State Vigilance Commissions

The States did the same thing and mostly stopped there. A State vigilance commission, where one exists, is ordinarily created by a Government Resolution or order, advises the State Government on vigilance and disciplinary matters in the State services, supervises the State's vigilance machinery, and tenders advice on departmental proceedings in the same two stages chapter 700 described.

And this book will not tell you how many States have one, or what any particular State's resolution says, because the resolutions are not in front of it. What can be stated on the material here is the legal position: the Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003 creates one Commission with a Central jurisdiction; it does not create State commissions, does not require a State to have one, and confers no power on the Commission over a State body. A candidate who states that much accurately and does not invent particulars has done better than one who supplies a confident list.

Where a statutory State institution does exist, it is the Lokayukta. That is the point section 63 of the Lokpal Act 2013 forces: 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 commencement of the Act.

Maharashtra, which is the State MU examines

The statutory institution is the Lokayukta, under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act 1971, worked in chapters 250 to 270.

Two provisions of that Act belong in this chapter.

Section 7 confines the Lokayukta and the Upa-Lokayuktas to investigating actions of the public servants within their jurisdiction on complaints involving a grievance or an allegation. They are complaint bodies, not supervisors of the State's vigilance administration.

Section 17 allows the Governor, by notification and after consultation with the Lokayukta, to confer additional functions in relation to the redress of grievances and eradication of corruption. It is the section under which the State can widen the institution without amending the Act.

Notice what the 1971 Act does not contain, and it is the answer to a comparison question. There is no equivalent of section 8(1)(a) superintendence over an investigating agency, no equivalent of section 8(1)(h) superintendence over vigilance administration, and no equivalent of section 19 consultation on vigilance rules. The Maharashtra Lokayukta is an ombudsman; it is not a vigilance commission, and the two labels in MU's syllabus are not two names for the same thing.

And the anti-corruption investigation. In Maharashtra it is done by police officers of the ranks section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act specifies, organised as the State's Anti-Corruption Bureau, which is a wing of the State police and not a commission. It reports within the State Government's own structure, which is the same conflict, one tier down, that chapter 690 described for the Chief Vigilance Officer and chapter 790 describes for the Central Bureau of Investigation.

And now the currency point chapter 270 established, which must be stated correctly. The Maharashtra Lokayukta Act 2023, published as Mah. XLVI of 2025 after the Governor's assent on 14 November 2025, would replace the 1971 Act. Only sections 1, 3 and 4 have been brought into force, so section 66, its repeal section, has not operated and the 1971 Act still governs. Write the 1971 Act as the law in force and the 2023 Act as the law enacted and not yet commenced.

The comparison to make in an answer

The Central Vigilance Commission supervises vigilance administration, supervises corruption investigations by the Central Bureau of Investigation, advises on departmental proceedings, and is statutory since 2003 with a charged budget and a protected tenure.

A State vigilance commission, where one exists, does the first and third of those for a State, and does so under an executive resolution, without a charged budget or a protected tenure. It is where the Centre was before 2003.

A State Lokayukta does something different again: it takes complaints from citizens against named public functionaries, and reports. It is statutory, and section 63 of the Lokpal Act made it compulsory.

Say the consequence out loud, because it is the examinable point. A State public servant is watched by police officers who belong to the State Government, supervised, if at all, by a commission that the State Government created by order and can abolish by order, and is answerable to a Lokayukta whose findings do not bind. Every safeguard the Union built after Vineet Narain is missing at the tier where most citizens meet the administration.

A worked example

A citizen in Maharashtra alleges that a municipal officer demanded a payment to release a building permission.

The Central Vigilance Commission has nothing to do with it. The officer is not a Central Government servant or an officer of a Central public sector body, so section 8(1)(c), section 8(1)(d) and section 8(2) do not reach him.

Who investigates. Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 requires an officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent outside the metropolitan areas, and not below an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the metropolitan area of Bombay, and that officer belongs to the State police.

The statutory complaint body. The Maharashtra Lokayukta under the 1971 Act, which investigates on a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation and reports under section 12.

The Lokpal. Not available: chapter 100 read section 14, and its jurisdiction runs to public servants under the Union, not to a municipal officer of a State.

Now suppose the same officer is on deputation to a Central public sector undertaking. He then falls within section 8(2)(b) of the 2003 Act as an officer of a notified level in a body owned or controlled by the Central Government, and the Commission's clause (d) jurisdiction opens. The tier of government, not the person, decides which machinery applies, and that is the sentence to write.

