Anti-Corruption Institutions in India

23/12/2025

77 3 minutes read

In India, corruption within the government systems has been a major issue that has contributed to the high levels of public desire to be more transparent and accountable.
As more people become aware of the negative impacts of corruption, there are various measures that have been adopted in the country to fight corruption.
The formation of the Lokpal, enhanced laws against bribery, and tailoring of the current legislations to include the contribution of facilitators and middlemen towards corrupt activities are among them.
India has anti corruption agencies that are acting as the foundation of fight against corruption in India.
These are state-run bodies that are charged with investigating and dealing with grievances against corrupted members of the society.
Although there are common views of corruption being instilled as a way of running business, such agencies are central in ensuring accountability and integrity development by facilitating the judiciary to deal with perpetrators.

In order to address the problem of corruption at the central and state level, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, was introduced.
Presidentially assented to on January 1, 2014, and becoming effective on January 16, 2014, this act was in response to fears of the lack of independence in the investigatory powers in India.
Nevertheless, the lack of timely implementation of the Lokpal has also generated criticism since it seemed to be derailing the purpose of the act.
Section 63 of the Act requires that each state will ensure that it has a Lokayukta within a year of the commencement of the Act.
In spite of the establishment of Lokayuktas in all states, most state governments have intentionally undermined these bodies by not providing proper infrastructure, budgets and manpower.
Moreover, some of the Lokayuktas do not have any prosecutorial or suo motu jurisdiction and the laws at the state level do not correspond to the central law.

The institution of the ombudsman is unique in fighting corruption.
The ombudsman system was first implemented in Sweden in the year 1809, which is followed by Finland and later in the year 2014 in India.
The ombudsman in India is called the Lokpal (in the central level) and Lokayukta (in the state level).
Lokpal and Lokayukta is the term that was coined by L.M. Singhvi in 1963.
The institution was to probe and prosecute any corruption cases involving the public functionaries.
After several efforts to establish such a body that had been in place since 1968, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was proposed.
It was accelerated with the 2011 anti-corruption movement led by Anna Hazare, and was enacted into law in Parliament in 2013.

The Lokpal has not less than four judicial members and a chairperson with up to eight members.
Not less than 50 percent of the members must fall in Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities or women.
The salary of the chairperson is just like the Chief justice of India and members have the same salary as that of the Supreme Court judges.
The Lokpal can exercise its jurisdiction over all government servants including the Prime Minister (with some exceptions), Union Ministers, Members of Parliament and personnel of institutions that are financed or created by Parliament.
But the conditions that are subject to complaint against the Prime Minister are strict in that it has to have the approval of two thirds of the Lokpal members and it must be related to the matters outside the security, international relations and atomic energy.

Political Influence: It may be influenced by politics as the composition of the selection committee is prone to political interference.
Omission of Judiciary: The judiciary is not included in the Lokpal, and so a great gap exists in combating corruption.
Weak Protection of Whistleblowers: Lack of effective protection against whistleblowers does not encourage corruption reporting.
Draconian Rules against False Complaints: The severe treatment of cases of false complaints can discourage the real complaints.
Absence of Suo Motu Powers: Lokpal cannot take any investigations without a complaint.
Redundant Jurisdictions: The functions of Lokpal and other anti-corruption bodies such as the CVC are usually overlapping which leads to inefficiency.