qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui

opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfgh
jklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvb
ROLE OF MACHINERY IN
nmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
REDRESSAL OF PUBLIC
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopas
GRIEVANCES WITH
SPECIAL REFERENCE TO
dfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
LOKPAL AND LOKAYuKTA
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
SUBJECT-POLITICAL SCIENCE

wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
SUBMITTED BY
PARVEER SINGH GHUMAN
3RD SEMESTER
pasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghj
ROLL NO 144/10
SECTION B

klzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
SUBMITTED TO
Ms. MONICA ARORA

mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopbadassdfghjklzxcvbn
mrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuio
0

passdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopassdfg
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION 2

IMPORTANCE OF REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES IN A DEMOCRACY 3

INDIAN INSTRUMENTATION FOR PUBLIC GRIEVANCE 4

REDRESSAL OF PUBLIC GRIEVANCE BY LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA 5

THE LOKAYUKTA 5

FUNCTIONING STRUCTURE OF LOKAYUKTA 6

SHORTCOMINGS 8

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 8

THE LOKPAL 9

THE PRESENT LOKPAL BILL 9

THE JAN LOKPAL BILL 10

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JAN LOKPAL BILL AND DRAFT BILL 2010 11

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 12

BIBLIOGRAPHY 13

1
 ROLE OF MACHINERY IN REDRESSAL
OF PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES WITH SPECIAL
REFERENCE TO LOKPAL AND
LOKAYuKTA

INTRODUCTION
A grievance can be defined as any sort of dissatisfaction, which needs to be
redressed in order to bring about the smooth functioning of the individual in the
organization. Broadly, a grievance can be defined as any discontent of
dissatisfaction with any aspect of the organization. It can be real or imaginary,
legitimate or ridiculous, rated or unvoiced, written or oral, it must however, find
expression in some form of the other. In a democracy the citizens make the
government and hold it accountable. Government is operated by bureaucracy for
whom the rules and regulations are more important than helping the citizens. Also,
it tends to keep things secret and department like electricity and water-supply,
railways and telephones etc. exercise their own power. Citizens register many
complaints against government machinery. The grievances of citizens against
government machinery need to be heard and redressed otherwise, citizens will tend
to withdraw their loyalty towards it. Hence, democracy sets up appropriate
machineries for the redressal of citizen’s grievances.

2
IMPORTANCE OF REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES IN A
DEMOCRACY

In a developing country like ours, Government has to perform many functions. The
citizens depend on the services provided by various government agencies. To levy
rice, wheat and sugar from a ration shop, a citizen has to have a ration card issued
by the Government. To obtain a ration card is not very difficult, but the quality of
services is far from satisfactory. For most things in life, citizens depend on the
services and facilities provided by government agencies. It is a common
experience that the citizens often face difficulties in dealing with government
agencies. Too many rules and regulations are there, resulting in unnecessary delay.
Trains or buses may not run on time. The banks, the hospitals, the police are often
not co-operative. During the past decade, a number of measures have been taken
by the government to improve its machinery for prompt and speedy disposal of
citizen's requests and claims as well as for the redress of their grievances. At the
central level the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public
Grievances (Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions) and
Directorate of Public Grievances (Cabinet Secretariat) are established. Modern
democratic states are characterized by welfare orientation. Hence the government
has come to play an important role in the socio-economic development of the
nation. This resulted in the expansion of bureaucracy and the multiplication of
administrative processes, which in turn increased the administrative power and
discretion enjoyed by the civil servants at different levels of the government. The
abuse of this power and discretion by civil servants open up scope for harassment,
malpractices, maladministration and corruption; this is to say that such a situation
gives rise to citizen's grievances against administration. The success of democracy
and the realisation of socio-economic development depends on the extent to which
3
the citizen's grievances are redressed. Delay or harassment and unhelpful attitude
of government departments and agencies create a bad image of government. At the
same time, it has to be accepted that government has to undertake many functions
in the interest of the public. The difficulties that the members of the public face in
getting services make the people unhappy and dissatisfied. The poor people suffer
most. They badly need government support and services, but they are the ones who
are often harassed and turned down. This is obviously bad for the healthy
democracy. The average citizen wants sympathetic, courteous and helpful public
administration. If there are too many public grievances against the government
agencies, corrective measures have to be taken to redress those grievances.

INDIAN INSTRUMENTATION FOR PUBLIC

GRIEVANCE

In India, it has been observed by many committees and commissions that special
machinery should be set up to deal with public complaints against the
administration. Various institutions exist to redress public grievances. For instance,
a citizen can move the court to seek remedy against any wrong done to him by a
public servant or a public agency in the course of discharge of public duty: This is
called judicial remedy. Many kinds of administrative tribunals have been set up to
provide cheap and speedy justice to the complainant. The Income Tax Appellate
Tribunal, Labour Tribunals etc. are instances of this type of institution. The
government has also created Department of Adminstrative Reforms and Public
Grievances. This is the nodal agency of the government for Administrative
Reforms as well as redressal of public grievances. The enactment of
Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 opened a new chapter in the sphere of

4
administrating justice to the aggrieved government servant and in some cases
public members.

