LOKAYUKTAS IN STATES- CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

This article is written by Ishika Jain of 5^th Semester of BALLB pf Delhi Metropolitan Education, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

This article presents a comparative analysis of two prominent anti-corruption institutions in India, namely the Lokayukta in states and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) at the central level. The Lokayukta, established in various states, and the Central Vigilance Commission, operating at the national level, both play crucial roles in combating corruption and ensuring transparency in government affairs. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of their organizational structures, functions, powers, and limitations, thereby contributing to the discourse on effective anti-corruption mechanisms.

The Lokayukta, present in many states, acts as an independent ombudsman responsible for investigating allegations of corruption against public officials and elected representatives within its jurisdiction. On the other hand, the Central Vigilance Commission is a statutory body overseeing vigilance and anti-corruption measures in central government organizations. This article examines the constitutional basis, appointment process, tenure, and jurisdiction of both institutions, highlighting the variations and commonalities in their mandates.

The analysis delves into the powers vested in these bodies, such as the Lokayukta’s authority to conduct inquiries, recommend prosecution, and recommend administrative action against wrongdoers. Similarly, the Central Vigilance Commission holds authority over vigilance inquiries, advice on disciplinary matters, and monitoring the implementation of anti-corruption measures. The study further explores the challenges faced by these institutions, including issues of autonomy, resource constraints, and delays in action.

Through a comparative lens, this article aims to identify best practices and areas of improvement for both the Lokayukta and the Central Vigilance Commission. By evaluating their impact on curbing corruption and promoting ethical governance, it sheds light on their roles in fostering public trust and accountability. Moreover, it addresses the synergy between state-level Lokayuktas and the national-level Central Vigilance Commission, considering potential collaborations and knowledge sharing for a more comprehensive anti-corruption framework.

In conclusion, this article offers insights into the functioning of two distinct yet interconnected anti-corruption entities in India. It emphasizes the importance of strengthening these institutions to address evolving forms of corruption and promote good governance. Ultimately, the analysis contributes to the ongoing dialogue surrounding anti-corruption strategies, institutional effectiveness, and the broader goal of upholding integrity in public administration.Top of Form

KEYWORDS:

Comparative analysis, Anti-corruption institutions, India, Lokayukta, Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Organizational structures, Functions, Powers, Limitations, Transparency, Government affairs, Ombudsman, Corruption allegations, Public officials, Elected representatives, Constitutional basis, Appointment process, Tenure, Jurisdiction, Mandates, Vigilance inquiries, Disciplinary matters, Ethical governance, Public trust, Accountability, Autonomy, Resource constraints, Collaboration, Knowledge sharing, Anti-corruption framework, Good governance, Institutional effectiveness, Integrity, Public administration

INTRODUCTION:

Corruption has long been an issue in many nations, undermining the concepts of accountability, openness, and fair governance. Recognizing the necessity for strong anti-corruption measures, India established two major anti-corruption institutions: the Lokayukta in states and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) at the national level. These institutions act as pillars of integrity, investigating claims of corruption and promoting ethical behavior inside government bodies. We present an overview of the Lokayukta and the Central Vigilance Commission in this introduction, highlighting their duties, objectives, and significance in the greater context of anti-corruption activities.

Lokayukta in the States:

The term “Lokayukta” derives from Sanskrit, where “Loka” refers to people and “Ayukta” refers to an officer. In essence, the Lokayukta is an anti-corruption ombudsman appointed by several state governments to address corruption and maladministration complaints. At the state level, the institution functions as an independent and impartial body charged with reviewing complaints against public officials, elected representatives, and government personnel. The fundamental goal of the Lokayukta is to hold people in positions of authority accountable for their acts and choices, promoting a culture of integrity and accountability within the government.

CVC (Central Vigilance Commission):

The Central Vigilance Commission, established in 1964 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, is India’s apex anti-corruption institution at the national level. It is an autonomous authority that acts as a watchdog for corruption inside central government entities. The CVC’s responsibilities include preventing corruption, advising on policies to improve openness and efficiency, and supervising vigilance and anti-corruption efforts. The CVC helps to develop a corrupt-free and responsible central administration by supervising the conduct of public officials and fostering ethical behaviour.

