"Exhibiting accountability over time is a gateway to trust. When we see someone acting with accountability, we gain the evidence we need to trust them." - Mike Erwin and Willys Devoll

India ranks 86th out of 180 countries in the 2022 Corruption Perception Index, scoring 40, which is below the global average of 43. According to Transparency International's November 2020 Global Corruption Barometer (GCB), India has the greatest rate of bribery (39%) in Asia and the highest percentage of people (46%) who rely on personal connections to obtain public services. This is disturbing information. The majority of respondents (89%) identified corruption in government as the primary issue, with a significant portion (63%) fearing retaliation if they were to report corruption.

The prevalence of corruption in India is undeniable, which initially prompted the introduction of the Lokpal and Lokayukta bills with hopes of mitigating this pervasive issue. However, whether these legislative measures have made a substantial impact on India's corruption problem remains uncertain. This study aims to explore and elucidate the efficacy of the Lokpal and Lokayukta bills in addressing corruption in India.

This study is divided into two distinct themes:
Theme I focuses on the concept and historical evolution of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Acts. This part explores the history of these Acts, following the development of the concept of ombudsmanship in India as well as its conceptual foundations.

Theme II delves into the impact and future of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Acts. This section looks at how well these Acts work to promote administrative accountability and fight corruption.

This article culminates with a conclusion that provides an analysis of the overall effectiveness of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Acts.

Theme I
Conceptual Framework
Lokpal And Lokayukta Act
The foundation of any progressive administrative system hinges on the presence of a mechanism to address grievances against administrative misconduct and the acknowledgment of every citizen's right to access government information.The Ombudsman, a Swedish notion, serves as the model for the Lokpal and Lokayukta Acts, which perform this vital function.

In essence, an Ombudsman serves as the "watchdog of the administration," appointed by the government to investigate complaints against various entities, including businesses, financial institutions, universities, and government departments. Their primary goal is to resolve conflicts or concerns through mediation or recommendations.

In India, a Lokayukta fulfils a comparable function at the state level and a Lokpal operates as an anti-corruption authority protecting the public interest at the federal level. Ensuring accountability in government affairs and taking decisive action against corrupt officials are the responsibilities of both bodies.

Enacted in 2013, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act established these bodies as statutory entities without constitutional status. They serve as ombudsmen, looking into claims of corruption made against certain public servants and handling related issues.

Effective administrative structures must ultimately be accountable and responsive to the people they serve.Nonetheless, people frequently feel excluded from administrative processes due to their impersonal design. As administrative agencies expand their influence into various aspects of citizens' lives, the potential for errors affecting personal or property rights increases significantly. This growing scope of administrative action has spurred the quest for effective safeguards against misconduct, culminating in the creation of the Lokayukta and Lokpal Acts.

Nevertheless, there were difficulties in the process of creating the Lokpal and Lokayukta Acts. They nearly failed, were changed, and were eventually pushed back before they could be completely implemented.Political complexities, bureaucratic hurdles, and differing perspectives on the scope and powers of these bodies all contributed to the delays and setbacks in their implementation.Despite these challenges, efforts were made to refine and strengthen/fortify the Acts over time. Amendments were introduced to address some of the concerns raised, and procedures were put in place to enhance their functioning and efficiency.

Historical Evolution Of Lokpal And Lokayukta Act ,2013
In 1809, Sweden officially inaugurated the institution of the ombudsman. When New Zealand and Norway adopted this approach in 1962, it became very popular and was a key factor in the global dissemination of its concept. In 1967, on the heels of the Whyatt Report of 1961, Great Britain became the first major democratic nation to embrace the ombudsman system. The first developing country to use this novel strategy was Guyana, which appeared in the year 1966.

India saw its first proposal for a constitutional ombudsman in the early 1960s, championed by then Law Minister Ashok Kumar Sen. The titles "Lokpal" and "Lokayukta" were first used by Dr. L. M. Singhvi. In 1966, the First Administrative Reforms Commission proposed the creation of two independent authorities, one at the federal level and one at the state level, to handle complaints against public servants.

The Lokpal bill made its debut in the Lok Sabha in 1968, but subsequent attempts to pass it failed repeatedly.The appointment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas did not acquire traction until 2002, during the tenure of the Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, which was presided over by M.N. Venkatachaliah. In 2005, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission led by Veerappa Moily echoed the urgency of establishing the Lokpal office.

The demand for a Lokpal surged in 2011 when social activist Anna Hazare's hunger strike garnered immense public support for a robust anti-corruption law. In response, the government formed a joint committee composed of members from civil society and the government to draft a new Lokpal Bill.As a result, in August 2011, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill was introduced in Parliament.Despite several revisions and debates, it received presidential assent on January 1, 2014, and came into force on January 16, 2014.

However, the journey didn't end there. The Supreme Court intervened, prompting amendments to strengthen the effectiveness of the bill. In July 2016, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 was amended to make it operational. Despite these milestones, the actual establishment of the Lokpal was pushed back by the government for over five years until 2019. During this period, critical amendments were made, diluting the powers and reach of the Lokpal.

A meeting of the Lokpal selection panel was called by Attorney General K.K. Venugopal at the request of the Supreme Court, and the appointment of the Lokpal took place on March 23, 2019. India's first Lokpal, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose, a former Supreme Court judge, was appointed, which was a major turning point in the nation's anti-corruption campaign.

Theme II
Assessing Its Impact
Impact Of The Act - In Thorns Of Misfortune
Since its beginning, the foremost challenge faced by the act has been its arduous journey towards effective implementation. While the mandate stipulates the establishment of the Lokayukta office in each state, only 20 states and 2 Union Territories have so far managed to establish an office but most are defunct. Only Kerala , Uttar Pradesh and Karnataka were able to make the Lokayukta office a success. Furthermore, even among those with a functioning Lokayukta, deficiencies abound, ranging from a lack of prosecutorial authority to inadequate resources and personnel. In 2018, the Supreme Court raised concerns regarding the absence of Lokayukta offices in a significant number of states, totaling 12, which notably included Delhi, the nation's capital.

