Section 63 and the Duty of Every State to Establish a Lokayukta
Chapter Twenty-Six
Syllabus topic 1, "Ombudsman"
Pages 123 to 126 of 1033
In one line
One section, forty-two words, requiring every State to have a Lokayukta within a year, and it is the only reason the title of the Act mentions Lokayuktas at all.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: section 63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, which constitutes Part III of the Act, provides that every State shall establish a body to be known as the Lokayukta for the State, if not so established, constituted or appointed, by a law made by the State Legislature, to deal with complaints relating to corruption against certain public functionaries, within a period of one year from the date of commencement of the Act.
The text, and every phrase in it
"Every State shall establish." Mandatory in form. Not may, not should.
"A body to be known as the Lokayukta for the State." The name is fixed by Parliament. A State may not call it something else and satisfy the section.
"If not so established, constituted or appointed." The obligation does not fall on a State that already has one. Maharashtra had had a Lokayukta since 1971, so on the face of it this clause exempted it. Chapter 250 reads that Act.
"By a law made by the State Legislature." Not by executive resolution. The point of chapter 60 in a different context: an institution created by resolution can be unmade by resolution. Parliament required a statute.
"To deal with complaints relating to corruption against certain public functionaries." Corruption, not grievances. Parliament required of the States the same narrowing it had adopted for itself, and chapter 330 explains what that cost.
"Within a period of one year from the date of commencement of this Act." The Act commenced on 16 January 2014, so the year expired on 15 January 2015.
Why Parliament could not simply legislate for the States
This is the question an examiner is really asking, and it belongs to constitutional law rather than to the Act.
The Seventh Schedule. Public order and police are entries 1 and 2 of the State List. The State public services and the State Public Service Commission are entry 41. So the machinery for investigating a State's own Ministers and officers is substantially a State subject.
What Parliament could rely on. Entry 1 of the Concurrent List is criminal law, and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 is Union legislation applying throughout India. Anti-corruption bodies at the Centre are within entry 70 of the Union List, Union public services.
So the compromise in section 63 is a federal compromise. Parliament creates the central institution itself, and as to the States it imposes an obligation to legislate rather than legislating for them. That is why the section reads as a direction to a legislature rather than as the establishment of a body.
Section 63 and the Duty of Every State to Establish a Lokayukta
The obvious objection. What happens if a State does not comply? The section provides no consequence, no default provision, no power in the Centre to establish a Lokayukta for a defaulting State, and no sanction. It is a statutory obligation without a remedy attached, and the honest answer to an examination question about it says so.
What the States actually did
Many States already had Lokayuktas, some for four decades. Odisha legislated in 1970, Maharashtra in 1971, Rajasthan in 1973, Bihar in 1974, Uttar Pradesh in 1975, Madhya Pradesh in 1981, Andhra Pradesh in 1983, Himachal Pradesh in 1983, Karnataka in 1984, Assam in 1985, Gujarat in 1986, Delhi in 1995, Punjab in 1996, Kerala in 1999, Haryana in 2002 and others since.
Several legislated after 2013, and the new Acts are visibly modelled on the Lokpal Act rather than on the older Lokayukta pattern: multi-member bodies with judicial members, selection committees, inquiry and prosecution wings, and powers of attachment. The Maharashtra Lokayukta Act 2023 is exactly such a statute and chapter 270 reads it.
And the resulting position is uneven, which is chapter 240's subject. The name is uniform because section 63 fixed it; almost nothing else is.
Why section 63 matters more than its length suggests
It is the only place where the two-tier design of 1966 becomes law. Chapter 70 recorded the First Administrative Reforms Commission's proposal for a Lokpal at the Centre and a Lokayukta in every State. The Centre took forty-seven years to build the upper tier, and section 63 is the moment it required the lower tier to exist everywhere.
It is the recital in the preambles of the new State Acts. The Maharashtra Act of 2023 opens by reciting that section 63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act provides that every State shall establish a Lokayukta, and that it is necessary to enact a new law on the lines of that Act. So the section is doing work: States that legislate now say in their own preambles that they are doing it because Parliament told them to.
