In a historic move last week, retired Supreme Court judge Pinaki Chandra Ghose was appointed as the country’s first ever anti-corruption ombudsman—or Lokpal—after a PM-led selection committee comprising Lok Sabha Speaker Sumitra Mahajan, Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi, and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi agreed on his name.

The wait for a Lokpal has been tedious. The need for such an independent national watchdog to look into allegations of graft made against public and elected officials (including the PM himself) has been contemplated by Indian lawmakers since the early Sixties. By the turn of the millennium, corruption in Indian society—even among agencies such as the country’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)—had led to a waning public trust in the system. Thus arose the need for an ombudsman to root out corruption and fight against administrative malpractices.

The institution of an ombudsman is believed to have originated from Scandinavian countries. It first came into being in Sweden back in 1713 when a “chancellor of justice” was appointed by the king to act as a sort of invigilator to look into the functioning of a wartime government. Since then, the duty of this ombudsman was to primarily ensure the correct conduct of royal officials. The institution of ombudsman was finally incorporated into the Swedish constitution from 1809.

Keeping in mind that it took Sweden nearly a century to do so, the formation of a similar body to keep watch on all sections of Indian polity has been anything but fast-paced. After all, why would the government and its ministers appoint an independent who would have superseding powers over them?

Let’s take a closer look at the Lokpal’s slow walk to fruition.

The word “Lokpal” has been derived from the Sanskrit word “loka” which means people, and “pala” meaning protector—ergo, “protector of the people”. According to a Rajya Sabha document, it took India almost 45 years to enact the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Bill was introduced for the very first time in the fourth Lok Sabha as the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 1968. Since then, the Bill has been introduced nine times: in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001 and twice in 2011.

Keeping in mind the repeated postponement to enact this piece of legislation, a wide-scale campaign was launched by civil society organisations—a movement spearheaded by Anna Hazare—in 2011. These organisations brought out their own version of the Bill titled “The Jan Lokpal Bill”. Subsequently, the government introduced a new Lokpal Bill on August 4, 2011, which was referred to the Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee for examination just four days later. On the basis of the recommendations contained in the committee’s reports, which was presented on December 9, 2011, the Lokpal Bill, 2011, was withdrawn and its place, a revised Bill titled “The Lokpal and Lokayuktas  Bill 2011” was once again introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 22, 2011.

Between 1977 and 2011, the bill was re-introduced a total of six times in Parliament but wasn’t passed because of lack of consensus. According to Wall Street Journal, in April 2011, a month after meeting with PM Manmohan Singh to discuss “enlisting people from outside government to help draft a bill to set up an anti-corruption ombudsman’s office”, social activist and the new millennium’s crusader against corruption Anna Hazare began fasting at New Delhi’s Jantar Mantar. His fast lasted three days, after which the government decided to form a joint panel of ministers. However, the stalemate between Anna and the government continued for the next two months, with each giving their own reasons for failing to reach consensus.

On June 30, 2011, a draft of the bill was presented before India’s Cabinet. At the same time, yoga guru Baba Ramdev had also kicked off his own anti-corruption protest, which was then disbanded by the police.

In July the same year, the Cabinet approved the draft bill, which, at the time, did not have jurisdiction over the PM. A month later, on August 4, the bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha amid widespread agitation staged by anti-corruption protesters keeping the exclusion of the PM in mind. On August 16, Anna was arrested and sent to Tihar jail under a “temporary legal provision that banned public gatherings and protests” at a park in New Delhi where he was planning to hold his hunger strike. However, he was released three days later after agreeing with the then-UPA government’s demand to hold a protest for only a fortnight. He headed for Ramlila grounds in the heart of Delhi where his historic hunger strike—one that brought the entire middle class of India together across all states and classes—kicked off in full swing.

Seventy-three-year-old Anna ended his 13-day hunger strike on August 29, 2011, after Parliament adopted a resolution agreeing to his team’s key demands. However, as of December 20, by the time which the Cabinet had approved its own version of the bill, Anna and his team remained unhappy with the government’s version, which, according to them, failed to meet key demands. On December 23, the government introduced the legislation in Parliament, amid protests from Opposition parties and anti-corruption activists, thus setting the stage for “another showdown in the legislature”.

On December 27, 2011, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill were passed by the Lok Sabha—only to be opposed by the Rajya Sabha during the session.

