Dr.

Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University Lucknow

2018- 2019

Civil Society and Public Grievances

Final Draft

The concept of Ombudsman

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms. Ankita Yadav Margaret Rose
RMLNLU Semester- VIII
Enrollment no-
150101078

1|Page
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank respected Ms. Ankita Yadav for giving me such a golden
opportunity to show my skills and capability through this project. This project is the result of the
extensive ultrapure study, hard work and labour, put into to make it worth reading. It is my
pleasure to be indebted to various people, who directly or indirectly contributed in the
development of this work and who influenced my thinking, behaviour, and acts during the course
of study. Lastly, I would like to thank the almighty and my parents for their moral support and
my friends with whom I shared my day-to-day experience and received lots of
suggestions that improved my quality of work.

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………….(4)
OMBUDSMAN: MEANING AND IMPORTANCE……………………..(6)
OMBUDSMAN IN INDIA………………………………………………..(6)
HISTORICAL ASPECT…………………………………………………..(7)
LOKPAL…………………………………………………………………...(8)
JAN LOKPAL BILL………………………………………………………(9)
JAN LOKPAL BILL SALIENT FEATURES……………………………(10)
ANALYSIS OF THE JAN LOKPAL BILL………………………………(11)
CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………(14)
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………(14)

3|Page
 INTRODUCTION

Years ago, Mahatma Gandhi said that “Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable
products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today.” Now days Corruption has its deep roots
in Indian Society. People who work on right principles are unrecognized and considered to be
foolish in the modern society. Earlier, bribes were paid for getting wrong things done, but now
bribe is paid forgetting right things done at right time. In today’s scenario, if a person wants a
government job he has to pay lakhs of rupees to the higher officials irrespective of satisfying all
the eligibility criteria. In every office one has either to give money to the employee concerned or
arrange for some sources to get work done. There is not a single forum or organizations of the
citizens of India unaffected from Corruption.
A 2005 study conducted by Transparency International in India found that more than 62% of
Indians had first-hand experience of paying bribes or influence peddling to get jobs done in
public offices successfully.1 In its 2008 study, Transparency International reports about 40% of
Indians had first-hand experience of paying bribes or using a contact to get a job done in public
office.2 In 2012India was ranked 94th out of 176 countries in Transparency International’s
Corruption Perceptions Index.3The 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.4 A Lokpal is a proposed ombudsman (Legal Representative) in
India. The word is derived from the Sanskrit word “lok” (people) and “pala”
(protector/caretaker), or “caretaker of people.”
The term “access to justice” cannot be given any precise meaning. Its meaning is intricately
intertwined with the meaning of the term ‘justice’. On its turn, the definition of justice depends
on the context it is being used. For every society the term has a different significance. For some
it may be fairness whereas others might term it as advantage of the stronger. The notion of

1
“Transparency International – the global coalition against corruption”.
Source: www.Transparency.org.
2
Centre for Media Studies, India Corruption Study 2005: To Improve Governance: Volume I –
Key Highlights, New Delhi: Transparency International India, 30 June 2005.
3
Source: www.Transparency.org.
4.Ombudsman in India by Aamna. Published on: August 4, 2011

4|Page
justice evokes the cognition of the rule of law, of the resolution of conflicts, of institutions that
make law and of those who enforce it; it expresses fairness and the implicit recognition of the
principle of equality.5 However, a concept common to all definitions of justice is its intrinsic
nexus with the dispute resolution. The primary goal of a dispute resolution mechanism is to do
justice, yet dispute resolution and justice cannot be used interchangeably. The dispute resolution
mechanism chosen by a society reflects the concept of justice in that society.
It is the duty of a state to perform the functions of legislative, executive and judiciary. The
Constitutions of democratic set up clearly define these functions. The legislature has to make the
laws. The executive has to execute or implements these laws and the judiciary interprets and
applies these laws. Judiciary has authority to pertain the office of a judge and this authority
relates to hearing and determining the questions in controversy. Further, this judicial authority
includes Court and appellate Court.

