a "single instance of corruption" has taken place since the BJP
lead National Democratic Alliance came to power. Nevertheless, what ought to be noted is the country
is witnessing new forms of corruption challenges that highlight risks, such as crony capitalism.

100
 Due to funding compulsions of Indian politics, crony capitalism will remain only the mechanisms
that favour certain firms over others are changing. For instance, an investigation by Reporters
Collective found the "government auctioned 19 [coal] mines in the middle of the pandemic" at low
prices under a new bidding method that allows "private and foreign companies in any sector to dig
mines and sell coal". The sale value of two coal mines in Chhattisgarh in 2020, for example, was a
quarter less for the first mine, and nearly 60 per cent less for the second mine than the price that the
government had previously rejected for being too low in 2015. Furthermore, recent measures such as
the National Monetisation Pipeline (NMP), which involves handing over essential public services to the
private sector, carries large risks for short- changing public sector partners and poor service delivery.
The manner of privatisation of key infrastructure components such as ports, airports and public
sector enterprises also signals the strengthening of crony capitalism. In 2018, the Adani group, with no
prior history of operating airports, won the bid for all six airports that were approved for privatisation by
the government. It been alleged that during the takeover of three of these airports, aeronautical and
non-aeronautical assets of the Airports Authority of India (AAI) worth Rs. 1,300 crore (approximately
US$17.5 million) were sold to the Adani group at less than half the price - Rs. 500 crore.
11.6 Anti-Corruption Efforts in India
11.6.1 Legal framework
(a) International conventions and initiatives
The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the United Nations
Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) were ratified by India in 2011. India is a
member of the G20 Working Group against Corruption.
(b) Domestic legal framework
India has several laws dealing with corruption, the most prominent ones at the federal level are
as follows (please note that Indian states could have instituted their own rules, which is not covered in
this section):
Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: deals with the unlawful purchase of property and criminal
breach of trust in public servants.
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988: prohibits any Benami transaction - the
purchase of property in the name of another person or under a false name.
The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: delineates the definition of money
laundering, which takes place when a "person is a party to any process connected with the proceeds of
crime and projects such proceeds as untainted property". The law also calls for the maintenance and
verification of all customer records by banks, financial institutions and intermediaries and its provision of
this information to relevant authorities.
Companies Act, 2013: outlines rules for companies operating in the country and has elements
to counter private sector corruption.
Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014: drafted in 2011, the law was renamed The
Whistleblowers Protection Act, 2014 and was passed by both houses of parliament, but it has not been
notified in the official gazette as yet. The act is limited to public servants and public sector undertakings.
Anonymous complaints are not allowed, and penalties can be levied for providing false information.
Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Amendment) Act, 2016: the original ombudsman law passed in
2013 was to "provide for the establishment of a body of Lokpal for the Union and Lokayukta for States
to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public functionaries". Amendments to the act

101
have diluted the law. For example, while public servants are required to declare their assets, the form
and manner of doing so will be prescribed by the central government.
The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018: criminalises "attempted corruption,
active and passive bribery, extortion, abuse of office and money laundering". However, the law does
not cover facilitation payments.
Right to Information (Amendment) Act, 2019: originally passed in 2005, the law was hailed
as an effective anti-corruption tool wielded by citizens and activists alike. It is widely used by "the
poorest and the most marginalised who have understood the tremendous potential of the law to
empower them to access their basic rights and entitlements like rations, pensions and healthcare".
11.6.2 Institutional framework
There are several bodies in place for implementing anti-corruption policies and raising
awareness on corruption issues. At the federal level, key institutions include Lokpal, Centeral Vigilance
commission (CVC), Enforcement Directorate (ED), Election Commission of India (ECI), Comptroller and
Auditor General of India (CAG), Judiciary, and the Chief Information Commission (CIC). At the state
level, Lokayukta and local anti-corruption bureau have been set-up.
The main institutions dealing with corruption are as follows:
Lokpal (Ombudsman)
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, meant to tackle corruption of senior government officials
through the creation of independent ombudsman institutions at the union (Lokpal) and state
(Lokayukta) levels, was originally passed after a struggle in 2014.
The Lokpal operating at the central level is set up to operate via two branches
 administrative branch: headed by an officer of the rank of secretary to government of
India, and takes care of areas such as investigation, prosecution, scrutiny, budget,
finance and accounts and media coordination, among others
 judicial branch: which is to be headed by a judicial officer of "appropriate level" and is
discharged with assisting the Lokpal with their judicial functions
When it comes to the independence of the institution, it has been "subverted" through
amendments and lack of implementation. For example, key provisions regarding the compulsory public
disclosure of assets and liabilities of public servants were diluted through amendments (the timeline
criteria for disclosure were removed, and the central government was granted powers to set the
manner and form of disclosure)
The chairperson and members of the Lokpal were not appointed for over five years after the law
was passed. Finally, appointments were made by a selection committee predominated by the
government and its representatives, "raising serious doubts about the independence of the Lokpal even
before it became operational".
The rules for lodging a complaint were issued in 2020, wherein those bringing complaints of
corruption against a public official have to provide proof of identity and a sworn affidavit. Moreover, to
avoid misuse, the Lokpal, if it believes the complaint is false, can penalise the whistleblower with
"imprisonment extending up to one year and a fine which may exceed a maximum of Rs. 1 lakh. Three
years after it was launched, the Lokpal continues to be a non-starter with dwindling complaints and
vacancies in key positions. Many observe the corruption watchdog as being toothless.