Anna Hazare’s movement was pivotal in the modern-day context for the formation of LoP. In a piece that highlights the highs and lows of the year 2011, Time magazine describes Anna’s movement as “the most striking act of dissent” that took place in India. Anna was described as a 74-year-old activist with a “Gandhian air” commanding “something of the Mahatma’s aura when he embarked on a series of hunger strikes in protest of the graft that his supporters say pervades all strata of Indian society. Hazare’s fasts—or even the mere threat of them—triggered mass demonstrations of support across India’s major cities and mounted pressure on the government to create an independent ombudsman body”, which would have the powers to investigate the nation’s political top dogs.

To cut a long story short, Parliament finally went on to pass the Lokpal Act in 2013, with the Congress-led UPA in power at the time. The law provided for a Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in states which would be vested with the responsibility of investigating cases of corruption against elected and public servants. The Act provided for a selection of a chairperson and members of Lokpal by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Lok Sabha Speaker, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India (or a sitting SC judge nominated by him/her) as well as an eminent jurist to be nominated by President of India on the basis of recommendations from the first four members of selection panel.

However, even though the Lokpal Act was added to the Constitution, India was still a long way from appointing members of the Lokpal committee, let alone the Lokpal itself.

With the Lokpal appointments still arbitrary and vague as of April 2017, the apex court stated that there was no justification to put the appointment of Lokpal on hold. A bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha was delivering judgement in a batch of public interest litigations filed three years ago by NGO Common Cause and Just Society. The case seeking appointment of Lokpal and Lokayuktas was being argued by senior advocate Shanti Bhushan and advocates Prashant Bhushan and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, who wanted the Chairperson and members of the body to be appointed as per the amended rules framed under the 2013 Act.

During the course of the hearing, the SC turned down the Centre’s argument to keep the Lokpal Act in suspension and said that the Act, as it stood in its current form, was enforceable. Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi had earlier submitted to the court that there wasn’t any clarity on who the “Leader of Opposition” was and also stated that the Lok Sabha had declined to accept Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge as the Leader of the Opposition.

NGO Common Cause played a pivotal role in the fight for Lokpal during the new millennium. According to its director and CEO Vipul Mudgal (who was appointed to the post in 2015), the NGO first got into the issue sometime around 1995.

“The movement has been going on for a very long time since the 1960s I think, but according to me, it (the movement) gained momentum only in the 1990s,” Mudgal says. “We filed a petition in the SC initially. This was just the beginning at the time since there was not much traction and Common Cause was also getting into constitutional issues. Basically, the long and short of it was that we at least wanted to have an institution called Lokpal where people can approach the Lokpal, which has a statutory position in the Constitution. It can be approached in cases of corruption in high places. Whenever there are cases of corruption against ministers, etc., there are all types of permission involved, so many artificial walls. We were of the opinion that once the institution is created, it will also begin to breathe on its own and have an evolution of its own.”

Mudgal says in 1995, Common Cause wanted the establishment of an independent Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas at the state level. He describes their 1995 writ petition—WP26—as “good and clean”. He also emphasises that though people said it was filed to target the present dispensation, there was nothing of that sort. “When the writ petition was filed in 1995, there was a Congress government and after that, so many governments came and went.”

When asked whether the Lokpal movement has been weakened by the delay, Mudgal remains optimistic but doesn’t shy away from pointing out the irregularities. “One should have some optimism and hope. This is a defining moment of a generation. I would say that the last generation was like the RTI generation and the coming generation will be the Lokpal generation … Yes, if the government wanted, they could have been slightly more transparent about it. They could have done the same thing 2.5 years back—nothing had stopped them. In fact, if they were serious, then they should have done it as soon as they came into power. But obviously, they have a history—the PM when he was the Gujarat CM did not allow Lokayukta to first be created in the state.”

Mudgal adds: “Maybe not all politicians are corrupt but they have to take money in order for their parties to run. If election expenditure demands that you collect ₹5,000-6,000 crore then how will you do it? I think that’s the head of all corruption.”

Mudgal says they consider themselves “lucky” that Gogoi became the CJI. “He saw through the tactics being played and that maybe some people had an interest in delaying the formation of LoP. See the trajectory: The first case was filed in court in 1995 and then it continued until 2014 until the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act was passed in Parliament which means it took 11 years to drag on. Every time the case would come up, something or the other would be said and it would be delayed. And then, in 2012, when the Anna Hazare movement was going on, we, Common Cause, were called. We were constantly in touch with the team that was drafting Lokpal…”

Mudgal says the Search Committee rules were a “very skewed position”. “There was a Search Committee rule that only the government hand-picked nominees would be considered for the position of Lokpal. We thought that this would be a very skewed position. Civil servants who do the bidding of government throughout their life, if somebody gives them an appointment of Lokpal as a reward for their services, they will then continue to serve their masters.”

