Lokpal and Lokayuktas

Modern welfare states assign the government a central role in socio-economic development. This inevitably expands bureaucracy and multiplies administrative processes, concentrating discretionary power in the hands of civil servants. When this discretion is misused—through harassment, malpractices, maladministration, or corruption—it generates citizens' grievances against administration. The effectiveness of democracy itself depends on how well such grievances are addressed.

Three major institutional models have emerged globally to handle this challenge:

1. The Ombudsman System – of Scandinavian origin
2. The Administrative Courts System – pioneered by France
3. The Procurator System – used in socialist countries

---

Origin and Meaning

The institution of Ombudsman was first established in Sweden in 1809 — making it the oldest democratic grievance-redressal institution in the world. The word 'Ombud' is a Swedish term meaning a representative or spokesman of another person.

Scholar Donald C. Rowat, an international authority on the Ombudsman, defines it as: "an officer appointed by the legislature to handle complaints against administrative and judicial action." He also describes it as a "uniquely appropriate institution for dealing with the average citizen's complaints about unfair administrative actions."

Gerald E. Caiden called the Ombudsman an "institutionalised public conscience," while Rowat elsewhere termed it a "bulwark of democratic government against the tyranny of officialdom."

Jurisdiction of the Swedish Ombudsman

The Swedish Ombudsman deals with citizens' complaints in five areas:

• Abuse of administrative discretion – misuse of official power and authority
• Maladministration – inefficiency in achieving administrative targets
• Administrative corruption – demanding bribes for performing official functions
• Nepotism – favouring one's own relatives in matters like employment
• Discourtesy – misbehaviour including use of abusive language

Appointment and Accountability

• Appointed by Parliament for a term of four years
• Can be removed only by Parliament, on the ground of loss of confidence
• Submits an annual report to Parliament → hence also called the 'Parliamentary Ombudsman'
• Independent of the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary
• A constitutional authority with power to supervise compliance of laws by all public officials — civil, judicial, and military

Powers and Limitations

Defining Characteristics

1. Full independence from the executive
2. Impartial and objective investigation of complaints
3. Suo motu power to initiate investigations
4. Uninterrupted access to all administrative files
5. Reports to Parliament, not the executive (embodies the doctrine of administrative accountability to the legislature)
6. Wide publicity through press and media
7. Direct, simple, informal, cheap, and speedy handling of complaints

Global Spread of the Ombudsman

More than 40 countries have since adopted Ombudsman-like institutions with varying nomenclatures and functions. India's equivalent is called Lokpal (at the Centre) and Lokayukta (at the state level).

---

French Administrative Courts System: A unique institutional device for redressing citizens' grievances against administrative authorities. Its success in France led to its adoption in several European and African countries, including Belgium, Greece, and Turkey.

Procurator System: Used in socialist countries such as the former USSR (Russia), China, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Romania. The office of the Procurator-General continues to function in Russia. The Procurator-General is appointed for a tenure of seven years.

---

Before the Lokpal Act 2013, India already had 26 institutional mechanisms to check corruption and redress citizens' grievances. Key ones include:

• Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Special Police Establishment, 1941
• Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946
• Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
• Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (against political leaders)
• Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), 1963
• Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), 1964
• State Vigilance Commissions and Anti-Corruption Bureaus
• Administrative Tribunals (quasi-judicial bodies)
• Directorate of Public Grievances (Cabinet Secretariat), 1988
• Parliament and its committees
• Supreme Court and High Courts
• National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
• 'File to Field' programme in some states (e.g., Kerala) — where administrators visit villages to hear and redress public grievances directly

---

The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) of India (1966–1970), headed by Morarji Desai, submitted a special interim report in 1966 on the 'Problems of Redressal of Citizens' Grievances.' It recommended establishing two special institutions:

• Lokpal at the Centre: to handle complaints against ministers and secretaries at central and state levels
• Lokayukta (one at Centre, one in each state): to handle complaints against other specified higher officials

Key ARC Decisions

• These institutions were to be modelled on the Scandinavian Ombudsman and the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for Investigation
• Judiciary was kept outside the purview of Lokpal and Lokayukta — as in New Zealand (unlike Sweden, where the judiciary is within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction)
• Lokpal appointment: By the President after consulting the Chief Justice of India, the Speaker of Lok Sabha, and the Chairman of Rajya Sabha