102
 At the state level, the quality and effectiveness of Lokayuktas differ. For example, out of 28
states and three union territories, nine (Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Jharkhand, Kerala,
Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh) have not amended their laws to bring them in line with the Lokpal
and Lokayukta Act of 2013. Moreover, 10 states do not have a Lokayukta website, and only three
(Odisha, Maharashtra and Mizoram) make provisions for online complaints (The Economic Times
2020).
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)
The CVC is the "apex vigilance institution" for monitoring corruption cases against the central
government. It also advises various central government authorities in planning, executing, reviewing
and reforming their vigilant work. The institution's website provides detailed guidelines for filing
complaints and has an online form to submit and track complaints.
The commission comprises a central vigilance commissioner who acts as chairperson and not
more than two vigilance commissioners (members). The CVC directs the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) on matters relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act and those offences that deal
with central government officials. The director of enforcement is also appointed by the PM on the
recommendation of the CVC.
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
The CBI is the "premier investigative agency, with a dual responsibility to investigate grievous
cases and provide leadership and direction in fighting corruption to the police force across the country".
It functions under the Department of Personnel, Ministry of Personnel, Pension and Public Grievances,
Government of India. It collects information in three areas.
 anti-corruption: this includes cases of corruption and fraud pertaining to government
departments, public sector undertakings and financial institutions at the central level
 economic crimes: these include fraud, financial fraud, import-export and foreign
exchange violations, large-scale smuggling of narcotics, antiques, cultural property and
smuggling of other contraband items, among others
 special crimes: pertaining to "cases of terrorism, bomb blasts, sensational homicides,
kidnapping for ransom and crimes committed by the mafia/the underworld"
With respect to the jurisdiction of the CBI and state police, the former only investigates cases at
the central government level, have interstate or international impacts or are large cases of fraud.
Enforcement Directorate (ED)
Operating under the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the ED
is a specialised financial investigation agency implementing the following laws:
 Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA): it conducts investigations into
"suspected contraventions of the foreign exchange laws and regulations" and imposes
penalties on offenders
 Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA): the ED is tasked with examining
suspected cases of money laundering and tracing assets "derived out of the proceeds of
crime", consequently freezing or confiscating the same traced assets, and arresting and
prosecuting those engaged in money laundering.
The institution is headed by the director of enforcement. It is headquartered in Delhi and has
five regional, 16 zonal and 13 sub-zonal offices.

103
Election Commission of India (ECI)
The ECI is an "autonomous and permanent constitutional body responsible for organising free
and fair elections in the union and states of India". It has a constitutional mandate for the "direction,
superintendence, and control of elections to parliament, state legislatures, the office of President of
India and the office of Vice-President of India". There is one chief election commissioner and two other
election commissioners. The body has several powers, including but not limited to:
 establishing electoral constituencies' territorial areas throughout the country
 registering all eligible voters, and preparing and regularly revising electoral rolls
 recognising parties and giving them the status of a national or regional party depending
on their poll performance
 determining a code of conduct for parties and the candidates during elections
 setting limits of expenditure by candidates during elections and collecting details on
candidates assets at the time of submission of nomination papers
Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG)
The office of the CAG, along with the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IAAD) reporting to
the CAG, constitute the supreme audit institution of the country. The body is tasked with auditing "all
receipts and expenditure" of the central and state governments. It also audits public sector
undertakings, as well as independent bodies that the Indian government finances. CAG reports are
presented to national and state-level legislatures.
Judiciary
Indian judiciary operates via a single integrated system. The constitution divides the institution
into superior judiciary (the supreme court and the high courts) and the subordinate judiciary (the lower
courts under the control of the high courts). While the supreme court is the apex court, the high courts
have jurisdiction limited to one or more states and union territories. The independence of the judiciary is
provided by law; however, the institution faces challenges in the form of delays, capacity issues and
corruption.
Current trends show that the judiciary is getting increasingly politicised. For example, numerous
supreme court decisions in recent years have been "favourable" to the ruling parity.
 supreme court judgement on the Ayodhya civil case that allowed the "construction of a
Hindu temple on the site of a historic mosque" has been accused of being "possibly
driven by political motivations or compulsions"
 Anand Teltumbde was denied bail by the Special National Investigation Agency. An
advocate for the rights of marginalised communities, especially Dalits, Teltumbde was a
critic of the current government.
 the decision to accept the Aaadhaar Act as a money bill "emboldens" the government to
bypass the upper house by introducing any bill as a money bill by "citing some remote
connection with the consolidated fund of India"
 another observable trend is the "evasion of decision by delaying the hearing of highly
controversial matters" such as in the cases of demonisation and electoral bonds, among
others