5
J. Rawl, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University press, Edition 1997, at 11.
5|Page
 Ombudsman: Meaning and Importance
Ombudsman offices are form of watchdog on government, investigating and resolving citizen’s
complaints. Ombudsman means “a public official who acts as an impartial intermediary between
the public and government or bureaucracy, or an employee of an organization who mediates
disputes between employees and management. An indigenous Danish, Norwegian and Swedish
term, Ombudsman is etymologically rooted in the Old Norse word umboðsmaðr, essentially
meaning “representative”. In its most frequent modern usage, an ombudsman is an official,
usually appointed by the government or by parliament but with a significant degree of
independence, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and
addressing complaints reported by individuals.
The institution of ombudsman originated in Scandinavian countries. The institution of
‘Ombudsman’ first came into being in Sweden in 1713 when a ‘Chancellor of Justice’ was
appointed by the King to act as invigilator to look into the functioning of war-time government.
Thereafter, a new beginning was made in 1809, when it was laid down that the Ombudsman
would be made thereafter by the legislature. Other Scandinavian countries followed the model of
Sweden almost after a century. Amongst other countries, New Zealand was the first country
outside Scandinavian to institute an Ombudsman in 1962.It has been adopted in a number of
countries, such as Finland, 1919; Denmark, 1954; Norway, 1960; Mauritius, 1966; Guyana,
1966; United Kingdom, 1967; Australia, 1976. Today there are Ombudsman offices in over 80
countries at the national provincial and local level.
Office of Ombudsman was established under the provisions of constitutional law in Austria,
Burkina Faso, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. While in
other countries belonging to Anglo-Saxon legal traditions, the office is generally regulated under
ordinary statute law.
Ombudsman in India
In a welfare State like India, citizens have a variety of interactions with the Government in its
myriad forms – as a service provider, a regulator, as a provider of social and physical
infrastructure etc. Meeting the expectations of the citizens is a challenging task for any
Government. In India, the Ombudsman is known as the Lokpal or Lokayukta. The concept of a
constitutional ombudsman was first proposed by the Law Minister Ashok Kumar Sen in

6|Page
parliament in the early 1960s. The term ‘Lokpal’ and ‘Lokayukta’ were coined by Dr. L. M.
Singhvi as the Indian model of Ombudsman for redressal of public grievances. The office of the
LokPal is the Indian version of the office of an Ombudsman who is appointed to inquire into
complaints made by citizens against public officials. The Lok Pal is a forum where the citizen
can send a complaint against a public official, which would then be inquired into and the citizen
would be provided some redressal. Lokpal is an officer who investigates complaints of citizens
of unfair treatment meted out to them by Government Departments and suggests remedy thereof,
if he finds that a complaint is justified.

Historical Aspect
After independence when increasing practice of corruption, maladministration and misuse of
authority and resource couldn’t be curbed by existing measures under the Indian Penal Code,
1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, need for an agency independent of the
executive, legislative and judiciary, to look into citizens’ grievances and cases of corruption have
been widely felt.
The LokPal Bill provides for constitution of the LokPal as an independent body to enquire into
cases of corruption against public functionaries, with a mechanism for filing complaints and
conducting inquiries etc. Dr. L.M. Singhvi moved a resolution in the Lok Sabha on 3 April
1964, reiterating his demand for setting up an officer of Parliament known as People’s
Procurator. The resolution was discussed in detail by all sections of the House but was
withdrawn on the assurance of the Government that it would look into the matter. In pursuance
of this assurance, the Government constituted a Special Consultative Group of Members of
Parliament on administrative reforms, in early 1965, which favoured a high powered inquiry
commission on administrative reforms. Accordingly, an Administrative Reforms Commission
(ARC) was appointed in January 1966, for making recommendations on the reorganization of the
administrative system of the country. First Administrative Reforms Commission in its report
submitted in 1966 suggested that:
“The special circumstances relating to our country can be fully met by providing for two special
institutions for the redress of citizens’ grievances. There should be one authority dealing with
complaints against the administrative acts of Ministers or Secretaries to the government at the
centre and in the states. There should be another authority in each state and at the centre for

7|Page
dealing with complaints against the administrative acts of other officials…… The setting up of
these authorities should not, however, be taken to be a complete answer to the problem of redress
of citizens’ grievances. They only provide the ultimate set-up for such redress as has not been
available through the normal departmental or governmental machinery and do not absolve the
department from fulfilling its obligations to the citizen for administering its affairs without
generating, as far as possible, any legitimate sense of grievance. Thus, the administration itself
must play the major role in reducing the area of grievances and providing remedies wherever
necessary and feasible…… When this machinery (in-built departmental machinery) functions
effectively, the number of cases which will have to go to an authority outside the Ministry or the
Department should be comparatively small in number”

The ARC while preparing its report had three ends in view:
(i) Evolution of a suitable grievance procedure for the individuals to invoke in complaints of
maladministration;
(ii) Creation of a mechanism which would reduce corruption in the administrative services; and
(iii) Setting up a mechanism which would take cognizance of complaints of favoritism and
nepotism against Central and State Ministers.

Lokpal
The Lokpal Bill was for the first time presented by Mr Shanti Bhushan 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. Subsequently, lokpal
bills were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985 (again by Ashoke Kumar Sen when serving as Law
Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi cabinet), 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, yet they were
never passed. 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 and before the government could take a final stand on the issue,
the house was dissolved again.
In 2002, the report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution urged
that the Constitution should provide for the appointment of the Lok Pal and Lokayuktas in the
states but suggested that the Prime Minister should be kept out of the purview of the authority.

8|Page
In 2004, the UPA government’s National Common Minimum Programme promised that the Lok
Pal Bill would be enacted. The Second Administrative Commission, formed in 2005, also
recommended that the office of the Lok Pal be established without delay.
In January 2011, the government formed a Group of Ministers, chaired by Shri Pranab
Mukherjee to suggest measures to tackle corruption, including examination of the proposal of a
Lok Pal Bill.

JAN LOKPAL BILL

The Jan Lokpal Bill or the Citizen’s Ombudsman Bill is a draft anticorruption bill drawn up by
prominent civil society activists, seeking the appointment of a Jan Lokpal, an independent body
that would investigate corruption cases, complete the investigation within one year and conduct
trials for the case within the next year.
Drafted by Justice Santosh Hegde, a former Supreme Court Judge and former Lokayukta of
Karnataka, Prashant Bhushan, a Supreme Court Lawyer and Arvind Kejriwal, an RTI activist,
the draft Bill envisaged a system in which a corrupt person found guilty would go to jail within
two years of the complaint being made and his ill-gotten wealth confiscated. It also sought power
for the Jan Lokpal to prosecute politicians and bureaucrats without requiring government
permission.
Retired IPS officer Kiran Bedi and others, like Anna Hazare, Swami Agnivesh, Sri Sri Ravi
Shankar, and Mallika Sarabhai are also members of the movement, called “India Against
Corruption”. Its website describes the movement as “an expression of collective anger of people
of India against corruption.” It goes on to state: “We have all come together to
force/request/persuade/pressurize the Government to enact the Jan Lokpal Bill. We feel that if
this Bill were enacted it would create an effective deterrence against corruption.”
Anna Hazare, an anticorruption crusader, began a fast unto death, demanding that this bill,
drafted by Civil Society, be adopted. The website of the India Against Corruption movement
calls the Lokpal Bill of the government an “eyewash”, and hosts a critique of that government
bill. It also lists the difference between the bills drafted by the government and civil society.

9|Page
 Jan Lokpal Bill: Salient features
Lokpal and its role
The bill proposes to establish autonomous and independent institutions called Lokpal at the
central level and and Lokayukta for states. These shall have powers of superintendence and
direction for holding a preliminary inquiry, causing an investigation to be made and prosecution
of offences in respect of complaints under any law for the prevention of corruption.
Structure
The Lokpal will consist of a chairperson and a maximum of eight members of which fifty
percent shall be judicial members.
Fifty percent of members shall be from amongst Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST)
and Other Backward Classes (OBC), minorities and women.
It has an inquiry wing for conducting the preliminary inquiry and a separate independent
prosecution wing. Officers of the Lokpal will include the secretary, director of prosecution,
director of inquiry and other officers.
Process of selection
The selection of chairperson and members of Lokpal shall be through a selection committee The
Selection Committee shall comprise of the Prime Minister, Speaker of the Lok Sabha, Leaders of
the Opposition in both houses, a Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister, one
sitting judge of the Supreme Court, and one sitting Chief Justice of the High Court’s both
nominated by the Chief Justice of India, an eminent jurist nominated by the central government
and a person of eminence in public life with knowledge of public administration, policy making,
anti-corruption policy, vigilance and finance.
Jurisdiction:
Prime minister has been brought under the purview of the Lokpal with specific exclusions.
Lokpal cannot hold any inquiry against the prime minister if allegations relate to international
relations, external and internal security of the country, public order, atomic energy and space.
Any decision of Lokpal to initiate preliminary inquiry or investigation against prime minister
shall be taken only by the full bench with a 3/4th majority. Such proceedings shall be held in
camera. Its jurisdiction to include all categories of public servants including Group ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’
and ‘D’ officers and employees of government. On complaints referred by Lokpal, the Central
Vigilance Commission (CVC) will send its report in respect of Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ officers back

10 | P a g e
to Lokpal for further decision. With respect to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, the CVC will
proceed further in exercise of its own powers under the CVC act subject to reporting and review
by Lokpal. All entities receiving donations from foreign sources in the context of the Foreign
Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in excess of Rs.10 lakh per year are brought under the
jurisdiction of the Lokpal. Lokpal will not be able to initiate suo moto inquiries.
Other significant features of the Bill:
No prior sanction shall be required for launching prosecution in cases enquired by Lokpal or
initiated on the direction and with the approval of Lokpal. There are Provisions for confiscation
of property acquired by corrupt means, even while prosecution is pending. Lokpal to be final
appellate authority on all decisions by public authorities relating to provision of public services
and redressal of grievances containing findings of corruption. Lokpal to have power of
superintendence and direction over any investigation agency including Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) for cases referred to them.