OBJECTIVE:

The major goal of this article is to present a comprehensive and comparative examination of two key anti-corruption agencies in India: the Lokayukta at the state level and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) at the national level. This article seeks to accomplish the following goals by an in-depth examination of their organizational structures, functions, powers, problems, and impact:

• Understanding Institutional Structures: To explain the Lokayukta organizational structures in states and the Central Vigilance Commission, including their establishment, makeup, functions, and responsibilities. The study will provide insights into how these organizations are empowered to tackle corruption within their different jurisdictions by exploring their constitutional basis.
• Exploring Mandates and Jurisdictions: To define the Lokayukta’s and the Central Vigilance Commission’s mandates and jurisdictions. The article will cover the areas where these institutions operate, whether at the state or national level, and the types of cases they handle, highlighting their critical roles in combatting corruption.
• Analysing Investigative Processes: To examine the investigative procedures used by the Lokayukta and the Central Vigilance Commission in the investigation of corruption charges. This examination will look into the mechanisms used, the powers of inquiry, and the methods of evidence collection used to ensure fair and thorough investigations.
• Assessing the Lokayukta’s and the Central Vigilance Commission’s capabilities and limitations: To review the Lokayukta’s and the Central Vigilance Commission’s powers and limitations, including their capacity to propose prosecution, issue penalties, and make administrative suggestions. At the same time, the essay will address any constraints or obstacles that these institutions confront, such as resource constraints, legal complications, and political intervention.
• Examining the Lokayukta’s and the Central Vigilance Commission’s effectiveness in combating corruption and promoting transparent governance. The essay tries to assess the efficiency of these institutions in bringing wrongdoers to justice and avoiding corrupt behaviours by reviewing case studies, precedents, and statistical data.

HISTORY:

History of Lokayukta in States:

The concept of the Lokayukta, as an anti-corruption ombudsman, can be traced back to ancient Indian history, where the idea of an impartial authority to address grievances and uphold ethical conduct was prevalent. However, the modern implementation of the Lokayukta gained prominence in post-independence India as a response to the growing concerns of corruption and maladministration within government bodies.

The first Lokayukta was established in the state of Maharashtra in 1971 under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act. This marked a significant step towards institutionalizing an independent body that could investigate complaints of corruption against public officials, ministers, and elected representatives. Subsequently, many other states followed suit by enacting similar legislation to create their own Lokayukta institutions.

Over the years, the Lokayukta’s role evolved beyond merely addressing corruption complaints. They were granted powers to conduct investigations, recommend actions, and contribute to the enhancement of transparency and accountability in government affairs. The institution’s effectiveness, however, varied from state to state due to differences in the legal framework, jurisdiction, resources, and political will.

History of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC):

The Central Vigilance Commission traces its origins to the recommendations of the Committee on Prevention of Corruption, popularly known as the Santhanam Committee, in the early 1960s. In 1964, the Central Vigilance Commission Act was enacted to establish the CVC as an apex anti-corruption institution at the central level in India.

The CVC was envisaged to be an independent body responsible for monitoring and advising on vigilance matters within central government organizations. It aimed to create a robust mechanism for preventing corruption, promoting integrity, and ensuring accountability. The CVC’s role expanded beyond investigation to encompass advisory functions, including providing guidance on policies and practices that could minimize corruption risks.

As part of its evolution, the CVC gained more authority and responsibilities, leading to its involvement in disciplinary matters and the supervision of vigilance activities. It played a crucial role in setting guidelines for government officials’ conduct and encouraging a culture of transparency and ethics in public administration.

Connecting the Histories:

The histories of the Lokayukta in states and the Central Vigilance Commission are intertwined with the evolving challenges of corruption in India’s governance landscape. While the Lokayukta focused on addressing corruption at the state level through independent investigations, the CVC worked at the central level to establish vigilance mechanisms and promote ethical conduct.

Both institutions have undergone reforms and adaptations to stay relevant and effective in the face of changing corruption dynamics. Over time, their roles have expanded beyond mere investigation, emphasizing the importance of proactive prevention and holistic anti-corruption strategies.

In summary, the histories of the Lokayukta in states and the Central Vigilance Commission showcase the continuous efforts made by India to combat corruption and uphold principles of transparency and accountability. These institutions have played crucial roles in shaping India’s anti-corruption landscape, reflecting the nation’s commitment to promoting good governance and integrity in public administration.

STRUCTURE OF CENTERAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) in India is structured to fulfil its mandate of preventing corruption and promoting transparency and integrity within the central government organizations. The structure of the CVC includes various components that enable it to carry out its functions effectively.

