As Lokpal floats tender for 7 BMWs worth Rs 5 crore, a look at its performance over past 5 years of functioning

How has the Lokpal performed so far

The announcement comes even as questions have been mounting over the Lokpal’s performance. According to The Hindu’s report earlier this year on the Lokpal’s functioning over the past five years, the institution ordered investigations in just 24 cases and granted prosecution sanctions in six.

Nearly 90% of complaints were rejected as being in the wrong format. Of 2,320 “defect-free” complaints received, only a handful resulted in action -- mostly against lower-level officials.

Critics have argued that the Lokpal has failed to live up to its mandate. As reported by ThePrint, RTI activist Anjali Bhardwaj questioned the body’s effectiveness, saying, “There is a big question today as to why the Lokpal exists in the first place. And what is it that the Lokpal is doing?” She further said, “There is very, very little transparency in the way the Lokpal is functioning -- the complaints coming to the Lokpal, how they get dealt with and what is finally decided.”

ThePrint’s analysis of 620 final orders in July this year issued by the Lokpal found that only a few involved prominent figures, such as Trinamool Congress MP Mahua Moitra and Jharkhand Mukti Morcha chief Shibu Soren, both facing complaints filed by BJP MP Nishikant Dubey.

The Lokpal in March 2024 ordered a CBI investigation into allegations that Moitra shared her Parliament login credentials with businessman Darshan Hiranandani, while another order in March 2024 directed a CBI probe into Soren’s alleged disproportionate assets.

The Lokpal also received three complaints against Prime Minister Narendra Modi last year, one of which was rejected.

The Lokpal’s order said the complaint “borders on surmising and conjecturing; and is purely an election propaganda for cornering the opponent by posing a questionnaire.” In reaction, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh had posted on X, “Meanwhile, the Lokpal has certainly proved to be a Lok (Kalyan Marg) Pal?”

The Lokpal’s prosecution sanctions, ThePrint noted, have primarily targeted small-scale corruption -- bank managers, PSU staff, and mid-level bureaucrats.

One case involved a State Bank of India manager accused of accepting a Rs 4 lakh bribe for processing a loan, while others dealt with bank officials at UCO and the Bank of India accused of irregular lending practices.

Former Lokpal judicial member Justice Abhilasha Kumari acknowledged to ThePrint that “banks did form a major chunk of the complaints” but described the body’s early challenges. “People used to write that Lokpal is functioning from a five-star hotel. But the reality was very different. We were working out of half a corridor of The Ashok Hotel with minimal staff,” she told ThePrint.

Administrative inefficiency has compounded the institution’s struggles. According to The Hindu, the Lokpal still lacks permanent staff in key positions, including the Director of Inquiry and Director of Prosecution.

These roles remain vacant, forcing reliance on the CBI and Central Vigilance Commission for investigations.

Appointments to the Lokpal have also been controversial. As reported by ThePrint, Bhardwaj, who filed an RTI on the selection process, said that “if information related to the selection of the Lokpal chairperson and members itself is withheld as secret information, then the same is antithetic to the letter and spirit of the Lokpal Act.” She alleged that appointments have been dominated by the executive, compromising independence.

In contrast, former Karnataka Lokayukta Justice N. Santosh Hegde, speaking to ThePrint, argued that public pressure must revive the institution’s relevance. “No government wanted any investigating body which would be efficient against them. To satisfy the public demand, they created an institution without any infrastructure,” he said, adding, “There should be public pressure to build the Lokpal’s credibility. No institution wants an efficient investigation agency against them.”

The Lokpal, for its part, maintains that it works “in the most transparent manner,” according to its official response to ThePrint. It defended the confidentiality of its proceedings, stating that orders are published only after final disposal to protect identities.

However, with the purchase of seven luxury BMWs now in motion, the optics have drawn sharp criticism. For an institution created to stand for integrity and frugality, the move risks reinforcing the perception of an aloof, slow-moving body.

Despite its mandate to combat corruption at the highest levels, India’s apex anti-graft watchdog today appears, as the headline in ThePrint put it, a “god of small things,” struggling to inspire the fear or faith that once justified its creation.