Who the Lokpal May Inquire Into, Including the Prime Minister

(g) the corresponding clause for societies, trusts and other entities in receipt of donations above the prescribed thresholds, including foreign contribution above ten lakh rupees a year.

The Explanation to clauses (f) and (g) clarifies that any entity or institution by whatever name called, corporate, society, trust, association of persons, partnership, sole proprietorship or limited liability partnership, whether registered under any law or not, is covered; and the proviso deems any person referred to in the clause to be a public servant under section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, so that Act applies to him.

Read clause (e) with the reference to section 20(1) and the graded design appears. Group C and D officials are inside the jurisdiction, but complaints against them are routed to the Central Vigilance Commission, which reports back to the Lokpal. A body of nine cannot personally inquire into every clerk in the Union, and the Act says so by cross-reference rather than by exclusion.

The two provisos on the Prime Minister

Proviso one, clause (i): subject matter. The Lokpal shall not inquire into any allegation of corruption against the Prime Minister in so far as it relates to international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy and space.

Proviso one, clause (ii): procedure. No inquiry unless a full bench of the Lokpal consisting of its Chairperson and all Members considers the initiation of the inquiry and at least two-thirds of its Members approve of it.

Proviso two: secrecy. Any such inquiry shall be held in camera, and if the Lokpal concludes that the complaint deserves to be dismissed, the records of the inquiry shall not be published or made available to anyone.

In camera means behind closed doors, with the public and the press excluded.

How to assess these in an answer. They are a genuine compromise and both readings are respectable. In favour: an office whose holder can be paralysed by an inquiry into his handling of a border crisis is a national security problem, and a dismissed complaint that leaves a public record damages a Prime Minister who has been cleared. Against: the excluded subjects are exactly the areas where the largest contracts are placed, defence procurement lying squarely inside external security; and a two-thirds vote of a body the Government's own Selection Committee helped choose is a high bar.

Section 14(2): what the Lokpal may not touch in Parliament

The Lokpal shall not inquire into any allegation of corruption against a member of either House in respect of anything said or a vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof, covered under clause (2) of article 105 of the Constitution.

This is the Act deferring to the Constitution, and it is the point at which Module I joins Module III. Article 105(2) provides that no member shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any committee thereof.

And the law under article 105(2) has changed since this Act was passed. When the Act was drafted, the leading decision held that a member who took a bribe and then voted was immune from prosecution. On 4 March 2024 a bench of seven judges overruled that. Chapter 1100 works the change in full. The consequence for section 14(2) is a real question worth raising in an answer: the sub-section excludes what article 105(2) covers, and what article 105(2) covers is now narrower than it was, because bribery is not "in respect of" the vote at all.

Section 14(3): the outsider who paid

The Lokpal may inquire into the act or conduct of any person other than those in sub-section (1) if that person is involved in abetting, bribe giving or bribe taking or conspiracy relating to an allegation of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 against a person in sub-section (1).

The proviso: no action against a person serving in connection with the affairs of a State without the consent of the State Government.

Two points. The bribe giver is inside, which matters because the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act made bribe giving an offence in its own right. And the proviso is a federal safeguard of the same family as section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which chapter 820 reads.

Section 14(4): no Commission of Inquiry on the same matter

No matter in respect of which a complaint has been made to the Lokpal under this Act shall be referred for inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952.

This is one section joining MU's first label to its second, and it is worth a paragraph in any answer that touches either. The reason is not tidiness. A Commission of Inquiry produces a report that binds nobody, and section 6 of the 1952 Act makes a statement to a Commission inadmissible against its maker. If a matter could be moved from the Lokpal to a Commission, a Government facing a corruption inquiry with prosecution at the end of it could convert it into an inquiry with nothing at the end of it. Section 14(4) shuts that door.

The Explanation to section 14: only conduct in office

A complaint under the Act shall only relate to a period during which the public servant was holding or serving in that capacity. Conduct before appointment and after demitting office is outside.

Section 15: matters already elsewhere

Where a matter or proceeding relating to an allegation of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was pending before any court, or before a committee of either House of Parliament, or before any other authority, either before the Act commenced or before an inquiry begins under it, that matter or proceeding shall be continued before that court, committee or authority.

So the Lokpal does not take over pending matters. Notice again the interaction with Module III: a committee of either House is named in terms, so a matter already before a parliamentary committee stays there.

A worked example

A complaint alleges that a Minister of the Union took money to award a defence contract, that a Joint Secretary processed the file, and that a private company paid.

