Government Exam Guru

Chapter 59 Lokpal And Lokayuktas In India

Category: Indian Polity

Global Scenario of Administrative Redressal Mechanisms

In modern democracies, the government's role has expanded significantly to foster the well-being of its citizens. This shift towards a welfare-oriented government has led to the growth of bureaucracy and more administrative processes. As a result, civil servants have gained considerable authority and discretion at various levels of the government. While this power is meant to facilitate governance, it can also lead to issues like harassment, corruption, and maladministration. When civil servants misuse their power, it creates grievances among citizens, which can undermine democracy and hinder socio-economic development.

To effectively address these grievances, many countries have established different institutions. Some notable mechanisms for grievance redressal include:

  1. The Ombudsman System
  2. The Administrative Courts System
  3. The Procurator System

The Ombudsman System

The Ombudsman system is one of the oldest democratic institutions aimed at addressing citizens’ complaints. This concept originated in Sweden in 1809, where the term "Ombud," meaning a representative or spokesperson, was first used. According to Donald C. Rowat, an expert on the institution, an Ombudsman is "an officer appointed by the legislature to handle complaints against administrative and judicial action."

The role of the Ombudsman is vital in dealing with various issues, including:

The Ombudsman is a constitutional authority with the power to ensure that public officials comply with laws and perform their duties properly. This includes monitoring civil servants, judges, and military personnel to ensure their actions are impartial and lawful. However, it is crucial to note that the Ombudsman does not have the authority to reverse decisions or exert direct control over administrative processes or courts. The Ombudsman can act on complaints from citizens or initiate action on their own. Although they cannot impose punishment, they can report misconduct to higher authorities for corrective action.

From its origins in Sweden, the Ombudsman model spread to other Scandinavian countries such as Finland (1919), Denmark (1955), and Norway (1962). New Zealand was the first Commonwealth country to adopt an Ombudsman-like system in 1962, known as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Investigations. The United Kingdom followed suit in 1967, creating a system called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Over the years, many countries have established their own versions of the Ombudsman system with varied names and functions.

In India, the equivalent of Ombudsman is known as the Lokpal and Lokayukta. According to Donald C. Rowat, the Ombudsman serves as "a bulwark of democratic government against the tyranny of officialdom." Public Administration scholar Gerald E. Caiden described it as an "institutionalized public conscience."

Administrative Courts

Another important mechanism for addressing citizen grievances is the Administrative Courts, which originated in France. This system has proven effective and has gradually been adapted by various countries throughout the world. The main function of these courts is to provide a legal framework in which citizens can challenge administrative decisions, ensuring that their rights are protected within the ambit of the law.

The Procurator System

In addition to the Ombudsman and Administrative Courts systems, socialist countries like the former Soviet Union (now Russia) and China have established their own grievance redressal mechanisms known as the Procurator System. This system serves as a watchdog to monitor the legality of administrative actions while providing a platform for citizens to voice their concerns against governmental decisions.

Legal Framework in India

In India, grievance redressal is also anchored in the Constitution and various laws. The Right to Information Act (2005) is one such significant legislation aimed at enhancing accountability and transparency in government functioning. Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantee the right to equality and the right to life, respectively, thus underpinning the mechanisms that allow citizens to seek redressal against arbitrary administrative actions. Furthermore, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, was a pivotal development in establishing an anti-corruption framework in India, enabling citizens to file complaints against corrupt practices by government officials.

In conclusion, effective grievance redressal is essential for the health of any democracy, as it ensures that citizens' voices are heard and their rights protected. The experiences of different nations highlight the importance of having dedicated mechanisms to confront administrative malpractices, making governance more accessible and fair for every citizen.

Understanding Corruption and Grievance Redress in India

In India, tackling corruption and addressing the issues faced by citizens involves a combination of laws, organizations, and mechanisms designed to promote accountability and transparency. The legal framework includes several key acts and initiatives, each aimed at different aspects of governance and public service.

Key Legislative Framework

  1. Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850: This act was one of the earliest attempts to ensure that public servants could be investigated for misconduct. It provides a basis for conducting inquiries into the actions of public officers.

  2. Indian Penal Code, 1860: This code serves as the foundational criminal code of India, addressing a wide array of offenses, including those related to corruption.

  3. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: This significant legislation was crafted specifically to prevent bribery and corruption among public servants. It defines the offenses related to corruption and prescribes penalties.

  4. Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988: This act prohibits transactions in which property is held by one person but financed by another, thus targeting the concealment of illicit wealth.

  5. Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952: This act allows for the establishment of commissions to investigate specific matters of public importance, including those related to corrupt practices, especially among prominent individuals.