ARC's 8 Recommended Features

1. Demonstrably independent and impartial
2. Investigations and proceedings conducted in private and in an informal character
3. Appointment must be, as far as possible, non-political
4. Status comparable to the highest judicial functionaries in the country
5. Deal with matters in the discretionary field involving injustice, corruption, or favouritism
6. Proceedings not subject to judicial interference
7. Maximum latitude and powers in obtaining information relevant to duties
8. No pecuniary advantage to be expected from the executive government

---

Despite government acceptance of ARC recommendations, ten attempts to legislate a Lokpal Bill failed:

Key pattern: Bills 1–4 lapsed due to Lok Sabha dissolution. Bill 5 and Bill 9 were withdrawn by respective governments.

---

Background

• The Anna Hazare movement gave fresh impetus to the Lokpal demand
• The government constituted a Joint Drafting Committee on 08.04.2011, comprising 5 government ministers and 5 nominees of Anna Hazare (including Hazare himself)
• The Lokpal Bill 2011 was introduced in Lok Sabha on 04.08.2011 and referred to a Parliamentary Standing Committee
• The Standing Committee recommended that states also be required to set up Lokayuktas and that Lokpal/Lokayukta be given constitutional status
• The government withdrew the first bill and introduced a new comprehensive Bill on 22.12.2011
• A Constitution (116th Amendment) Bill, 2011 to confer constitutional status was also introduced but could NOT be passed with the requisite majority
• The Rajya Sabha referred the bill to a Select Committee (report submitted 23.11.2012)
• Rajya Sabha passed the bill: 17.12.2013; Lok Sabha agreed to amendments: 18.12.2013
• Presidential assent: 01.01.2014; In force from: 16.01.2014

18 Key Features of the Act

1. Dual Structure: Establishes Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayukta at the state level — creating a uniform anti-corruption road map nationwide.

2. Composition: Chairperson + maximum 8 members; at least 50% must be judicial members.

3. Representation: At least 50% of members must come from SC, ST, OBC, minorities, or women.

4. Selection Committee: Comprises —

• Prime Minister (Chair)
• Speaker of Lok Sabha
• Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
• Chief Justice of India or a sitting Supreme Court judge nominated by CJI
• An eminent jurist nominated by the President on the recommendation of the above four members

5. Search Committee: Assists the Selection Committee; 50% of Search Committee must also be from SC/ST/OBC/minorities/women.

6. Prime Minister under Jurisdiction: PM is included within Lokpal's jurisdiction but with subject matter exclusions and a specific process for handling PM-related complaints.

7. Coverage of Public Servants: All Groups A, B, C, and D employees of Central Government are covered. For Groups C and D, the CVC investigates under its own powers, subject to Lokpal reporting and review.

8. Superintendence over CBI: Lokpal has power of superintendence and direction over the CBI for cases referred by it.

9. Director of CBI: A High-Powered Committee chaired by the PM recommends the Director of CBI.

10. Asset Attachment: Provision for attachment and confiscation of property acquired through corrupt means, even while prosecution is pending.

11. Strict Timelines:

• Preliminary enquiry: 3 months (extendable by 3 months)
• Investigation: 6 months (extendable by 6 months at a time)
• Trial: 1 year (extendable by 1 year); special courts to be established

12. Enhanced Punishments:

• Maximum under Prevention of Corruption Act: raised from 7 to 10 years
• Minimum under Sections 7, 8, 9, 12: 3 years
• Minimum under Section 15 (attempt): 2 years

13. Institutional Jurisdiction: Institutions fully or partly financed by government are under Lokpal's jurisdiction; aided institutions are excluded.

14. Protection for Honest Officers: Adequate safeguards for upright public servants.

15. Prosecution Sanction: Lokpal is empowered to grant sanction for prosecution in place of the government or competent authority.

16. CBI Strengthened:

• A Directorate of Prosecution under a Director of Prosecution (DOP) under the overall control of the CBI Director
• DOP appointed on recommendation of the CVC
• CBI to maintain a panel of advocates (other than government advocates) with Lokpal's consent for Lokpal-referred cases
• Transfer of CBI officers investigating Lokpal-referred cases requires Lokpal's approval
• Adequate funds to CBI for investigating Lokpal-referred cases

17. Foreign Funding: All entities receiving foreign donations exceeding Rs. 10 lakh per year under FCRA are under Lokpal's jurisdiction.

