Apart from the three organs of the State,
which enforce accountability and control on the
administration on behalf of the citizen, there are
also other mechanisms available by which the
citizens could voice their grievances against the
administration directly. These mechanisms are
called by different names in different countries,
for example Ombudsman in the Scandinavian
countries, the Administrative courts in France,
the Parliamentary Commissioner in the UK, and
the Procurator system in the Ex-Soviet Union. A
similar system was envisaged in India by the 1st
ARC in the name of Lokpal for ministers and
secretaries both at the state and central level and
Lokayukta at the state level, to entertain
complaints against the rest of the bureaucracy.
Although the traditional means of control are
at their place, yet there is a need felt to create
another mechanism for the accountability of the
executive mainly because of the following
reasons:
1. The huge size of administration which is
growing day by day has become difficult
to check by the existing control
mechanisms. Further, the nature of
administrative discretion is fast changing
in the fast changing environment which
requires technical expertise to understand
and control.
2. The increase in the phenomenon of delegated
legislation again because of the growing size
and complexity of the government along with
increased administrative discretion and
administrative adjudication in matters of
implementation.
Thus in order to ensure that such administrative
acts are carried out in the spirit of the Constitution
and to uphold public interests there was a need
for such institutional devices.
As part of the Indian response to the need,
the Santhanam Committee recommended for the
formation of CVC in 1964. As part of the process,
vigilance cells in several government departments
and PSUs were formed. CVC receives complaints
directly from aggrieved, apart from press reports,
allegations made by MPs. On receiving complaint
it may ask the concerned ministry/department
to conduct inquiry or ask the CBI to conduct
inquiry. However its jurisdiction is limited to
complaints against gazetted officers and officers
of equivalent status and is no parallel to the
Scandinavian institution of Ombudsman. Thus
the 1st ARC came up with the idea of Lokpal and
Lokayukta. Though such institutions could not be
established at the central level but different states
established their own Lokayuktas known by
different names in different states and covering
different functionaries at different levels, but yet
performing similar functions i.e., to entertain
grievances of the citizens against the administration.
However the prime issue in this section again
is as to whether such Ombudsman like systems
are effective enough to justify their existence or
they are merely other ineffective state institutions
and as to what can be done so that these
institutions become more effective
The working of Lokayukta institution shows
that despite statutory provisions the office of the
Up-Lokayukta has not been functioning in states
like U.P., Rajasthan, Assam and Delhi. The
number of complaints received and disposed off
by the office of the Lokayayukta greatly varies
from state to state. Part of explanation for this
variance lies in the jurisdiction of Lokayuktas.
Some of the Lokayuktas deal only with cases of
allegations whereas others deal with both
allegations and grievance cases.
In all the states written complaints are
required from the complainants by the
Lokayukta office for investigation. If the
complaint takes the form of an allegation, the
office insists on the filing of an affidavit.
Experience tells that most of the complainants
especially of rural areas, lost interest once they
were asked to file affidavit.
Data shows that in its initial years of
functioning a large number of complaints had to
be rejected prima facie by the Lokayuktas for
want of jurisdiction and also because many of
them were anonymous, pseudonymous, and
trivial in nature or not made on prescribed forms
or were submitted without affidavits. The
attitude of the Lokayuktas towards such
complaints has not been uniform. Some pursued
it under the suo-moto powers given to them under
the Acts while a few others first ignored them.
Some of the Lokayuktas adopted another practice
for some of the cases which fell outside their
jurisdiction by sending them to the Heads of the
Departments concerned for necessary action at
their level. Since the complaint was referred by a
high functionary, it quickly attracted the attention
of officers and in a substantial number of cases
the grievances of the complaints were redressed.
It was observed that those departments of the
government which are intimately connected with
public dealings e.g. of Public works, Health,
Irrigation, Home, Civil supplies, etc. attracted large
number of complaints and grievances in the office
of the Lokayukta.