The Minister: clause (b), inside, and no special safeguard applies. Only the Prime Minister has the provisos.

The Joint Secretary: clause (d), a Group A officer serving in connection with the affairs of the Union, inside.

The company that paid: section 14(3), inside as a bribe giver, and by the proviso to the Explanation deemed a public servant for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Now make the allegation against the Prime Minister instead. Clause (a) brings him in, but proviso (i) excludes matters relating to external security and a defence contract may well be argued into that exclusion. Even if it is not, proviso (ii) requires a full bench and a two-thirds vote before the inquiry may begin, proviso two requires it to be in camera, and a dismissal seals the record.

Now suppose the allegation is that the Minister said something corrupt in a speech in the Lok Sabha. Section 14(2) with article 105(2) keeps the Lokpal out of anything said or any vote given in the House.

And suppose the Government would prefer a retired judge to look at the whole affair. Section 14(4) forbids referring the matter to a Commission of Inquiry once a complaint has been made to the Lokpal.

What beginners get wrong

That the Prime Minister is excluded. He is not. He is included with conditions, and the conditions are what an answer must state.

That Group C and D officials are outside. They are inside, under clause (e), but routed through the Central Vigilance Commission by section 20(1).

That only Government servants are covered. Clauses (f) and (g) reach bodies financed or controlled by the Government and societies and trusts taking donations above the prescribed limits, and section 14(3) reaches the private bribe giver.

That the Lokpal can look at a person's whole life. The Explanation confines a complaint to the period during which the person was holding or serving in that capacity.

That the Lokpal takes over pending cases. Section 15 says the opposite.

Quick revision

s.14(1): (a) Prime Minister, present or former; (b) Union Minister; (c) member of either House; (d) Group A and B; (e) Group C and D, routed via s.20(1); (f) bodies established by an Act of Parliament or financed or controlled by the Centre; (g) societies and trusts above the prescribed donation thresholds.

Prime Minister, proviso one: excluded subjects are international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy and space; and no inquiry without a full bench and the approval of at least two-thirds of the Members. Proviso two: in camera, and on dismissal the records are not published.

s.14(2): nothing said or any vote given in Parliament or a committee, per article 105(2).

s.14(3): abettors, bribe givers, bribe takers and conspirators outside the list; proviso, consent of the State Government for a State servant.

s.14(4): a matter complained of to the Lokpal may not be referred to a Commission of Inquiry.

Explanation: only conduct while holding or serving in that capacity.

s.15: matters already before a court, a committee of either House or another authority continue there.

Test yourself

1. Is the Prime Minister within the Lokpal's jurisdiction? Answer fully. Yes, under section 14(1)(a), whether serving or former, but subject to two provisos. The first excludes allegations in so far as they relate to international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy and space, and forbids an inquiry unless a full bench consisting of the Chairperson and all Members considers initiating it and at least two-thirds of the Members approve. The second requires the inquiry to be held in camera and forbids publication of the records if the complaint is dismissed.

2. What does section 14(4) provide, and why? That no matter in respect of which a complaint has been made to the Lokpal may be referred for inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act 1952. The reason is that a Commission's report binds nobody and a statement made to a Commission is inadmissible against its maker under section 6 of that Act, so allowing a transfer would let a corruption inquiry that can end in prosecution be converted into one that can end in nothing.

3. How does section 14(2) interact with the current law on legislative privilege? Section 14(2) excludes from the Lokpal's jurisdiction anything said or any vote given by a member in Parliament or a committee, in so far as article 105(2) covers it. Article 105(2) was construed in 1998 to confer immunity on a member who took a bribe and voted, but that construction was overruled by seven judges on 4 March 2024, which held that bribery is complete on acceptance and is not in respect of the vote. The exclusion in section 14(2) is therefore narrower now than when the Act was drafted.

4. Are Group C and Group D officials within the jurisdiction? Yes, under section 14(1)(e), but the complaint is dealt with through the Central Vigilance Commission by virtue of the reference to section 20(1), which reports its findings back to the Lokpal. The design keeps them inside the Act while preventing a nine-member body from being submerged in the volume.

5. Can the Lokpal inquire into a private company that paid a bribe? Yes. Section 14(3) allows an inquiry into the act or conduct of any person outside sub-section (1) who is involved in abetting, bribe giving or bribe taking, or in a conspiracy, relating to an allegation of corruption against a person inside sub-section (1). Where the person is serving in connection with the affairs of a State, the proviso requires the consent of the State Government.