104
 Political commentators believe that "India's democratic institutions are experiencing a serious
atrophy". The CBI, ECI, CVC, ED, the Income Tax Department and the National Investigation Agency
(NIA) are allegedly being "immobilised under an authoritarian regime".
Other stakeholders
Media
The Indian government "rarely, if ever, used to exercise censorship". Nevertheless, now there is
widespread censorship of journalists and academics criticising the government, many of whom are then
labelled as "anti-national."
Journalists reporting on corruption and against the government are particularly at risk. A news
reporter for Kampu Mail, Shubham Mani Tripathi, was shot dead as an alleged retaliation for his
investigation into corruption involving illegal sand mining. The attacks on journalists are "rarely
punished".
11.7 Ombudsman
11.7.1 Meaning and Origin
The dictionary meaning of the term ombudsman means an official appointed to investigate
individuals complaints against maladministration especially that of public authority. R. K. Dhawan in his
Public Grievances and the Lokpal defines it in the following manner: "Ombudsman is an officer of
Parliament who investigates complaints of citizens of unfair treatment meted out to them by
government departments and suggests remedy thereof if he finds that a complaint is justified".
Hence ombudsman may reasonably be called a guardian of the public against the misdeeds
done by the irresponsible or corrupt person holding administrative responsibilities. The post of
ombudsman was created in Sweden in the second half of the last century. But many people say that
the official of the ombudsman type existed in other European states even before the 1950s. But from
the 1950s rose the popularity of ombudsman as a remedy to growing corruption and failure of public
administration. There is another side of the picture. The increase in both size of administration and
population made common people helpless.
The administrators frequently resorted to unfair means for the realisation of their nefarious
motives. It was strongly felt that a device should be found out that will give a weapon at the hands of
the general public against the misuse of official power for personal gain. In its absence democracy and
welfare of the people will be meaningless. Thus in every democratic state a cell is to be created to look
after the grievances of the people.
11.8 Lokpal and Lokayukta
The Lok Sabha passed the Lokpal and Lokayukta (Amendment) Bill, 2016 without discussion.
The bill seeks to amend the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 which provides Lokpal (at Centre) and
Lokayukta (at States) statutory backing to enquire into allegations of corruption against certain public
functionaries and for related matters.
A Lokpal is an anti-corruption authority or ombudsman who represents the public interest. The
concept of an ombudsman is borrowed from Sweden. The Lokpal has jurisdiction over all Members of
Parliament and central government employees in cases of corruption. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act
was passed in 2013 with amendments in parliament, following the Jan Lokpal movement led by Anna
Hazare. The Lokpal is responsible for enquiring into corruption charges at the national level while the
Lokayukta performs the same function at the state level.