The working of this system also shows that
the Lokayukta organisation took up numerous
and varied types of cases in which relief could
be granted to the complainants. One such
particular area is grievance regarding nonpayment
of pension and other retirement benefits
to government employees. The intervention of
the Lokayukta brought relief to very humble and
low paid public servants like village school
teachers, constables, peons, clerks, etc. The
Lokayukta provided relief to the complainants
also in such grievance cases as changing a nonworking
electricity transformer, removal of
maladministration in the working of the school
and allotment of house to a flood victim. The
mediatory role of Lokayukta between the
complainant and the government servant/
departments led to the settlement of the problem
to the satisfaction of the complainant. In all such
cases the Lokayukta organization was perhaps
guided by the Ombudsman practice in different
countries, whose main job is to redress the
grievances of the people.
Most of Lokayuktas and Up-Lokayuktas
have recommended more or less similar types of
punishment such as reduction in rank,
retirement/removal from office, stoppage of
annual increments and censure, etc. The
Governments in a majority of cases accepted
these recommendations. In some cases, however
the concerned persons took their case to the High
Courts and Tribunals. Instances are not lacking
also when the respective state governments on
their part modified the recommendations of the
Lokayukta and made the punishment less
stringent.
Thus, if we try to make an evaluation of the
institution of the Lokayukta, we would find that
apart from some instances of success the
Lokayukta organization has too many
shortcomings viz. there is no uniformity in the
Acts of different states; recommendations of the
Lokayuktas are not acceptable to the competent
authorities; many areas of administration are
outside the jurisdiction of Lokayukta; every state
has fixed time limit for lodging a complaint; in
some states like Maharashtra, the identity of the
defaulters is not disclosed; some states have
prescribed fee for lodging complaints, for example
M.P. is one of them. This hampers the work of
Lokayuktas. Other problems are non-cooperative
attitude of the authorities, lack of independent
investigating authority, requirement of prior
sanction of the government in some cases and
indifferent attitude of the state governments.
Experience regarding the functioning of the
Lokayukta institution at the level of states has
not been similar. Whereas the Lokayuktas in
states like M.P. and A.P. have achieved greater
success in dealing with cases of corruption but
this cannot be said about other states. In general
the Lokayukta scheme has been regarded more
as a failure in dealing with corruption cases.
Nevertheless, to improve its functioning
further and to minimize its frailties, it is required
to tone up the state administration itself by
making it more responsive, accountable,
transparent, efficient and effective. To increase
the efficiency and effectiveness of the institution
it is necessary to adopt the uniform “Model
Lokayukta Bill” as formulated by the
Implementation Committee constituted by the
All India Lokayukta Conference. Besides, this
there should be time bound programme for
redressal of grievances; members of the
subordinate judiciary should also be within the
purview of the Lokayukta Act; publicity about
the office of the Lokayuktas should be enhanced
and training institutions should be imparted
with the knowledge of the working of the
Lokayuktas. There should be some kind of time
limit within which the enquiry must be
completed and strict time limit within which the
recommendations must be implemented.
Lokayukta must necessarily have the power to
punish a person for committing contempt. A
legislative committee on Lokayukta for making
the institution more relevant and effective is
required. The question of operational autonomy
is being raised. The need of coordination amongst
agencies/institutions functioning in the area of
redressal of public grievances is strongly
recommended.
The Second ARC also recommended for the
amendment of the Constitution to provide for a
Rashtriya Lokayukta. It also recommended that
it be made obligatory for all states to set up
Uplokayuktas and that their structure, power
and functions be governed by common
principles. Moreover, efforts should be made to
bring the Lokayukta closer to the people, for
example a practice which has gradually become
a regular feature of the Lokayukta organization
in various states is the holding of grievance
redressal camps at Division and District
headquarters. The idea behind such camps
appears to take the Lokayukta to the people if
they cannot come to him, such initiatives should
be appreciated and encouraged more and more.
