QUESTION BANK
Q.1. Explain Ombudsman in India.
Q.2. Critically examine the Institution of Ombudsman.
Q.3. Write a full-dressed note on
1. Ombudsman.
I. Introduction
II. Meaning and Concept of Ombudsman
III. Historical Development
1. Sweden (1809):
2. Global Adoption:
3. The Indian Adaptation:
IV. General Characteristics and Qualifications
1. Judicial or High Administrative Profile:
2. Flawless Integrity:
3. Strict Political Neutrality:
4. Functional Autonomy:
V. Powers and Core Duties
VI. Juristic Criticisms and Structural Challenges
1. The Scale and Population Challenge:
2. Dependence on Personal Character:
3. The Constitutional Mismatch:
VII. The Evolution of the Ombudsman in India: Lokpal and Lokayukta-
1. The Historical Struggle-
2. The Turning Point
VIII. Important Provisions of The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
A. Composition and Appointment
1. Structure:
2. Selection Mechanism:
3. Tenure:
B. Jurisdiction of the Lokpal
C. Statutory Limitations and Restrictions on Jurisdiction
1. Statutory Time Bar (Limitation Period):
2. Alternative Inquiry Bar:
3. Malicious Complaints:
IX. Judicial Overview
The tremendous expansion of administrative power in the modern welfare State has given rise to systemic challenges, including institutional corruption, maladministration, structural inertia, bureaucratic delays, and the abuse or misuse of discretionary power. Traditional legislative checks (such as parliamentary questions and debates) and judicial control mechanisms (such as writ jurisdictions) have frequently proven inadequate, slow, or costly when addressing day-to-day citizen grievances.
Consequently, modern constitutional systems recognized the need for an additional, independent oversight mechanism. Such a device must be an external, non-partisan agency equipped with sweeping powers to investigate and redress administrative injustices, while simultaneously maintaining the operational freedom necessary for the executive to govern effectively. Drawing from successful international models
primarily the Scandinavian Ombudsman system
contemporary democracies have established specialized institutions to safeguard the rights of ordinary citizens against administrative high-handedness.
The word "Ombudsman" is Swedish in origin and broadly translates to a delegate, agent, spokesperson, or commissioner.
According to Professor J.F. Garner:
"The Ombudsman is an officer of Parliament, having as his primary function the duty of acting as an agent for Parliament to safeguard citizens against abuse or misuse of administrative power by the executive."
The institution is unique because it combines investigatory flexibility with legislative authority, operating independently of the traditional administrative hierarchy.
1. Sweden (1809): The institution of the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Justitieombudsmann) was formally established by the Swedish Instrument of Government to act as an agent of the legislature to oversee how judges and administrative officers apply the law.
2. Global Adoption: The model was subsequently adapted across the globe, notably by Finland (1919), Denmark (1955), New Zealand (1962), and the United Kingdom (1967), where it is known as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
3. The Indian Adaptation: In India, the concept was adapted and divided into a two-tier framework: the Lokpal at the federal (Central) level, and the Lokayukta at the regional (State) level.
To maintain complete impartiality, an Ombudsman must possess specific structural protections and qualities:
1. Judicial or High Administrative Profile: Historically, the individual appointed is a senior jurist, an eminent lawyer, or an accomplished public administrator.
2. Flawless Integrity: The position demands an individual of outstanding public reputation, character, and ethical standing.
3. Strict Political Neutrality: The individual must resign from any political parties, commercial affiliations, or active business interests prior to appointment.
4. Functional Autonomy: The office is insulated from executive interference, political changes, or bureaucratic influence.
The primary duty of the Ombudsman is to receive, investigate, and address complaints filed by citizens regarding maladministration, corruption, systemic inefficiency, or unfair exercises of discretion.
