The basic idea of the Lok Pal is borrowed from the office of ombudsman, which has played an effective role in checking corruption and wrong-doing in Scandinavian and other nations. In early 1960s, mounung corrupuon In public administration set the winds blowing in favour of an Ombudsman in India too. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) set up In 1966 recommended the constitution of a two-tier machinery – of a Lokpal at the Centre, and Lokayukta(s) in the states. Details:
The Lokpal Bill provides for filing complaints of corruption against the prime minister, other ministers, and MPs with the ombudsman. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) while recommending the constitution of Lokpal was convinced that such an institution was Justified not only for removing the sense of injustice from the minds of adversely affected citizens but also necessary to Instill public confidence In the efficiency of the administrative machinery. Following this, the Lokpal Bill was for he first time presented during the fourth Lok Sabha in 1968, and was passed there in 1969.
However, while it was pending in the RaJya Sabha, the Lok Sabha was dissolved, and so the bill was not passed at that time. The bill was revived In 1971. 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005, and most recently n 2008. Each time, after the bill was Introduced to the house, It was referred to some committee for improvements ** a joint committee of parliament, or a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry *tand before the government could take a final tand on the issue, the house was dissolved.
Several flaws have been cited in the recent draft of the Lokpal Bill. Meanwhile the activists of India Against Corruption (IAC) have prepared a draft for the bill called Jan Lokpal Bill. Duties: 10 Judge tne cases ana make Jurlsalctlons agalnst corruptlon cases witn tne LoKpal. * To Judge whether a case is legal or whether a fake complaint has been made. * To potentially impose fines on a fake complaint, or even a short span of Jail time, if the case is not proved to be legally true.