  6. Administrative Conduct Rules: Different sets of rules govern the conduct of civil servants, such as Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, and the All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. These rules provide a framework for the behavior expected from government employees.

Vigilance and Investigative Bodies

In addition to laws, various organizations have been established to combat corruption and handle grievances:

Grievance Redressal Mechanisms

To facilitate the resolution of citizens' grievances, India has established several bodies and systems:

Quadrants of Justice

The Indian Constitution provides the framework for grievances and corruption through its fundamental rights and the judicial system. The Supreme Court and High Courts play a crucial role in interpreting laws and ensuring justice. Articles within the Constitution, like Article 14 (right to equality) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), serve as overarching principles that protect citizens against abuse of power.

Through this complex ecosystem of laws, organizations, and mechanisms, India strives to foster a transparent government and protect citizen interests. Nonetheless, continuous improvements and active citizen participation are crucial for reducing corruption and enhancing accountability in public service.

Understanding Lokpal in India

The concept of Lokpal in India originates from the recommendations made by the First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) during the years 1966 to 1970. The ARC suggested that India should establish two special bodies, known as the Lokpal and the Lokayukta, to help citizens address their complaints against public officials. This idea was inspired by similar institutions in other countries like the Ombudsman in Scandinavian nations and the parliamentary commissioner for investigations in New Zealand.

The Lokpal is intended to handle complaints against ministers and secretaries at both the central and state levels. On the other hand, the Lokayukta, with one located at the center and one present in each state, is responsible for investigating complaints against other specific senior officials. It is essential to note that both these institutions do not include the judiciary in their purview, following a practice similar to New Zealand’s approach. However, in Sweden, the judiciary is under the Ombudsman’s domain.

According to the recommendations from the ARC, the Lokpal should be appointed by the President of India after consulting several key figures, including the Chief Justice of India, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha. The suggestions included that the Lokpal and Lokayuktas should possess various important features:

First, they must be independent and impartial in their functioning. This independence is vital to ensure that they can carry out their duties without influence from political powers. Second, their investigations should be conducted in private and follow an informal procedure. This would encourage more people to come forward with complaints without fearing public exposure.

Another critical aspect is that their appointments should ideally be free from political interference. The status of these institutions should be comparable to that of the highest judicial officials in India, thereby underscoring their importance. The Lokpal and Lokayukta are expected to address issues related to injustice, corruption, and favoritism in a discretionary manner. Additionally, their proceedings should not be interfered with by the judiciary, allowing them to operate freely. They should have significant powers to gather information relevant to their work and not expect any personal advantage from the executive branch of the government.

The Government of India recognized the importance of the ARC’s recommendations and endorsed them. Since then, there have been ten official attempts to enact legislation for Lokpal. Bills were presented in Parliament at various times, including in May 1968, April 1971, July 1977, August 1985, December 1989, September 1996, August 1998, August 2001, and most notably in August 2011 and December 2011 by the UPA government under Manmohan Singh.

Unfortunately, many of these bills did not succeed. The first four lapsed because the Lok Sabha was dissolved, while the fifth bill was withdrawn. Similar fates befell the sixth, seventh, and eighth bills due to subsequent dissolutions of the Lok Sabha. The ninth bill from 2011 was also withdrawn. However, after persistent efforts and public demand for transparency and accountability, the tenth bill was passed as the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013.

Under Article 110 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the procedures for money bills, and Article 124, which discusses the Supreme Court's structure, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act was enacted to address public grievances and ensure accountability among public officials. This landmark legislation has provided citizens a mechanism to fight against corruption effectively, thereby contributing to a more transparent governance structure in India.

Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act (2013)

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, passed in 2013, is an important law in India aimed at combating corruption and ensuring accountability among public servants. This act establishes two key institutions: the Lokpal at the national level and the Lokayukta at the state level. The primary goal of these institutions is to create a consistent system for monitoring misconduct and corruption across the country.

Key Features of the Act

One of the significant features of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act is its broad jurisdiction. It covers high-ranking officials like the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, and various government employees categorized into Groups A, B, C, and D. The act sets up a Lokpal consisting of a Chairperson and up to eight members, with at least half of them being from a judicial background. Furthermore, to ensure diversity and representation, half of the members must come from Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), minorities, and women.

The process of selecting the Lokpal members is structured through a Selection Committee. This committee includes the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or a sitting Supreme Court Judge chosen by the Chief Justice, and a reputed jurist appointed by the President based on recommendations from the committee. A Search Committee, which also ensures diversity in terms of SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, and women, assists in the selection process.