105
11.8.1 History
The term "Lokpal" was coined by Dr. [Link] in 1963. The concept of a constitutional
ombudsman was first proposed in parliament by Law Minister Ashoke Kumar Sen in the early 1960s.
The first Jan Lokpal Bill was proposed by Shanti Bhushan in 1968 and passed in the 4th Lok Sabha in
1969, but did not pass through the Rajya Sabha. Subsequently, 'lokpal bills' were introduced in 1971,
1977, 1985, again by Ashoke Kumar Sen, while serving as Law Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi cabinet,
and again in 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, yet they were never passed. Forty five years
after its first introduction, the Lokpal Bill is finally enacted in India on 18 December 2013.
The Lokpal Bill provides for the filing, with the ombudsman, of complaints of corruption against
the prime minister, other ministers, and MPs. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC)
recommended the enacting of the Office of a Lokpal, convinced that such an institution was justified,
not only for removing the sense of injustice from the minds of citizens, but also to instill public
confidence in the efficiency of the administrative machinery.
Following this, the Lokpal Bill was, for the first time, presented during the fourth Lok Sabha in
1968, and was passed there in 1969. However, while it was pending in the Rajya Sabha, the Lok
Sabha was dissolved, and thus the bill was not passed.
The bill was revived several times in subsequent years, including in 2011. Each time, after the
bill was introduced to the House, it was referred to a committee for improvements, to a joint committee
of parliament, or to a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry. Before the government
could take a final stand on the issue, the house was dissolved again. Several conspicuous flaws were
found in the 2008 draft of the Lokpal Bill. The basic idea of a lokpal is borrowed from the Office of the
Ombudsman, which has the Administrative Reforms Committee of a lokpal at the Centre, and
lokayukta(s) in the states.
Anna Hazare fought to get this bill passed, and it did pass on 27 December 2011, with some
modifications. These were proposed as the Jan Lokpal Bill. However, Hazare and his team, as well as
other political parties, claimed that the Lokpal Bill passed was weak, and would not serve its intended
purpose. So the proposed bill by the ruling Congress Party was yet to be accepted in the Rajya Sabha.
As of 29 December 2011, the bill has been deferred to the next parliamentary session, amid much
controversy and disruption by the LJP, RJD and SP parties. The media at large, and the opposition
parties, claimed the situation had been staged.
11.8.2 The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
The historic Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was passed by Indian Parliament paving the way
for establishment of a Lokpal (Ombudsman) to fight corruption in public offices and ensure
accountability on the part of public officials, including the Prime Minister, but with some safeguards.
Lokpal will consist of a chairperson and a maximum of eight members, of which 50% will be
judicial members, 50% members of Lokpal shall be from SC/ST/OBCs, minorities and women.
Selection of chairperson and members of Lokpal through a selection committee consisting of PM,
Speaker of Lok Sabha, leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, Chief Justice of India or a sitting Supreme
Court judge nominated by CJI. Eminent jurist to be nominated by President of India on basis of
recommendations of the first four members of the selection committee "through consensus". Lokpal's
jurisdiction will cover all categories of public servants. All entities (NGOs) receiving donations from
foreign source in the context of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in excess of 10 lakh
per year are under the jurisdiction of Lokpal. Centre will send Lokpal bill to states as a model bill. States
have to set up Lokayuktas through a state law within 365 days.

106
  Lokpal will have power of superintendence and direction over any central investigation
agency including CBI for cases referred to them by the ombudsman.
 A high-powered committee chaired by the PM will recommend selection of CBI director.
The collegium will comprise PM, leader of opposition in Lok Sabha and Chief Justice of
India Prime Minister has been brought under purview of the Lokpal, so also central
ministers and senior officials.
 Directorate of prosecution will be under overall control of CBI director. At present, it
comes under the law ministry.
 Appointment of director of prosecution to be based on recommendation of the Central
Vigilance Commission.
 Director of prosecution will also have a fixed tenure of two years like CBI chief.
 Transfer of CBI officers investigating cases referred by Lokpal with the approval of
watchdog.
 Bill incorporates provisions for attachment and confiscation of property acquired by
corrupt means, even while prosecution is pending.
 Bill lays down clear timelines for preliminary enquiry and investigation and trial. Provides
for special courts. Public servants will, not present their view before preliminary enquiry if
the case requires 'element of surprise like raids and searches.
 Bill grants powers to Lokpal to sanction prosecution against public servants.
 CBI may appoint a panel of advocates with approval of Lokpal, CBI will not have to
depend on govt. advocates.
11.8.3 Lokpal and Lokayukta: Some Features
Both Lokpal and Lokayukta are characterised by the following features:
(1) They, in fact, are the institutions of Indian administrative system. Their fundamental duty
is to make the public administration of India free from corruption.
(2) These two institutions are impartial. When they are called for performing any duty they
will discharge it impartially and simultaneously independently.
(3) The activities of the Lokpal and Lokayukta are not under any judicial review. That is the
decision or judgement of the Lokpal and Lokayukta cannot be challenged in any court of
law.
(4) It is observed that they should not look forward for any financial or any other benefit.
(5) These two institutions are not subject to executive or administrative interference.
(6) The Lokpal and Lokayuktas are non- political persons. In other words, political
personalities cannot hold the posts.
(7) These ranks should be of highest judiciary.
(8) They investigate the charges of corruption secretly.
(9) If Lokpal and Lokayukta want to have any information from any department the latter is
bound to furnish such information.