Therefore, Common Cause filed a case in 2014 to contest the “arbitrary nature” of the Search Committee, saying the rules formed “undermine the independence of the institution since you have restricted the entire field of the process of selection to a limited number of hand-picked officers of the government”. Common Cause also said that the Search Committee rule that was formed under the act gave undue advantage to senior bureaucrats. Mudgal explains: “Ultimately, it will happen that bureaucrats will become members of Lokpal and [it] will become easier for the government. Even now I think that there will be many bureaucrats but at least the field should be open for others. Let there be artists, musicians and people from all walks of life.”

However, Common Cause’s 2014 petition was disposed of in April 2017 because the government gave an undertaking that a Lokpal would be formed in the next session of Parliament. “We were told our case is disposed and it (court) gave a suggestion to the government that the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act as it stands is a perfectly workable piece of legislation—therefore if you want, you can go ahead and appoint a Lokpal. Then again the next session came and next and next—but nothing happened.”

And so Common Cause filed a third petition—a contempt petition—in January 2018. It was filed in the Supreme Court and Mudgal admits they were “very happy” since it often happens that if the same party files a second the petition, it isn’t entertained by the court. “For us, the fact of the matter was that if you take up the matter, you take it to its conclusion. How can you just stop midway? The government was playing dirty tricks. So we filed a contempt of court petition and the court took cognisance of our plea and said it seems like the government is not serious and is going back on their word because of which they are in contempt of court.”

Mudgal says it’s been a long battle. He’s happy that a landmark has been established, backed by an Act of Parliament. “It has finally been notified and an appointment has been made but we believe that all such appointments should be done in a transparent manner. Therefore, it will be great if the government follows transparency at all levels in the future. The way the case was progressing, it was very clear that the government wanted to postpone it.”

When it came to appointing an independent jurist to the committee, Mudgal says it was first PP Rao. After Rao’s death, however, Justice Gogoi asked the government in the second half of 2018 what was stopping them from appointing a second jurist. “The court gave the government a time period. Then in the next hearing, literally shouted at them. After this, the government informed the court that senior advocate Rohatgi was appointed … You see that at every point—wherever there was a possibility of pushing some kind of technicality in order to delay it, that opportunity was utilised by the government.”

Though Mudgal looks at the implementation of a Lokpal as a pragmatic and historic move, others who fought for the cause feel let down. Social activist Anjali Bhardwaj—who is co-convenor of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information—wrote a piece titled “How Not to Appoint a Lokpal” earlier this month. She explained how “an independent and credible Lokpal has been sacrificed at the altar of short-term political gains” under the leadership of a self-proclaimed chowkidar.

She points out how, with just three weeks to go till the 2019 Lok Sabha election kicks off, the process of appointment of Lokpal and its members has been completely compromised in at least two ways. “The first is by having a preponderance of government representatives and nominees on the selection committee responsible for recommending names for the position of chairperson and members of the Lokpal,” she wrote. “Second, the working of the selection committee of the Lokpal has been shrouded in secrecy.”

Speaking with Newslaundry, Bhardwaj says: “There has already been a regressive amendment to the law when it was amended in 2016. The Lokpal was set up to look into cases of corruption. One of the cases it can catch is if someone has disproportionate assets to their known sources of income. Public servants take houses and property, etc., in the names of their relatives. The original law said there should be disclosure of assets and liabilities of public servants and their families. The law was amended to say that this clause will be changed and whatever the central government decides only that will be disclosed. For bureaucrats, there is no disclosure of the assets and liberties of their spouses and children. Benami property being held in illegally amassed wealth. This (amendment) was a big blow to Lokpal. Even though the law was passed in 2014, in the last five years, there has been no LoP at all. Now, of course, there has been an appointment of the Chairperson and its members but the way that the appointments have been is absolutely against the spirit of the Lokpal even though it has been demanded since the 1960s and the final push for Lokpal happened in 2011.”

Bharadwaj says the toughest part of the movement was to get the law passed, since “no political party wants to be held accountable”. But even after the passage of the law, no government wanted to ensure the law works. “That is why we’re saying this government did not take the necessary steps in facilitating the appointment of Lokpal. Therefore, the big challenge for the past five years has been to get it implemented and then how to save Lokpal from amendments and dilutions.”

When asked if the implementation of Lokpal was like two steps forward, but one step back, she says: “Once the very basis of the Constitution has been shaken, if appointments are made in such a manner, then public trust in the organisation goes down. Going ahead, they must function in as transparent a manner as possible and work without fear of favours and independently. But a lot of this was dependent on who was selecting the Lokpal and who became the Lokpal finally. Going forward, Lokpal will have powers, which, if they want to exercise, it can be a powerful weapon to fight graft but now all we can do is wait and watch.”