An important aspect of this Act is that it brings the Prime Minister under the Lokpal’s jurisdiction, albeit with specific exclusions and a defined process for handling complaints. The Lokpal's authority extends to all categories of public servants, and it has the power to oversee investigations conducted by agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI’s Director is selected based on recommendations from a High-Powered Committee chaired by the Prime Minister.

Additionally, the Act gives the Lokpal the authority to attach and confiscate properties acquired through corrupt practices, even while legal proceedings are ongoing. It establishes strict timelines for various processes: preliminary inquiries are limited to three months (which can be extended), investigations have a timeline of six months (with extensions possible), and trials should ideally last no more than one year, also with extension clauses. The Act also enhances penalties for corruption, increasing the maximum punishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act from seven to ten years and establishing minimum sentences for various offenses.

Protection for Public Servants

The law also offers protection for honest public servants while empowering the Lokpal to initiate prosecution against public servants instead of solely depending on the government or competent authorities. Institutions funded fully or partially by the government fall under Lokpal's jurisdiction, while those merely receiving government aid do not.

Furthermore, entities that receive foreign donations exceeding ten lakh rupees annually are also brought under Lokpal's purview. Lastly, the Act mandates states to create their own Lokayukta institutions within a year of the Act coming into force, allowing them flexibility in tailoring these mechanisms to their needs.

Drawbacks

Despite its comprehensive framework, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, has been criticized for several shortcomings. Notably, the Lokpal cannot act on its own authority against public servants without a formal complaint. This limits its ability to proactively address corruption. Moreover, the law emphasizes the formality of complaints over their substance, which may restrict genuine reports of wrongdoing.

Heavy penalties for false complaints might discourage individuals from coming forward, and the prohibition on anonymous complaints complicates the process for whistleblowers. Furthermore, public servants accused of misconduct are not guaranteed legal assistance during proceedings. There is a stipulated limitation of seven years to file complaints, which may deter timely reporting.

Additionally, the procedures for handling complaints against the Prime Minister lack transparency, raising concerns about potential bias in dealing with high-level corruption cases.

Conclusion

In summary, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act (2013) is a key legislative measure in India's fight against corruption, aiming to hold public officials accountable while protecting the integrity of honest public servants. While the Act has important features designed to enhance transparency and efficiency, it also faces limitations that may hinder its effectiveness. Continuous evaluation and amendments may be necessary to streamline its processes and ensure it fulfills its intended purpose of enforcing accountability in public service.

Lokayuktas in India

Lokayuktas are institutions that help in tackling corruption and misconduct in various states of India. Long before the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act was enacted in 2013, many states had already established their own Lokayuktas. The journey of Lokayuktas in India began in Maharashtra, where the first Lokayukta was set up in 1971. It's important to note that Odisha had already passed legislation for establishing Lokayuktas a year earlier, in 1970.

Structure and Appointment

The structure of Lokayuktas varies from state to state. In some states, there are both a Lokayukta and a Uplaokayukta, while in others, only a Lokayukta exists. The Governor of each state is responsible for appointing both the Lokayukta and the Upalokayukta. Some states specify certain qualifications, like judicial experience, for the Lokayukta, while others do not have any formal requirements. Most states set a term length for the Lokayukta of five years or until they reach the age of 65, whichever comes first.

Jurisdiction of Lokayuktas

There is no uniformity regarding the authority and jurisdiction of Lokayuktas across India. For example, in some states, the Chief Minister is subject to the Lokayukta’s oversight, while in others, they are not. It is more common for ministers and higher civil servants to fall under the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction in nearly all states. Additionally, in some states, members of the state legislature are also included in the purview of the Lokayukta. Authorities governing local bodies, corporations, companies, and societies usually fall under the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction in most states.

Investigation Process

Lokayuktas typically have the power to initiate investigations based on complaints from citizens about unfair administrative actions, or they may act on their own accord, referred to as "suo moto." In many states, they can address both grievances (issues related to poor administration) and allegations (claims of corruption). However, in some states, the scope of the Lokayukta's work is limited to investigating only allegations of corruption.

After conducting investigations, Lokayuktas must present an annual report to the state Governor detailing their performance. The Governor then submits this report, along with an explanation, to the state legislature. It is crucial to understand that the recommendations made by the Lokayukta are advisory and not obligatory for the state government to implement.

Constitutional Framework

The Lokayukta system is guided by Article 244 of the Indian Constitution, which encourages the establishment of institutions to deal with corruption at both state and local levels. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is a significant piece of legislation that integrates these entities further into the governance framework to bring greater accountability and transparency.

While many states have their Lokayukta laws, there's a need for greater consistency and stronger legal frameworks to enhance their effectiveness. Ensuring that the Lokayuktas have adequate resources, autonomy, and power can significantly improve their ability to fight corruption and uphold good governance.