What beginners get wrong

That the Central Vigilance Commission supervises State vigilance. It does not. Its jurisdiction is Central.

That a State Lokayukta is a State vigilance commission. The Lokayukta is a complaint and investigation body created by statute; a vigilance commission is a supervisory and advisory body ordinarily created by resolution. The Maharashtra Act of 1971 contains no superintendence power at all.

That the Anti-Corruption Bureau is an independent commission. It is a wing of the State police, staffed by officers of the ranks section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act specifies.

That section 63 of the Lokpal Act created State vigilance commissions. It required every State to establish a Lokayukta by a law made by the State Legislature within one year.

That the Maharashtra Lokayukta Act 2023 is in force. Only sections 1, 3 and 4 are, so the 1971 Act still governs.

Quick revision

Why plural: the 2003 Act's jurisdiction is Central; the State tier is outside it altogether.

Who investigates in the States: s.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, an officer not below an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and any other notified metropolitan area, and not below a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent elsewhere; that is the State police, organised as an Anti-Corruption Bureau.

State vigilance commissions: ordinarily created by Government Resolution, advisory and supervisory within the State, no statute, no charged budget, no protected tenure. Where the Centre stood before 2003.

s.63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013: every State shall establish a Lokayukta by a law made by the State Legislature within one year.

Maharashtra: the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act 1971 governs; s.7 confines it to complaints involving a grievance or an allegation and s.17 lets the Governor confer additional functions after consulting the Lokayukta. No superintendence power, so it is an ombudsman and not a vigilance commission. The Maharashtra Lokayukta Act 2023, Mah. XLVI of 2025, has only ss.1, 3 and 4 in force, so s.66 has not repealed the 1971 Act.

Test yourself

1. Why does the syllabus label speak of Vigilance Commissions in the plural? Because vigilance in India is not a Union monopoly. The Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003 creates a single Commission whose jurisdiction under sections 8(1) and 8(2) runs to Central Government servants and to corporations, Government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Central Government. State Government servants, State public sector undertakings and local bodies are outside it. Vigilance at that tier is done by State machinery, and a book that taught only the Central Commission would have answered half the label.

2. Who investigates corruption offences in a State? Police officers of the State, of the ranks fixed by section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988: not below an Assistant Commissioner of Police in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other area notified as metropolitan under section 8(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, and not below a Deputy Superintendent of Police or an officer of equivalent rank elsewhere, no lower officer being competent to investigate without a Magistrate's order or to arrest without a warrant. Those officers are ordinarily organised into a State Anti-Corruption Bureau or vigilance department, which is a wing of the State police and not an independent commission.

3. How does a State vigilance commission differ from the Central Vigilance Commission? In its foundation and therefore in its strength. The Central Commission has been statutory since 2003, with a selection Committee under section 4, a fixed term under section 5, removal only on a Supreme Court reference under section 6, expenses charged on the Consolidated Fund under section 13 and an annual report laid before Parliament under section 14. A State vigilance commission, where one exists, is ordinarily created by a Government Resolution or order, has no statutory tenure, no charged budget and no laying requirement, and can be reconstituted or abolished by the same executive that created it. Its position corresponds to that of the Central Commission between 1964 and 2003.

4. Is the Maharashtra Lokayukta a vigilance commission? No. Under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act 1971 it investigates the actions of public servants within its jurisdiction on complaints involving a grievance or an allegation and reports under section 12, and section 17 allows the Governor to confer additional functions relating to the redress of grievances and the eradication of corruption after consulting the Lokayukta. The Act contains nothing corresponding to section 8(1)(a) or section 8(1)(h) of the Central Act, so the Lokayukta neither supervises an investigating agency nor superintends the State's vigilance administration, and it is not consulted on the making of vigilance or disciplinary rules. It is an ombudsman, and the two labels in the syllabus name two different institutions.

5. What does section 63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 require of the States, and what does it not? It requires every State, within one year of the commencement of the Act, to establish by a law made by the State Legislature a body to be known as the Lokayukta for the State, to deal with complaints relating to corruption against certain public functionaries, if such a body has not already been established, constituted or appointed. It prescribes neither the composition, nor the jurisdiction, nor the powers of that body, and it says nothing about State vigilance commissions, anti-corruption bureaux or the supervision of State vigilance administration. The result is that the State tier has a compulsory ombudsman of the State Legislature's own design and no compulsory vigilance commission at all.