• The Central Vigilance Commission is a government agency.
• The Central Vigilance Commissioner (Chairperson) and up to two Vigilance Commissioners (Members) make up a multi-member commission.

• The Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners are appointed by the President based on the recommendations of a Committee comprising of the Prime Minister (Chairperson), the Minister of Home Affairs (Member), and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of People (Member).
• The Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners are appointed for a period of four years or until they reach the age of 65, whichever comes first.

• The Secretariat

It is made up of a Secretary, four Additional Secretaries, thirty Directors/Deputy Secretaries (including two Officers on Special Duty), four Under Secretaries, and four Assistant Secretaries. Chief Technical Examiners’ Organisation (CTEO)

• The Chief Technical Examiner’s Organisation is the Central Vigilance Commission’s technical wing, led by two Chief Engineers (designated as Chief Technical Examiners) and supported by engineering professionals. This organization’s primary responsibilities are as follows:

1. Technical audit of government construction projects from a vigilance standpoint; investigation of particular complaints about construction projects;
2. Assistance to the CBI in their investigations involving technical concerns and in the assessment of assets in Delhi;
3. As well as providing advice/assistance to the Commission and Chief Vigilance Officers in vigilance cases requiring technological issues.
4. CTEO conducted comprehensive inspections of 66 procurement instances involving 52 firms in 2017. The following organizations were subjected to extensive examinations:
   1. Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRT&H),
   1. Central Public Works Department (CPWD),
   1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS),
   1. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC),
   1. Central University of Punjab, Airports Authority of India (AAI),
   1. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC),
   1. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC),
   1. Bank of Baroda (BOB)
5. Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (CDIs) 
6. The Commission has fourteen Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (CDI) posts, 11 in the rank of Director and three in the rank of Deputy Secretary.
7. CDIs serve as Inquiry Officers, conducting oral inquiries in departmental proceedings brought against public employees.

• Integrity Index Development (IID)
• The IID measures the transparency, accountability, and efficiency of public-sector governance.
• CVC has commissioned the Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad to do research in order to develop an integrity index that diverse enterprises may use to gauge themselves and that will adapt in response to changing needs.[1]

Structure Of Lokayukta:

The Lokayukta is a crucial organization tasked with upholding ethical behaviour, accountability, and openness within the public sector. Its structure normally consists of a number of crucial elements that cooperate to carry out its mission. Although specifics may differ from state to state, the following can be said about a Lokayukta’s general structure:

• The Lokayukta: Who is a senior judge or lawyer with in-depth knowledge of governance, the law, and anti-corruption measures, is the institution’s leader. Typically, the state governor or another relevant authority appoints the Lokayukta.
• Upa Lokayukta: Depending on the state, there may be one or more Upa Lokayuktas (Deputy Lokayuktas) supporting the Lokayukta. They assist in ensuring that the Lokayukta’s workload and duties are shared.
• Investigation Wing: The investigation wing of the Lokayukta is normally made up of officers skilled in law enforcement, investigations, and courtroom hearings. Investigations of allegations of corruption, poor management, and other misbehaviour must be done by this wing.
• Prosecution Wing: Building and presenting cases based on the investigation wing’s findings is the responsibility of the
• prosecution wing. It closely collaborates with the Lokayukta and the Upa Lokayuktas to make sure that the cases are successfully submitted before the proper judicial bodies.
• Administration and Support Staff: Like any other institution, the Lokayukta has administrative and support employees that are in charge of overseeing daily operations, record keeping, communication, and logistical support. This covers positions like clerk, typist, IT, and communication officers.
• Public Complaint Cell: The Lokayukta frequently has a specialized cell that takes public complaints and grievances. People who want to denounce corruption or misbehaviour should contact this cell as their first port of call.
• Outreach and Awareness Division: The Lokayukta may have an outreach and awareness division that runs programs, workshops, and campaigns to inform the general public, elected officials, and other stakeholders about ethical behaviour, anti-corruption measures, and the role of the Lokayukta in order to carry out its preventive role effectively.
• Legal Advisors: Legal advisors advise the Lokayukta and its many wings on legal issues, the application of laws, and the formalities involved in inquiries and cases.

It’s vital to remember that the Lokayukta’s organizational structure might differ from state to state in India depending on the individual laws and rules in force. The Lokayukta’s structure is ultimately intended to provide a thorough framework for examining and combating corruption and encouraging moral governance within the state.

