OMBUDSMAN: LOKAYUKTA, LOKPAL ETC.

1. Need for Ombudsman

a. In welfare state, the administration is getting enormous amount of powers- huge
admin machinery with wide discretion – is the norm. On the other hand, there is
public perception of corruption, maladministration and misuse or abuse of power
by administration.
b. Greater the power given to executive, greater is the need to safeguard the citizens
against its arbitrary or unfair exercise.
c. Generally, the courts have exercised judicial review in checking the administrative
decision making. But, the courts, as a control mechanism only play a peripheral
role – they don’t provide for a review in depth of administrative decision. The
courts restrain themselves in substituting the discretion of the administrative
official on whom the power is conferred by law.
2. Ombudsman in India
a. Need for Ombudsman –
i) Administrative delay; inefficiency; unresponsiveness to popular needs
ii) Discourtesy and public perception of arrogant bureaucrats
iii)Inadequate procedure to redress the grievances of individual against the admin
iv)The Indian bureaucracy has been acquiring vast powers in the name of socio-
economic development. Chances of administrative excesses and abuse of
power are abound.
v) The peculiar feature of India administration – widespread corruption and
public is gravely aware of this but no adequate grievance redressal. This has
led to widespread corrosion of the public image and confidence in
bureaucracy.
vi)The parliament – which has the primary responsibility of exercising
supervision over the executive in its exercise of its powers – is restrained due
to time and workload from checking misuse of powers.
vii) The judiciary also cannot do much in judicial review because it cannot
substitute its judgement over the discretion of the administrative authority
taken in the lawful discharge of his/her authority.
viii) Thus, close supervision of administration is necessary on the lines of
New Zealand, UK and Australian Ombudsman.
b. Recommendations of ARC (Administrative Reforms Commission)
i) In 1966 report, ARC recommended Ombudsman type institution for citizen’s
grievance redressal.
ii) The commission felt the grievance redressal is central to the idea of
democratic governments. Further, it will strengthen hands of gvt in
administering the laws of land and its policies without fear, favour, ill-will or
affection.
iii) The commission, in suggesting the Ombudsman institution, took note of
admin delay, inefficiency, unresponsiveness to popular demands and on other
hand, the need to protect the administration, help it to project its true image to
the public and dispel from the minds of public the false notions and prejudices
against the character of the administration.
iv)The commission also made some advantages/optimistic notes about the
Ombudsman system and tried to pre-empt some of the objections which might
be raised –
 The ombudsman (obd) will function only with respect to those matters for
which no remedies are available or wherein the it might not be reasonable
to expect the citizen to take recourse to such remedy. This will firstly,
reduce jurisdictional problems among courts, tribunals and obd and
secondly, reduce the number of complaints filed.
 The obd shall only entertain those complaint which prima facie show the
need for redressing an act of injustice or maladministration exists.