18. State Lokayuktas: States must establish Lokayuktas through state legislation within 365 days of the Act's commencement. States have freedom to determine the contours of their Lokayukta mechanism.

7 Key Drawbacks of the Act

1. Lokpal cannot suo motu initiate proceedings against any public servant
2. Excessive emphasis on the form of complaint rather than its substance
3. Heavy punishment for false or frivolous complaints may deter genuine whistle-blowers from approaching the Lokpal
4. Anonymous complaints are not permitted — complaints cannot be made on plain paper without identity disclosure
5. Legal assistance is provided to the public servant against whom a complaint is filed — creating an asymmetry
6. Seven-year limitation period for filing complaints
7. The procedure for handling complaints against the Prime Minister is highly non-transparent

---

Establishment History

By 2013, 22 states and 1 Union Territory (Delhi) had established Lokayukta institutions. Key milestones:

• Odisha was the first to enact the Lokayukta law (1970), but it came into force only in 1983
• Maharashtra was the first state where the institution became actually operational (1971)
• Jammu & Kashmir has a unique institution called the State Accountability Commission (SAC) (created 2002)

Chronological order of establishment:

Odisha (1970) → Maharashtra (1971) → Rajasthan (1973) → Bihar (1974) → Uttar Pradesh (1975) → Madhya Pradesh (1981) → Andhra Pradesh (1983) → Himachal Pradesh (1983) → Karnataka (1985) → Assam (1985) → Gujarat (1986) → Punjab (1995) → Delhi (1995) → Kerala (1999) → Jharkhand (2001) → Chhattisgarh (2002) → Haryana (2002) → Uttarakhand (2002) → J&K (2002) → West Bengal (2003) → Tripura (2008) → Goa (2011)

Structural Variations

The structure of Lokayukta is not uniform across states:

• Lokayukta + Upalokayukta: Rajasthan, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra
• Only Lokayukta: Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh
• Officials designated as Lokpal (not Lokayukta): Punjab, Odisha — a pattern not recommended by the ARC

Appointment

Lokayukta (and Upalokayukta) are appointed by the Governor of the state. In most states, the Governor consults:

• (a) The Chief Justice of the state High Court
• (b) The Leader of Opposition in the state legislative assembly

Exceptions:

• Andhra Pradesh: Leader of Opposition in the assembly is not required to be consulted
• Karnataka: Additionally requires consultation with the Chairman of the State Legislative Council, the Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly, and the Leader of Opposition in the State Legislative Council

Qualifications

• Judicial qualifications required: Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Odisha, Karnataka, Assam
• No specific qualifications prescribed: Bihar, Maharashtra, Rajasthan

Tenure

• Term: 5 years or until the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier
• Not eligible for reappointment for a second term

Jurisdiction — Key Variations

Chief Minister:

• INCLUDED within Lokayukta's purview: Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat
• EXCLUDED from Lokayukta's purview: Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Odisha

Members of State Legislature:

• Included in: Andhra Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, Assam

Ministers and Higher Civil Servants:

• Included in almost all states
• Maharashtra additionally includes former ministers and civil servants

Local Bodies and Corporations:

• Authorities of local bodies, corporations, companies, and societies are included in the jurisdiction in most states

Investigation Powers

• Most states: Lokayukta can investigate suo motu (on own initiative) OR on the basis of a citizen's complaint
• UP, Himachal Pradesh, Assam: Lokayukta does NOT have suo motu investigation powers — can investigate only on complaint

Scope of Cases

Other Functional Features

1. Annual report: Lokayukta presents a consolidated annual performance report to the Governor, who tables it before the state legislature with an explanatory memorandum. The Lokayukta is thus responsible to the state legislature.
2. Investigative support: Lokayukta takes help of state investigating agencies for conducting inquiries.
3. File access: Can call for relevant files and documents from state government departments.
4. Advisory role: Recommendations of the Lokayukta are only advisory and NOT binding on the state government.

---