107
 There is a process of appointment. The President will appoint the Lokpal. But before that he will
take advice of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition. In other words, after receiving
suggestion from the leader of Opposition, the PM will suggest the name to the President. This process
is quite judicious. The Lokpal can resign his office by addressing a letter to the President. The Lokpal is
at par with the Chief Justice of India and he will have a secretariat.
11.8.4 Jurisdiction
It is the primary duty of the Lokpal to free Indian society from corruption: And through this it will
ensure justice. The government has power to order any act. But if the act of the government goes
against the basic interests or rights of the individual he will move to the Lokpal for investigation and
finally to take action. If the act of the government shows favouritism then the concerned persons can
lodge a complaint against the authority.
Hence, we find that the main area of action or jurisdiction is to free Indian society from
corruption and along with it the nepotism and favouritism. But certain matters are excluded from the
jurisdiction of Lokpal. For example, if a minister of Central Government has already taken any action or
has recommended an action that matter will remain outside the purview of the Lokpal. If the Central
Government decides that the issue should not be referred to the judiciary, in that case the Lokpal
cannot take up the matter. If the union government already has taken action on an issue, that cannot be
investigated by the Lokpal.
There are some acts or processes which fall under terms and conditions of a contract and if the
administration takes any action in accordance with the contract the Lokpal will have no jurisdiction over
that matter. Finally, the Lokpal will have no jurisdiction over matters such as appointment, removal from
office, disciplinary action taken against any employee or person or superannuation etc. The jurisdiction
clearly indicates that the scope of the Lokpal is limited.
11.9 Summary
Thus, corruption is an important malady in many countries including India which affects various
areas of public and private life. There are Historical, Environmental, Economic, Procedural and
particular causes of corruption. There are various forms of corruption like petty corruption, political
corruption and crony capitalism. Many laws have been passed by the Indian Government to combat
corruption and there are several bodies in place for implementing anti-corruption policies. At fedral level
important of these include Lokpal, Central Vigilance Commission, Enforcement Directorate, Election
Commission of India, Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Chief Information Commission,
Judiciary, etc. whereas at the state level, Lokayukta and Local Corruption bureau have been set-up.
11.10 Check Your Progress
1. How corruption can be defined?
2. Explain the Environmental and Economic causes of corruption
3. Discuss about political corruption in India
4. What Legal measures have been adopted to prevent corruption in India?
5. What is Ombudsman?
11.11 Glossary
 Pecuniary : concerning or involving money
 Misdemeanour : a minor wrongdoing
 Frugality : the quality of being economical with money or food

108
  Red-tapism : excessive regulation or rigid conformity to formal rules that is considered
redundant and bureaucratic and hinders action or decision-making
 Nepotism : a practice among those with power or influence of favouring relatives,
friends, or associates, especially by giving them jobs.
 Opacity : the quality of lacking transparency
 Embezzlement : a term commonly used for a type of financial crime, usually involving
theft of money from a business or employer
 Obfuscation : the act of making something deliberately confusing and difficult to
understand
 Crony Capitalism : an economic system characterised by close, mutually
advantageous relationship between business leaders and government officials.
 Siphoned Off : to gradually steal money or goods, usually from a business or
government
 Whistle Blowers : Whistle blowing is the activity of a person, often an employee,
revealing information about activity within a private or public organisation that is deemed
illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe or fraudulent.
11.12 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercise
1. See Section 11.2
2. See Section 11.3 (2, 3)
3. See Section 11.5 (ii)
4. See Sub-Section 11.6.1 (a, b)
5. See Sub-Section 11.7.1
11.13 Suggested Readings:
 Tyagi, A.R. (1990). Public Administration: Principles and Practices. Delhi : Atma Ram &
Sons.
 Nye, J.S. (1967). "Corruption and Political Development" in American Political Science
Review, Vol. 51, 11 June.
 Wraith and Simpkins, Corruption in the Developing Societies
 Menon, Vineetha, (2018). Public Policy and Administration in India. New Delhi : Wisdom
Press.
11.14 Terminal Questions
1. Define corruption. Discuss the various causes and forms of corruption in India.
2. Describe the anti-corruption efforts (Legal and Institutional) made in India.
3. Write a detailed note on Lokpal and Lokayukta.
------

109