ANALYSIS OF THE JAN LOKPAL BILL

A Naive Approach
The bill has been criticised as being naïve in its approach to combating corruption. According to
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, President of the Centre for Policy Research Delhi, the bill “is premised on
an institutional imagination that is at best naïve at worst subversive of representative
democracy”.6 The very concept of a Lokpal concept has received criticism from Human
Resource Development minister Kapil Sibal in that it will lack accountability, be oppressive and
undemocratic.7
Extra Constitutional8
The pro-bill activist Arvind Kejriwal rejects the claim of Lokpal being extra constitutional with
the explanation that the body will only investigate corruption offences and submit a charge sheet
which would then tried and prosecuted through trial courts and higher courts, and that other
bodies with equivalent powers in other matters exist. The proposed bill also lists clear provisions
for the Supreme Court to abolish the Lokpal.

6
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc5Ql00ftKg
7
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT5kB5Hm4Ys,
8
Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6rK-fLEuNA
11 | P a g e
Despite these clarifications, critics feel that the exact judicial powers of Lokpal are rather unclear
in comparison with its investigative powers. The bill requires “members of Lokpal and the
officers in investigation wing of Lokpal shall be deemed to be police officers”. Although some
supporters have denied any judicial powers of Lokpal, the government and some critics have
recognised Lokpal to have quasi-judicial powers.
The bill also states that “Lokpal shall have, and exercise the same jurisdiction powers and
authority in respect of contempt of itself as a High court has and may exercise, and, for this
purpose, the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Central Act 70 of 1971) shall have
the effect subject to the modification that the references therein to the High Court shall be
construed as including a reference to the Lokpal.” Review of proceedings and decisions by
Lokpal is prevented in the bill by the statement “no proceedings or decision of the Lokpal shall
be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court of ordinary Civil
Jurisdiction.” As a result, how the trials will be conducted is unclear in the bill, although the bill
outlines requiring judges for special courts, presumably to conduct trial that’s hould be
completed within one year. The critics hence express concern that, without judicial review,
Lokpal could potentially become an extra constitutional body with investigative and judicial
powers whose decisions cannot be reviewed in regular courts.
Scope
The matter of whether the Indian Prime Minister and higher judiciary should or should not be
prosecutable by the Lokpal remains as one of the major issues of dispute. Anna’s own nominee
for co-chairing the joint panel Justice Verma, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, has
expressed his constitutional objections for including the Prime Minister and higher judiciary
under Lokpal. According to him, “this would foul with the basic structure of the constitution”.9
Criticism from the CBI Director10
The CBI Director, in a presentation before the Standing Committee of the Parliament, has
strongly argued against the vivisection of the CBI and merger of its anticorruption wing with the
Lokpal, noting that this would seriously cripple the core functioning of the CBI and reduce it to

9
Ministry of Law and Justice. “Government Issues Notification to Constitute a Joint
DraftingCommittee to Prepare Draft Lok Pal Bill.” Press Information Bureau, Government of
India.
Source: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=71560
10
Ibid
12 | P a g e
irrelevance. An organization built over last 60years comprising competent professionals should
not be subsumed under Lokpal. CBI officers concede that in some sensitive political cases there
is of course interference from the government, but in respect of an overwhelming majority of
cases CBI functions, unfettered and uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. For this reason
there is an ever increasing demand for CBI investigation from all over the country in respect of
important cases.

13 | P a g e
 Conclusion:
The main objective behind the institution of Lokpal is to give strength to citizens so that they can
raise their voice against corruption without any fear. The existing devices like CVC and CBI for
checks on elected and administrative officials have not been effective, as the growing instances
of corruption cases suggest. All these have necessitated the creation of Lokpal with its own
investigating team.
Therefore, there is a need for a mechanism that would adopt very simple, independent, speedy
and cheaper means of delivering justice by redressing the grievances of the people. But our
Country is famous for its beautiful numerous laws and its poor execution. Most of the laws have
been proved fail to achieve its goal. No law or institution would have been helped to remove
deep roots of corruption from our country without its proper execution.
It is rightly said by Publius Comelius Tecitus that “the more corrupt the state, the more laws”.

Bibliography
Websites:
 http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=71560
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kc5Ql00ftKg
 http://ww.youtube.com/watch?v=QT5kB5Hm4Ys,
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6rK-fLEuNA
Articles:
 Ministry of Law and Justice. “Government Issues Notification to Constitute a Joint
DraftingCommittee to Prepare Draft Lok Pal Bill.” Press Information Bureau,
Government of India.
 J. Rawl, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University press, Edition 1997, at
11.
 Ombudsman in India by Aamna. Published on: August 4, 2011

14 | P a g e