Powers and Functions of Lokayuktas:

Lokayuktas are endowed with significant powers and functions to investigate allegations of corruption, maladministration, and other forms of misconduct by public officials. These powers empower them to uphold accountability, transparency, and ethical conduct within government and public administration. The exact powers and functions might vary slightly from state to state, but the following are the typical powers and functions of Lokayuktas:

• Investigation of Complaints: Lokayuktas have the authority to investigate complaints received from citizens regarding corruption, abuse of power, nepotism, and other forms of malfeasance by public officials, including elected representatives, bureaucrats, and government employees.
• Summons and Examination: Lokayuktas can summon witnesses, including public servants, and examine them under oath. This power allows them to gather evidence and information relevant to the investigation.
• Search and Seizure: Lokayuktas have the power to conduct searches at the premises of individuals or entities suspected of involvement in corrupt practices. They can also seize documents, records, and other relevant materials as evidence.
• Recommendation for Prosecution: Upon finding evidence of wrongdoing, Lokayuktas can recommend the initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused individuals. These recommendations are often submitted to appropriate authorities, such as the state government, for further action.
• Inquiry into Misconduct: Apart from corruption, Lokayuktas can also inquire into cases of maladministration, abuse of power, negligence, favoritism, and other forms of misconduct by public officials.
• Monitoring and Inspections: Lokayuktas can conduct periodic inspections and reviews of government departments and agencies to ensure that they are functioning efficiently and ethically.

Powers and Functions of CVC:

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is the apex integrity institution of the Indian government, tasked with ensuring transparency, accountability, and preventing corruption within the central government and its various agencies. The CVC is endowed with a wide range of powers and functions to fulfil its mandate. Here are the key powers and functions of the Central Vigilance Commission:

• Supervision and Advisories: The CVC supervises the vigilance administration across various central government organizations. It provides guidance, advice, and instructions to these organizations to prevent corruption and ensure ethical conduct.
• Inquiries and Investigations: The CVC has the authority to conduct inquiries and investigations into corruption-related matters involving central government employees, agencies, and public servants. It can initiate suo motu proceedings or act on complaints received.
• Recommendations for Prosecution: Upon finding evidence of corruption or misconduct, the CVC can recommend the initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused individuals. These recommendations are usually submitted to the appropriate authorities, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
• Monitoring and Review: The CVC monitors the progress of investigations and inquiries, ensuring that they are conducted fairly and efficiently. It can request status updates and reports from investigative agencies.
• Review of Disciplinary Actions: The CVC reviews disciplinary proceedings initiated against central government employees for corruption or other misconduct. It ensures that the disciplinary process is carried out fairly and in accordance with established norms.
• Advice on Vigilance Matters: The CVC offers advice and expertise to central government organizations on vigilance matters, including the formulation of anti-corruption policies, procedures, and codes of conduct.
• Whistleblower Protection: The CVC plays a role in protecting whistleblowers who report corruption and misconduct. It receives complaints from whistleblowers and ensures that their identities are kept confidential.

Overall, the Central Vigilance Commission plays a crucial role in preventing corruption and promoting ethical conduct within the central government and its various agencies. Its multifaceted powers and functions contribute to enhancing transparency, accountability, and good governance in the country.

Challenges faced by Lokayuktas and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC):

Lokayuktas and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) play crucial roles in combating corruption and promoting accountability within the government. However, these institutions face various challenges that can hinder their effectiveness and impact. Some of the common challenges faced by Lokayuktas and the CVC include:

1. Lack of Adequate Resources:

Both Lokayuktas and the CVC often suffer from budgetary constraints, leading to insufficient funds for hiring skilled personnel, conducting investigations, and implementing awareness programs.

2. Political Interference:

There may be instances of political pressure or interference that hinder the autonomy and independence of Lokayuktas and the CVC. This can affect their ability to conduct impartial investigations and take necessary actions.

3. Delays in Proceedings:

Due to the slow legal processes, cases and inquiries may be delayed, leading to frustration among complainants and witnesses. Delays can also diminish the impact of corrective actions.

4. Inadequate Jurisdiction:

Lokayuktas and the CVC may not have jurisdiction over certain sections of the government or specific types of corruption cases, limiting their effectiveness in addressing all forms of misconduct.