Only then we could believe to have taken a
significant step in ensuring real accountability
of the administration to the people.
which enforce accountability and control on the
administration on behalf of the citizen, there are
also other mechanisms available by which the
citizens could voice their grievances against the
administration directly. These mechanisms are
called by different names in different countries,
for example Ombudsman in the Scandinavian
countries, the Administrative courts in France,
the Parliamentary Commissioner in the UK, and
the Procurator system in the Ex-Soviet Union. A
similar system was envisaged in India by the 1st
ARC in the name of Lokpal for ministers and
secretaries both at the state and central level and
Lokayukta at the state level, to entertain
complaints against the rest of the bureaucracy.
Although the traditional means of control are
at their place, yet there is a need felt to create
another mechanism for the accountability of the
executive mainly because of the following
reasons:
1. The huge size of administration which is
growing day by day has become difficult
to check by the existing control
mechanisms. Further, the nature of
administrative discretion is fast changing
in the fast changing environment which
requires technical expertise to understand
and control.
2. The increase in the phenomenon of delegated
legislation again because of the growing size
and complexity of the government along with
increased administrative discretion and
administrative adjudication in matters of
implementation.
Thus in order to ensure that such administrative
acts are carried out in the spirit of the Constitution
and to uphold public interests there was a need
for such institutional devices.
As part of the Indian response to the need,
the Santhanam Committee recommended for the
formation of CVC in 1964. As part of the process,
vigilance cells in several government departments
and PSUs were formed. CVC receives complaints
directly from aggrieved, apart from press reports,
allegations made by MPs. On receiving complaint
it may ask the concerned ministry/department
to conduct inquiry or ask the CBI to conduct
inquiry. However its jurisdiction is limited to
complaints against gazetted officers and officers
of equivalent status and is no parallel to the
Scandinavian institution of Ombudsman. Thus
the 1st ARC came up with the idea of Lokpal and
Lokayukta. Though such institutions could not be
established at the central level but different states
established their own Lokayuktas known by
different names in different states and covering
different functionaries at different levels, but yet
performing similar functions i.e., to entertain
grievances of the citizens against the administration.
However the prime issue in this section again
is as to whether such Ombudsman like systems
are effective enough to justify their existence or
they are merely other ineffective state institutions
and as to what can be done so that these
institutions become more effective
The working of Lokayukta institution shows
that despite statutory provisions the office of the
Up-Lokayukta has not been functioning in states
like U.P., Rajasthan, Assam and Delhi. The
number of complaints received and disposed off
by the office of the Lokayayukta greatly varies
from state to state. Part of explanation for this
variance lies in the jurisdiction of Lokayuktas.
Some of the Lokayuktas deal only with cases of
allegations whereas others deal with both
allegations and grievance cases.
In all the states written complaints are
required from the complainants by the
Lokayukta office for investigation. If the
complaint takes the form of an allegation, the
office insists on the filing of an affidavit.
Experience tells that most of the complainants
especially of rural areas, lost interest once they
were asked to file affidavit.
Data shows that in its initial years of
functioning a large number of complaints had to
be rejected prima facie by the Lokayuktas for
want of jurisdiction and also because many of
them were anonymous, pseudonymous, and
trivial in nature or not made on prescribed forms
or were submitted without affidavits. The
attitude of the Lokayuktas towards such
complaints has not been uniform. Some pursued
it under the suo-moto powers given to them under
the Acts while a few others first ignored them.
Some of the Lokayuktas adopted another practice
for some of the cases which fell outside their
jurisdiction by sending them to the Heads of the
Departments concerned for necessary action at
their level. Since the complaint was referred by a
high functionary, it quickly attracted the attention
of officers and in a substantial number of cases
the grievances of the complaints were redressed.
It was observed that those departments of the
government which are intimately connected with
public dealings e.g. of Public works, Health,
Irrigation, Home, Civil supplies, etc. attracted large
number of complaints and grievances in the office
of the Lokayukta.