Compounding these issues is the sluggish pace of appointments, with numerous states failing to appoint a Lokayukta within the stipulated time frame. For example, Karnataka has purposefully delayed choosing a new Lokayukta, which has made it harder to fight corruption in a timely manner.

Despite the Lokpal's attempts to revamp India's administrative framework to tackle corruption head-on, persistent loopholes persist, undermining its efficacy.

Additionally, the composition of the appointing committee raises concerns about political interference, as it comprises members from political parties without clear criteria to discern individuals of integrity or eminent jurists. The act's goals are further complicated by the fact that some politicians and candidates have been able to use the necessity for a Lokpal as a platform to achieve their own political and electoral agendas due to this sensitivity to political influence.

In essence, while the Lokpal seeks to fortify India's anti-corruption mechanisms, its journey has been marred by bureaucratic inertia.

Even in states and at the union level where the Lokayukta and Lokpal offices are operational, their performance has left much to be desired. In spite of its mandate to fight corruption, neither of these agencies has been able to successfully prosecute those who are suspected of graft. Notably, there has been a lot of criticism of the Lokpal's effectiveness because it has not yet begun to prosecute any person involved in charges of corruption.

Moreover, concerns have been raised regarding the manner in which complaints are handled by the Lokpal. There are concerns regarding the fairness and accessibility of the complaint resolution process since it has been noted that a number of complaints are summarily dismissed for not following the required format..For example, during 2022–2023 the Lokpal received 2,518 complaints (which were not in the required format).Up to 242 of the complaints that were received during that time were in the format that was required. 191 of them were disposed of.

In response to these issues, the Lokpal has been urged to refrain from rejecting genuine complaints solely on procedural grounds and to adopt a more inclusive approach to addressing corruption allegations.

"However, the performance of the Lokpal seems to be far from satisfactory," said the report of the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice. Moreover, the report also said that -"At this juncture when India is heading the G20 anti-corruption working group, the Lokpal should rise to the occasion and make every effort to strengthen the anti-corruption landscape in the country," .

The panel further emphasised how alarming it is that there are vacancies in the Lokpal and Lokayukta offices. According to the panel's report, out of the sanctioned strength of 82 posts for the Lokpal, only 32 positions are currently filled. Additionally, the report highlighted the failure to fill vacancies for two judicial members since the year 2020.

According to a report by The Hindu Lokpal disposed of 68% corruption complaints against public servants without any action, only 3 complaints were actually investigated while 90% of complaints were rejected.

The institutions entrusted with fighting corruption have been reduced to symbolic roles under these harsh conditions, meaning they are no longer effective. Although the Lokpal may seem like a step forward, in practice it is a diluted form of the strong ombudsman that the Indian public had long yearned for.Once regarded as a resolute protector against corruption and misconduct, the Lokpal now lingers in the background, unable to carry out its duty due to political scheming and bureaucratic apathy.

The Lokayukta office and Lokpal have practically turned into what one can refer to as "toothless tigers."

What Lies Ahead?
It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of the Lokpal and Lokayukta roles in preventing corruption and guaranteeing the efficient operation of any administrative system. In the case of Common Cause v. Union of India (2017), the Supreme Court expressed optimism that the establishment of the proposed Lokpal and Lokayuktas would serve to enhance the prevailing legal and institutional mechanisms, thereby reinforcing the crusade for integrity in public affairs. However, their impact thus far has been marginal, necessitating a concerted effort to bolster implementation.

Moreover, it is imperative to modify these institutions to give them more independence and protect them from the sway of powerful politicians and business interests. It is essential to make these changes to the acts that govern these entities in order to cultivate a more transparent and accountable governance.

A fully independent select committee must be established in order for the Lokpal to function as a separate legal body. Right now, the selection committee that chooses the Lokpal's members is a clear example of the political faction's power within the state. Moreover, the current emphasis on retired judges within the Lokpal warrants reevaluation. The Lokpal needs to be composed of people from various backgrounds who are all well-known for their uncompromising honesty and well-respected standing in the public eye. This composition would guarantee that the suggestions made by the Lokpal have significant moral weight and enjoy widespread acceptance among the populace.

Additionally, the incorporation of an appeals provision into the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act is crucial, as the current absence of such a mechanism limits the institutions' effectiveness. Introducing an appeals system would empower these bodies to address a wider spectrum of corruption cases, thereby enhancing governmental and official accountability. Furthermore, the presence of an appeals process would serve as a deterrent against corrupt practices, compelling officials to think twice before engaging in dishonest behaviour.

With the implementation of these proposed modifications, there exists the potential for the Lokpal and Lokayukta system in India to realise its aspirational role as an ombudsman. To better carry out their purpose of preventing corruption and guaranteeing administrative accountability, these organisations should strengthen their independence, add greater diversity to their membership, and establish an appeals process.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the journey of the Lokpal and Lokayukta system in India has been marked by both aspiration and adversity.The system has encountered several obstacles in its attempt to fight corruption and maintain administrative accountability, even with the best of intentions. Overcoming bureaucratic roadblocks and political meddling, among other things, has made it difficult to fully realise these organisations' potential.

However, amidst these challenges lie opportunities for transformation and reform. Through resolving concerns related to autonomy, variety, and responsibility, the Lokpal and Lokayukta can develop into a powerful instrument for transparency and accountability in the political process. With determination the dream of a truly effective anti-corruption mechanism can become a reality.