5. Limited Awareness and Public Participation:

Lack of awareness among the public about the role and functions of Lokayuktas and the CVC can result in fewer complaints being filed. Additionally, public participation in the fight against corruption might be low due to various reasons.

6. Complex Bureaucratic Processes:

Bureaucratic red tape and complex administrative procedures can impede the smooth functioning of Lokayuktas and the CVC, affecting their ability to conduct investigations and make timely recommendations.

7. Capacity and Expertise Gap:

The institutions may struggle to attract and retain qualified professionals with expertise in anti-corruption measures and investigations, which can affect the quality of their work.

8. Lack of Whistleblower Protection:

Inadequate legal safeguards for whistleblowers can discourage individuals from coming forward with information on corruption, fearing retaliation.Top of Form

Legal framework and principles related to Lokayuktas and the CVC:

LOKAYUKTA:

Punjab State v. Prakash Singh Badal (2014):

In this case, Prakash Singh Badal, the previous chief minister of Punjab, was accused of corruption. According to the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Chief Minister’s office is under the Lokayukta’s purview and is subject to investigations for possible corruption.

Union of India v. Vineet Narain, 1996:

This situation is associated with the infamous “Hawala Scandal.” The Supreme Court ordered the Central Government to pass legislation establishing Lokayuktas, or ombudsmen, in each state in response to the need for a more effective anti-corruption framework.

CVC, the Central Vigilance Commission:

Union of India v. Vineet Narain (1998):

In this case, the Supreme Court gave the CVC instructions to ensure the Central Bureau of Investigation’s (CBI) proper operation and avoid political interference in its work. The court established rules to protect the CBI’s independence and integrity.

Union of India v. Centre for PIL (2011):

This case brought to light the CVC’s responsibility for overseeing, monitoring, and assuring the impartiality and fairness of the CBI’s investigations. The CVC’s oversight is crucial for preserving the objectivity of the investigation, the court noted.

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, Lokayuktas in states and the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) at the central level stand as pillars of accountability, transparency, and ethical governance within the Indian governmental system. These institutions are entrusted with the critical task of combating corruption, preventing maladministration, and upholding the principles of integrity.

Lokayuktas, as state-level ombudsman institutions, possess the power to investigate allegations of corruption and misconduct by public officials, from top government leaders to lower administrative levels. Their jurisdiction serves as a shield for citizens, allowing them to voice concerns and seek justice against wrongdoings. Despite challenges such as limited resources and potential political interference, Lokayuktas have played a significant role in exposing corruption and promoting good governance.

Parallelly, the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) operates at the central level, overseeing vigilance administration and anti-corruption efforts within the central government and its agencies. The CVC’s wide-ranging powers, including investigation, oversight, and advisory functions, contribute to maintaining the highest standards of transparency and accountability. Although the CVC might encounter obstacles like bureaucratic complexities and delays in proceedings, its role in preventing corruption remains essential.

Both Lokayuktas and the CVC share a common goal of eradicating corruption and ensuring ethical conduct. Collaboration, coordination, and information-sharing between these institutions can create a more comprehensive and effective anti-corruption ecosystem. By addressing challenges such as political interference, resource constraints, and awareness gaps, these institutions can further strengthen their impact and contribute to a more transparent and accountable governance framework.

REFRENCES:

1. https://www.drishtiias.com/important-institutions/drishti-specials-important-institutions-national-institutions/central-vigilance-commission-cvc  Visited on 07-08-23
2. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-9055-lokayukta.html  Visited on 07-08-23
3. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-Lokayukta-and-a-state-vigilance-commission  Visited on 08-08-23
4. https://www.atishmathur.com/polity/lokpal-cvc-cbi  Visited on 08-08-23
5. https://www.cvc.gov.in/?q=about-us/functions-and-powers Visited on 08-08-23
6. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_26_36_00005_200345_1517807323069&sectionId=38396&sectionno=8&orderno=8 Visited on 09-08-23
7. https://unacademy.com/content/karnataka-psc/study-material/polity/central-vigilance-commission-3/  Visited on 10-08-23
8. https://www.lkouniv.ac.in/site/writereaddata/siteContent/202005281221380386pcv-cvcc.pdf Visited on 11-08-23

---

[1] Drishti IAS (2019) Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), Drishti IAS. Available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/important-institutions/drishti-specials-important-institutions-national-institutions/central-vigilance-commission-cvc (Accessed: 09 August 2023).