The working of this system also shows that
the Lokayukta organisation took up numerous
and varied types of cases in which relief could
be granted to the complainants. One such
particular area is grievance regarding nonpayment
of pension and other retirement benefits
to government employees. The intervention of
the Lokayukta brought relief to very humble and
low paid public servants like village school
teachers, constables, peons, clerks, etc. The
Lokayukta provided relief to the complainants
also in such grievance cases as changing a nonworking
electricity transformer, removal of
maladministration in the working of the school
and allotment of house to a flood victim. The
mediatory role of Lokayukta between the
complainant and the government servant/
departments led to the settlement of the problem
to the satisfaction of the complainant. In all such
cases the Lokayukta organization was perhaps
guided by the Ombudsman practice in different
countries, whose main job is to redress the
grievances of the people.
Most of Lokayuktas and Up-Lokayuktas
have recommended more or less similar types of
punishment such as reduction in rank,
retirement/removal from office, stoppage of
annual increments and censure, etc. The
Governments in a majority of cases accepted
these recommendations. In some cases, however
the concerned persons took their case to the High
Courts and Tribunals. Instances are not lacking
also when the respective state governments on
their part modified the recommendations of the
Lokayukta and made the punishment less
stringent.
Thus, if we try to make an evaluation of the
institution of the Lokayukta, we would find that
apart from some instances of success the
Lokayukta organization has too many
shortcomings viz. there is no uniformity in the
Acts of different states; recommendations of the
Lokayuktas are not acceptable to the competent
authorities; many areas of administration are
outside the jurisdiction of Lokayukta; every state
has fixed time limit for lodging a complaint; in
some states like Maharashtra, the identity of the
defaulters is not disclosed; some states have
prescribed fee for lodging complaints, for example
M.P. is one of them. This hampers the work of
Lokayuktas. Other problems are non-cooperative
attitude of the authorities, lack of independent
investigating authority, requirement of prior
sanction of the government in some cases and
indifferent attitude of the state governments.
Experience regarding the functioning of the
Lokayukta institution at the level of states has
not been similar. Whereas the Lokayuktas in
states like M.P. and A.P. have achieved greater
success in dealing with cases of corruption but
this cannot be said about other states. In general
the Lokayukta scheme has been regarded more
as a failure in dealing with corruption cases.
Nevertheless, to improve its functioning
further and to minimize its frailties, it is required
to tone up the state administration itself by
making it more responsive, accountable,
transparent, efficient and effective. To increase
the efficiency and effectiveness of the institution
it is necessary to adopt the uniform “Model
Lokayukta Bill” as formulated by the
Implementation Committee constituted by the
All India Lokayukta Conference. Besides, this
there should be time bound programme for
redressal of grievances; members of the
subordinate judiciary should also be within the
purview of the Lokayukta Act; publicity about
the office of the Lokayuktas should be enhanced
and training institutions should be imparted
with the knowledge of the working of the
Lokayuktas. There should be some kind of time
limit within which the enquiry must be
completed and strict time limit within which the
recommendations must be implemented.
Lokayukta must necessarily have the power to
punish a person for committing contempt. A
legislative committee on Lokayukta for making
the institution more relevant and effective is
required. The question of operational autonomy
is being raised. The need of coordination amongst
agencies/institutions functioning in the area of
redressal of public grievances is strongly
recommended.
The Second ARC also recommended for the
amendment of the Constitution to provide for a
Rashtriya Lokayukta. It also recommended that
it be made obligatory for all states to set up
Uplokayuktas and that their structure, power
and functions be governed by common
principles. Moreover, efforts should be made to
bring the Lokayukta closer to the people, for
example a practice which has gradually become
a regular feature of the Lokayukta organization
in various states is the holding of grievance
redressal camps at Division and District
headquarters. The idea behind such camps
appears to take the Lokayukta to the people if
they cannot come to him, such initiatives should
be appreciated and encouraged more and more.
Only then we could believe to have taken a
significant step in ensuring real accountability
of the administration to the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment