Lokpal and Lokayukta Compared: Level, Composition, Jurisdiction and the Uneven State Position

The Lokpal and the Lokayukta were proposed together in 1966 as a single scheme, one for the Union and one for each State. They did not arrive together. The States began establishing Lokayuktas from 1971 and the Union established the Lokpal only in 2013, so for four decades the institution existed at the State level and not at the Centre. The consequence is that the Lokayuktas were designed independently of one another and of any central model, and they differ widely in composition, jurisdiction, investigative capacity and the effect of their findings. This topic compares the two, sets out the variations among the States, and examines a difficulty peculiar to the Lokayuktas, namely their relationship with the legislature whose members they investigate.

1. The Comparison

Basis	Lokpal	Lokayukta
Level	The Union	A State
Governing law	Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, a central Act	A State Act, differing from State to State
Obligation to establish	Established by the central Act itself	Section 63 requires every State to establish one within a year, leaving the design to the State
Composition	Chairperson and up to eight Members, at least half judicial	Varies; commonly a single Lokayukta with one or more Upa-Lokayuktas
Appointment	President, on a Selection Committee including the Prime Minister, Speaker, Leader of the Opposition, Chief Justice of India or his nominee and an eminent jurist	Governor, ordinarily on consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court, the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition
Whom it covers	Prime Minister with exclusions, Ministers, Members of Parliament, all Groups of central officials, central statutory bodies	Varies; the Chief Minister is covered in some States and not in others
Investigative machinery	Inquiry Wing and Prosecution Wing; superintendence over the CBI in referred matters	Varies; some States have a dedicated police wing, others depend on State agencies
Sanction to prosecute	Granted by the Lokpal itself	Ordinarily not; the Government sanctions
Effect of findings	Directions and sanction operate	Ordinarily recommendatory, and the Government may decline to act
Subject matter	Offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act	Corruption and, in several States, maladministration and grievances as well

2. Investigating Legislators: The Privilege Question

📖 Lokayukta, Justice Ripusudan Dayal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 4 SCC 473

Facts: The Lokayukta of a State initiated proceedings concerning allegations against sitting Members of the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Assembly took the view that this interfered with its own authority over its members and initiated proceedings for breach of privilege against the Lokayukta and his officers. The question was how far the privileges of the House extend, and whether they could be used to restrain an investigation into the conduct of members.

Held: The Supreme Court held in favour of the Lokayukta. It held that the privileges of a House and of its members are not unlimited and must be tested by reference to what is necessary for the House to perform its functions without hindrance: a privilege can be claimed only to the extent required to enable members to discharge their duties, and the House cannot claim privileges which are not essentially related to its functioning. It held that a claim of privilege cannot be used as a shield to prevent the ordinary operation of the law against members, since no person enjoys a privilege against the application of the criminal law, and that proceedings concerning allegations of corruption against members fall outside the area the privilege protects. The claim of breach of privilege against the Lokayukta was accordingly not sustainable.

Ratio: Legislative privilege extends only so far as is necessary for the House to function, and cannot be used as a shield against the ordinary operation of the law. Proceedings against members for corruption are outside the protected area.

3. The Variations Among the States

Coverage of the Chief Minister. Some Acts include the Chief Minister; others exclude him, or include him only with the prior approval of the legislature or the Governor.
Coverage of Ministers and legislators, which varies, and in several States has been narrowed by amendment after inconvenient investigations.
Investigative capacity. Karnataka established a dedicated police wing, which is generally regarded as the reason for that institution's effectiveness; many States have none.
Suo motu jurisdiction, available in some States and absent in others, so that the institution can act only on a complaint.
Subject matter. Some Acts cover maladministration and grievances in the classical ombudsman sense; others are confined to corruption.
Effect of the report, which is recommendatory everywhere but attracts a duty to report non-acceptance to the legislature in some States.
Appointment and removal, and the extent to which the Chief Justice of the High Court is involved, which varies materially.
Delay in appointment, with several States leaving the office vacant for long periods, which reduces the institution to a formality.

4. The Structural Relationship

Question	Position
Is the Lokayukta subordinate to the Lokpal?	No; they operate at different levels with separate jurisdictions
Can the Lokpal investigate a State functionary?	No; State functionaries fall to the Lokayukta
Does the central Act prescribe the Lokayukta's design?	No; section 63 requires establishment but leaves composition and powers to the State
Can a State narrow its Lokayukta's jurisdiction?	Yes, by amending its own Act, which several States have done
Does a central official in a State fall to the Lokayukta?	No; the Lokpal has jurisdiction over central functionaries
Is there a mechanism for referral between them?	Not in the manner in which the Lokpal refers to the Central Vigilance Commission
Do both depend on outside agencies to investigate?	The Lokpal has an Inquiry Wing and superintendence over the CBI; Lokayuktas vary

5. The Common Weaknesses

Recommendatory findings. Both institutions report, and the Government may decline to act on what they find, the Lokpal's position being stronger only because it may itself direct prosecution and grant sanction.
Dependence on other agencies for investigation, which reintroduces the executive control the institution was meant to avoid.
Vacancies and delay in appointment, which have repeatedly rendered both inoperative for extended periods.
Confinement to corruption, so that the classical ombudsman function of investigating maladministration is largely unperformed at the central level.
Amendment by the legislature being investigated, since a State may narrow the jurisdiction of its own Lokayukta.
Resource constraints, with staffing and funding determined by the Government whose functionaries are investigated.

⚠ The central Act required Lokayuktas but did not design them

Section 63 of the Act of 2013 obliges every State to establish a Lokayukta within one year, and it stops there: the composition, the jurisdiction, the powers and the effect of the findings are all left to the State legislature. The consequence is that the obligation has been complied with in form across the country while producing institutions of very different strength, some covering the Chief Minister with an investigating wing of their own, others confined to officials and dependent on the State police. That design choice reflects the federal position, since the machinery for investigating State functionaries is properly a State subject, but it means that the uniformity the 1966 proposal contemplated was never achieved, and that the effectiveness of the institution in a given State depends on decisions taken by the very legislature its members may be investigated by.

6. The Position in Summary

The Lokpal operates at the Union level under the central Act of 2013; Lokayuktas operate at the State level under State Acts which differ widely in composition, jurisdiction and powers.
Section 63 of the central Act requires every State to establish a Lokayukta within a year but leaves the design entirely to the State legislature.
The Lokpal has an Inquiry Wing, a Prosecution Wing, superintendence over the investigating agency and the power to grant its own sanction; Lokayuktas vary, and most depend on State agencies and on governmental sanction.
Legislative privilege extends only so far as is necessary for the House to function and cannot shield members from the ordinary operation of the law, including proceedings for corruption (Ripusudan Dayal).
Both share the weaknesses of recommendatory findings, dependence on other agencies, vacancies, confinement to corruption and vulnerability to amendment by the legislature concerned.

7. Related Topics and Provisions

Lokpal and Lokayuktas (Topic 159) and Lokpal vs Central Vigilance Commission (Topic 192).
Ombudsman: Meaning and Development (Topic 158): the classical model and the Indian departure from it.
Central Vigilance Commission (Topic 160) and Whistle-Blower Protection (Topic 167).
Questions, Debates and Parliamentary Committees (Topic 151): privilege and its limits.
Administrative Accountability (Topic 147) and Administrative Grievance Redressal (Topic 165).
Constitution of India: Articles 105, 194 and 226; Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, section 63; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.