CHAPTER - IX

CONCLUSION

There are many ways in which the existing Ombudsman plans

can be improved without any amendment in the legislation. Some
could be taken by the Lokayukta themselves while other by the state
governments -
1. The most important and effective way that the Lokayuktas could
take is to separate the treatment of allegation and grievance
complaints in so far as this is possible within the existing laws
and rules. Utilising a much less formal procedure for the receipt
and processing of grievance complaints would probably require
a complete separation of the office staff into allegation and
grievance sections. In Uttar Pradesh this would require an
amendment to the Act to restore the power of initiative for
grievances.
2. The second most important action the Lokayuktas could take
would be to try to make their office far more accessible to the
public. Since Uttar Pradesh is a very large and densely
populated state therefore there should be proper and easy
channels for the public to meet the Lokayuktas because people
cannot comlain to an office if they do not know its existance.
People should be taught about the utility and scope of the
organisation. This would require vigorous efforts to publicise its
services, an office that is easily assessible physically and not
forbidding psychologically, the encouragement of initial
complaints orally or by telephone and where a complaint
appears to have some foundation friendly help by the office staff
with completing the formal complaint requirements. Action
could also be taken to decentralise the office, as has been done
in several countries and Canadian provinces, through either
frequent visits outside the state capital or regional offices.
France is an outstanding example of a plan where the
 ombudsman decentralised his office without amendment to the
law by appointing a hundred local ‘correspondent’s throughout
the countiy to receive and screen initial complaints.
3. The incumbent should take more interest in the public services
and he should adopt even the informal road for the quick disposal
of cases to a great extent to save time and money of the public.
4. Another important action is that they should make
recommendations in their annual reports designed not only to
improve their governing legislation but also to remedy defects in
the laws and administrative procedures in so far they affect
individuals. It is of prime importance that the annual reports
submitted to the legistlature by the Lokayukta must be laid on
the flour of the House. The annual reports of the Indian
Ombudsmen reveal very few recommendations of this, whereas
this has been one of the main functions of Ombudsmen
elsewhere. The best example is France. Due sanctity should be
awarded by the public servants and the Government to the
letters, requisitions issued and recommendation made by the
Lokayukta.
5. A number of significant measures could also be taken by the
State governments without amending the legislation. One of the
most serious problems of a Lokayukta in conducting his
investigations is delay. In the states like Maharashtra and Bihar
a serious problem is created by the fact that the Ombudsmen do
not have their own investigative staff and must depend on the
vigilance department or commission which are not independent
of the government and have no direct interest in a rapid
disposition of the Ombudsmen’s cases. Therefore, Government
in these states especially in Uttar Pradesh, the government
could approve the establishment of an investigation wing in the
offices of the Ombudsmen without an amendment to the Act, as
the Ombudsmen have recommended.

133
6. Another veiy important action that the governments could take
would be to alter the rules under the Act to separate the
procedure for making an allegation from that for making a
complaint and to simplify the latter in so far as this is possible
under the existing legislation. They could also support the
grievance function of the Ombudsmen’s offices by
recommending the appointment as Lokayuktas of persons who
are not judges and therefore will not be hidebound by legislatic
procedures, but who at the same time have a reputation for
their political independence and public spirit.
The'governments could further support to the Ombudsmen’s
offices by laying their annual report before the legislature soon after
receiving it, being more receptive to their recommendations rather
than stifling debate on them, and especially by publicising their
grievance services and giving them enough budget and staff to handle
a large volume of complaints.
If the Acts were to be amended without a major overhaul of the
plans, then it should make only this little change that it should have
both a Lokayukta and an Upalokayukta or Upalokayuktas, but to
divide their work by function rather level i.e. the Upalokayukta should
be made responsible only for grievance complaints but at all levels.
This provision would be of great help for a vast state like Uttar
Pradesh because facts reveal that Upalokayukta has not been
appointed in U.P. which shows that the division by level is
impracticable. The Upalokayukta, who would be in charge of handling
only grievances, should be an eminent fair minded person who
understands the problems of the citizens and should at the same time
have some knowledge of administration but need not necessarily bew
a former senior official.
Conclusion : The institution of the ombudsman has now spread
throughout the world. Many different names and terms are used and
the individual jurisdiction and powers vary. But the main thrust of the
Ombudsman idea remains remarkably similar and the institution

134
provides a flexible and largely informal method of obtaining remedies
without the need to go through formal and often expensive, court
processes. No one should pretend that it is perfect but there is little
doubt that is a modem improvement upon the provision for legal
remedies which previously existed.
The new institution of Lokayukta require for their successful
working certain basic conditions. These requirements however, need
not held up setting up of the new institutions. The very institution
would help improve the wider frame work of the their operation.
The inauguration of the new institution of Lokayukta will need
to be supplemented by a special public relations campaign to explain
to the political leadership, the officials and the citizens the
implications of the Ombudsman machinery. In Uttar Pradesh all this
becomes very important as the majority of the aggrieved people are
illiterate or poor people. They are not aware of their rights.
It also becomes necessary to impress upon the public officials that
they should consider the recommendation of the Lokayuktas with
respect and accept them unless there are reasons to the contrary which
are positively in large public interest and can be explained to parliament.
The faith of the people in the Lokayukta as well as the success
of those functionaries will depend considerably on the quality and
character of men who are appointed. The persons selected for the
officials of the Lokayuktas must be of unimpeachable character. They
must command the confidence of the citizen and public servants. They
should be learned in the philosophies and the techniques of law,
administration and human conduct. They must have an experience of
moving amongst the poor and the helpless without hate and of
communing with the powerful and the exalted without fear.
The establishment of the institution of the Lokayukta will
undoubtedly be a big step forward improving the machinery for redress
of public grievances. The usefulness of the new institutions will depend
not only on their character, jurisdiction and powers but equally on the
toning up of the wider framework within which they operate.

135