Often referred to as the "watchdog of public administration," the Ombudsman is typically granted robust investigative powers, including:
1. Unrestricted access to confidential internal departmental files and records;
2. The power to initiate investigations on its own motion (suo motu);
3. The authority to summon witnesses, take evidence, and exercise specific powers vested in civil courts;
4. The power to recommend disciplinary action, initiate prosecutions, or grant remedial relief to aggrieved citizens.
Despite its benefits, the institution of the Ombudsman faces specific critiques from legal scholars:
Critics argue that while an Ombudsman can easily manage complaints in smaller, homogenous populations (like Sweden or New Zealand), the model faces immense backlogs in highly populated, complex democracies like India or the United States, where a single office can be overwhelmed by thousands of complaints.
The success of the office relies heavily on the personal determination, prestige, and courage of the individual appointed. For example, the early success of the institution globally owed a great deal to the foundational standards set by pioneering figures like Sweden
s early Ombudsmen.
Jurists like Justice P.B. Mukharjee historically cautioned that importing an inquisitorial and accusatorial entity into a common-law democracy might conflict with the established authority of an independent judiciary, describing it as a potentially disruptive constitutional experiment if implemented without proper statutory integration.
The creation of an Indian Ombudsman was first recommended by the First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in 1966. The term "Lokpal" (protector of the people) and "Lokayukta" were coined by Dr. L.M. Singhvi.
The first Lokpal Bill was introduced in Parliament in 1968 but lapsed due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Over the next four decades, repeated attempts to pass the bill failed (in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, and 2011) due to a lack of political consensus and disputes over the scope of its jurisdiction.
In 2011, a massive civil society movement led by social activist Anna Hazare demanded the passage of a strict "Jan Lokpal Bill." This public pressure forced a comprehensive legislative review, culminating in the passage of The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. The Act received Presidential assent on January 1, 2014, establishing a statutory national anti-corruption ombudsman.
Parallel to this national struggle, individual states utilized their legislative powers to create local Ombudsmen. Maharashtra was the first state to establish a Lokayukta via the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971, followed by states like Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, and Gujarat.
1. Structure: The Lokpal is a multi-member body consisting of a Chairperson (who must be a former Chief Justice of India, a former Judge of the Supreme Court, or an eminent person matching strict criteria) and a maximum of eight members (51% of whom must be judicial members).
2. Selection Mechanism: To ensure complete independence from executive control, appointments are made by the President of India based on the recommendations of a high-powered Selection Committee consisting of:
a. The Prime Minister (Chairperson);
b. The Speaker of the Lok Sabha;
c. The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha;
d. The Chief Justice of India (or a Supreme Court Judge nominated by the CJI);
e. An Eminent Jurist nominated by the President based on the recommendations of the first four members.
3. Tenure: The Chairperson and members hold office for a fixed term of five years or until they reach the age of 70, whichever is earlier.
The jurisdiction of the Lokpal over corruption allegations is extensive, covering:
1. The Prime Minister (subject to specific structural safeguards and in-camera committee approvals regarding allegations tied to international relations, external security, public order, and atomic energy);
2. All current and former Ministers of the Union;
3. All current and former Members of Parliament (MPs);
4. All officers belonging to Group A, B, C, and D of the Central Civil Services;
5. Board members, directors, and executives of corporate entities, trusts, or societies funded or controlled by the Central Government.
The Lokpal cannot intervene or investigate matters in the following scenarios:
1. Statutory Time Bar (Limitation Period): Under Section 53 of the Act, the Lokpal cannot inquire into any complaint if the alleged offense was committed more than seven years before the date the complaint was filed.
2. Alternative Inquiry Bar: The Lokpal will not take up cases that are already subject to an active formal inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.
3. Malicious Complaints: The Act includes strict punitive provisions (fines and potential imprisonment) for deliberately false, vexatious, or malicious complaints to protect public servants from harassment.
The role of the Ombudsman as a support system for public administration has been analyzed and reinforced by the courts.
In B.J. Diwan v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 1 GLR 553,
The Gujarat High Court examined the role of an Ombudsman appointed to evaluate victim complaints and coordinate long-range relief following a devastating earthquake. The High Court observed that:
"The Ombudsman operates as an independent institution designed to rectify individual grievances, identify systemic maladministration, and advise state agencies on maintaining fairness, structural integrity, and public responsibility."
Prof. .S. D. Bhosale
qqqqqqqqqqXX