The office of the Lok Pal is the Indian version of the office of an Ombudsman who is appointed to inquire into

complaints made by citizens against public officials. The Lok Pal is a forum where the citizen can send a complaint against a public official, which would then be inquired into and the citizen would be provided some redressal. The Lok Pal Bill has been introduced eight times in the Lok Sabha (1968, 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998 and 2001). However, each time the Lok Sabha was dissolved before the Bill could be passed, except in 1985 when it was withdrawn. So far 18 state governments have enacted legislation to set up the office of Lokayukta and Uplokayukta (deputy Lokayukta). The 18 states are: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, and Uttar Pradesh.

Prosecution of public servants for corruption may usually be

taken up only after the respective government gives sanction to do so . This provision is designed to protect honest officials from harassment. However, the provision may be misused by delaying response to requests for sanction. As of end-2010, the central government had not provided responses to 236 requests. Of these, 155 requests (66%) were pending for over three months. State governments had not responded to 84 requests, of which 13 (15%) were pending for more than three months.

Enact a False Claims Act (on the lines of the U.S. law). If the exchequer incurs any loss because of fraud or misrepresentation or violation of the due process as determined by an independent, competent authority, the guilty will have to pay a civil penalty equivalent to three to five times the loss sustained. The U.S. Government has collected over $24 billion from corporates under this Act. Enact a comprehensive anti-corruption law and create an Independent Anti-Corruption Commission (IACC). IACC set up in Hong Kong in 1974 reduced corruption within a few years. There is evidence that significant reduction in corruption alone will enhance economic growth rate by 1.5 to 2 percent per annum. Recent estimates indicate that nearly Rs.9.7 lakh crores of tax evaded money earned through corruption and dishonest business practices is stashed away outside India debt. Honesty is not merely a moral imperative; it is an economic necessity to accelerate and sustain high growth rates and eliminate poverty.

Time for a False Claims Act in India: The False Claims Act in the US is an excellent example of innovation to prevent and detect fraud and corruption. Under this law, any person can unearth fraud or false claims (such as the ones made for organizing the

Commonwealth Games), and file suit on behalf of the US against those who have falsely claimed federal funds for any procurement of goods, works or services. Such a whistleblower who files successful suits (called Qai tam suits) can recover 15 - 25% of any settlement or judgment reached in a case if the government intervenes in the action, or up to 30% if they pursue it on their own. Private citizens thus have an enormous incentive to detect false claims and corruption and file suits. Consequently, a huge industry of unearthing false claims has sprung up, and hundreds of false claim suits are filed every year. Since then, 4000 such suits have been filed, resulting in $6 billion recovered. In addition, $4 billion was recovered in government-initiated claims. In all such cases, a person making false claim is liable to 3 times the amount of damages sustained by the government, plus a civil penalty.

the need to enact a law of Parliament applicable to the union government, the state governments and the local governments. No single authority can be burdened with fighting corruption at all levels. But the legal framework should be similar at all levels. With the ratification of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), the Parliament has the power and the responsibility to make laws related to institutional mechanisms to fight corruption applicable at all levels union and the state. Lokpal legislation by the Parliament should incorporate a separate chapter on Lokayukta in each state and local ombudsman in each city/district under the Lokayukta. Over the past twenty years, much of the economic power and discretionary authority have shifted from the centre to the states. Land allotments, mining leases, new ports, exclusive coastal zones, SEZs and any other decisions giving scope for massive abusive of power and corruption are increasingly in states control. Therefore, we strongly feel a separate chapter should be incorporated in the Bill providing for Lokayukta and local Ombudsman. This article 253 read with Article 51(c) of the directive principles of state policy gives the Parliament the power to make laws on any subject covered by an international treaty or convention, Confiscation of properties, illegally acquired, should be achieved by enacting The Corrupt Public Servants (Forfeiture of Property) Bill, suggested by Law Commission

the services covered by the Citizens Charter can be brought under Consumer Protection Act. Once the District Consumer Forum, which is a quasijudicial body under the Consumer Protection Act, has jurisdiction over Citizens charters, it will have a very salutory effect on the quality of public services and help reduce corruption substantially. Citizens Charter is a mechanism by which the greatest citizen-satisfaction is possible at no extra cost to the government. If the Citizens' Charters are released, popularised and implemented for all public services rendered by the government, it will be the most effective step to curb corruption and promote accountability.

The Lokpal Round Table recommended that Article 311(2) should be suitably amended to facilitate removal of officials without any further enquiry, once Lokpal/Lokayukta give their findings.

The participants were of the opinion that Lokpal should have the power to appoint prosecutors in PCA cases. Lokpal should have the power to recommend the constitution of special courts to try corruption cases. The government should ordinarily accept such recommendations. There was a broad consensus among the participants that a fixed time frame for completion of trial is not warranted. However, proceedings are to be held on a day-to-day basis with no deviations. The independence of the prosecutors from the political executive was considered to be vital. The participants agreed with the recommendations of ARC that the Supreme Court and High Courts could lay down additional guidelines necessary for speedy trials.

The Lokpal should have jurisdiction over: Prime Minister under the jurisdiction of Lokpal with specific caveats All current and former MPs of both Houses. All Union Ministers Officers and functionaries in Prime Minister's Office (PMO)

 All regulatory authorities (other than Constitutional authorities) All civil servants in high offices (i.e. Joint Secretary and above) Any other official, if found to be involved in corruption, during the course of enquiry (Lokpal to decide which cases to pursue)