And it fixes the subject matter of the State institution as corruption. A State that wanted a grievance ombudsman is not prevented from having one, because section 57 preserves other laws, but what section 63 obliges it to establish is a corruption body.
A worked example
Take two States on 16 January 2015, the day the year expired.
State A has had a Lokayukta since 1975 under its own Act, dealing with allegations of corruption and with grievances. Section 63's opening words, "if not so established, constituted or appointed", mean the obligation does not bite. Its existing body satisfies the section.
Section 63 and the Duty of Every State to Establish a Lokayukta
State B has no Lokayukta. It is in breach of a statutory obligation. Nothing in the Act says what follows. A citizen might petition the High Court under article 226 for a direction to the State to legislate, and the Court would meet the objection that it cannot compel a legislature to make a law. Chapter 230 shows the Supreme Court declining to interfere with a pending legislative exercise for precisely that reason.
Now move forward to 2025 and take Maharashtra. It had a Lokayukta from 1971 and so was never in breach. It nonetheless enacted a new Act in 2023, published in 2025, whose preamble recites section 63 and says the object is to enact a law on the lines of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 and to enlarge the scope of the 1971 Act and entrust more powers to the Lokayukta. So section 63 operated on a State that did not need it, as a model rather than as a command.
What beginners get wrong
That section 63 created the Lokayuktas. It did not. It obliges the States to create them by their own law, and most States already had one.
That the Act applies to State public servants. It does not, except through section 14(3)'s proviso for a person serving in connection with the affairs of a State, which needs the State Government's consent.
That a State may satisfy section 63 by executive order. The section requires a law made by the State Legislature.
That there is a sanction for non-compliance. There is none in the Act.
Quick revision
s.63, the whole of Part III: every State shall establish a body called the Lokayukta for the State, if not already established, constituted or appointed, by a law made by the State Legislature, to deal with complaints relating to corruption against certain public functionaries, within one year of commencement, that is by 15 January 2015.
Why not direct legislation: public order, police and State services are State subjects under the Seventh Schedule, so Parliament obliged the States to legislate rather than legislating for them.
No consequence is provided for a State that does not comply.
Effect in practice: the section is recited in the preambles of the new State Acts, including the Maharashtra Lokayukta Act 2023, which says its object is to enact a law on the lines of the Lokpal Act and to enlarge the scope of the Act of 1971.
Test yourself
1. State section 63 and identify each of its requirements. Every State shall establish a body to be known as the Lokayukta for the State, if not already so established, constituted or appointed, by a law made by the State Legislature, to deal with complaints relating to corruption against certain public functionaries, within one year of the commencement of the Act. The requirements are therefore: a body, bearing the name Lokayukta, created by State legislation rather than executive order, with a jurisdiction over corruption, established by 15 January 2015 unless one already existed.
Section 63 and the Duty of Every State to Establish a Lokayukta
2. Why did Parliament oblige the States to legislate instead of legislating for them? Because public order and police are entries 1 and 2 of the State List and the State services are entry 41, so the machinery for investigating a State's own Ministers and officers is substantially a State subject. Parliament could create the central institution under the Union List and could legislate on criminal law under the Concurrent List, but establishing a State's anti-corruption body was not open to it, so it imposed an obligation to legislate.
3. What happens if a State does not comply? Nothing is provided by the Act. Section 63 contains no default provision, no power in the Centre to establish a Lokayukta for a defaulting State and no sanction. It is a statutory obligation without a remedy attached, and a petition to compel a State legislature to enact a law meets the objection that a court will not direct a legislature to legislate.
4. Did section 63 apply to Maharashtra? Not as a command, because Maharashtra had had a Lokayukta under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act 1971 since before the Lokpal Act commenced, and the words "if not so established, constituted or appointed" exempt such a State. It nonetheless operated as a model: the preamble of the Maharashtra Lokayukta Act 2023 recites section 63 and states that the object is to enact a new law on the lines of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, to enlarge the scope of the 1971 Act and to entrust more powers to the Lokayukta.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.