REDRESSAL OF PUBLIC GRIEVANCE BY LOKPAL

AND LOKAYUKTA

The machineries and procedures for handling public grievances, as mentioned

above, have been found to be too distant or expensive and time-consuming. They
have not been very successful to provide effective redressal of an individual
citizens’ grievance against government agencies and political leadership. Against
this background, the Administrative

Reforms Commission (ARC, 1966) made the following observation:

“We are of the view that the special circumstances relating to our country can be
fully met, by providing for two special institutions for the redressal of citizens’
grievances. There should be one authority for dealing with complaints against the
administrative acts of ministers or secretaries to government both at the centre and
in the states. There should be another authority in each state and the centre for
dealing with complaints against the administrative acts of other officials. All these
authorities should be independent of the executive as well as the legislature and
judiciary”. The ARC called the first authority the Lokpal and the second authority
the Lokayukta.

THE LOKAYUKTA

Although no institution of Lokpal has yet been established at the Centre, there are
states like Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Bihar, Orissa,

5
Himachal Pradesh and national capital territory of Delhi which have appointed
Lokayukta for dealing with the public grievances on the lines suggested by the
ARC. Section 12 of the Himachal Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983, provides,

“If, after enquiry in respect of a complaint, the Lokayukta is satisfied that all or any
of the allegations made in the complaint have or have been substantiated either
wholly or partly, he shall, by report in writing, communicate his bindings and
recommendations to the competent authority and intimate the complaint and the
public servant concerned about his having made the report”. The competent
authority examines the report and has to communicate to the lokayukta within a
period of three months of the receipt of such report, the action taken thereon.

FUNCTIONING STRUCTURE OF LOKAYUKTA

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 Lokayauka 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.

Regarding the procedure and working of Lokayukta, 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.

6
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 non- payment 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 non-working
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.

It may be noted that the Lokayukta is only a recommending authority. Its

recommendations have no legal sanctity, nor are these binding. The final
judgement in respect of the offence lies with the competent government authority.
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.

7
SHORTCOMINGS

The Lokayukta organization has too many shortcomings such as 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.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

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
commiting contempt. A legislative committee on Lokayukta for making the
institution more relevant and effective is required. The question of operational

8
autonomy is being raised. The need of co-ordination amongst agencies/institutions
functioning in the area of redressal of public grievances is strongly recommended.

THE LOKPAL

The word Lokpal, means an ombudsman, has been derived from the Sweden,
drawn up ostensibly to root out corruption at high places the prevailing in Indian
polity. It provides for filing complaints of corruption against ministers and
members of parliament with the ombudsman. It has been created to provide
immunity to the corrupt at all levels that it claims to bring under its ‘objective’
scrutiny. The Lokpal is a proposed body to be enacted as a law by Parliament,
which will be headed by a chairperson who is or was a Chief Justice of India and
eight other members. The Lokpal Bill, an effort to rein in the pervasive corruption
in public life, was first mooted in the late 60s, However, it failed to become law
despite successive attempts. The first lokpal bill was passed in the 4th Lok Sabha
in 1969 but could not get through in Rajya Sabha, subsequently, Lokpal bills were
introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in 2008, yet
they were never passed. The lokpal bill was visualised as the watchdog institution
for ministerial probity. Broadly the provisions of different bills empowered the
Lokpal to investigate corruption cases against political persons at the central level.

THE PRESENT LOKPAL BILL

The government's Lokpal Bill has kept the Prime Minister and the judiciary as
well as conduct of MPs in Parliament out of the ambit of the anti-corruption
watchdog. The PM, however, will come under the purview of Lokpal after he
demits office. The bill gives permission to Lokpal to probe any Union minister or

9
officials of Group 'A' and above rank without any sanction. According to the
government's draft, the body will have a chairperson and eight members, including
four judicial members - who will be former or sitting judges of Supreme Court or
chief justices of the high court. The Lok Ayuktas in the states does not come under
the purview of this bill as the Centre cannot intervene in the powers of the state.
The Lokpal will have its own prosecution and investigation wing with officers and
staff necessary to carry out its functions.

THE JAN LOKPAL BILL

The Jan Lokpal Bill, also referred to as the citizens' ombudsman bill, is intended as
a more effective improvement to the original Lokpal Bill that is currently being
proposed by the the government. The prefix 'Jan' (citizens) has been added to
highlight the fact that these improvements include inputs from ordinary citizens
through an activist-driven, non-governmental public consultation. The Jan Lokpal
Bill aims to effectively deter corruption, redress grievances of citizens, and protect
whistle-blowers. If made into law, the bill would create an independent
ombudsman body called the Lokpal (Sanskrit: protector of the people). It would be
empowered to register and investigate complaints of corruption against politicians
and bureaucrats without prior government approval.

The arguments given in favour of the Jan Lokpal Bill is that if made into a law, it
will create an independent ombudsman body outside government control that will
have the power to register and investigate complaints against politicians and public
servants without the need to get a prior approval from the government. The
proponents of Jan Lokpal Bill believe that it will effectively redress citizen's
grievances, protect whistle-blowers and more importantly, deter corruption.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JAN LOKPAL BILL AND DRAFT BILL 2010

10
Jan Lokpal Bill (Citizen's
Draft Lokpal Bill (2010)
Ombudsman Bill)

Lokpal will have powers to Lokpal will have no power to initiate suo

initiate Suo motu action or motu action or receive complaints of corruption
receive complaints of from the general public. It can only probe
corruption from the general complaints forwarded by the Speaker of the Lok
public. Sabha or the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

Lokpal will have the power to Lokpal will only be an Advisory Body with a role
initiate prosecution of anyone limited to forwarding reports to a "Competent
found guilty. Authority".

Lokpal will have police Lokpal will have no police powers and no ability to

powers as well as the ability to register an FIR or proceed with criminal
register FIRs. investigations.

Lokpal and the anti corruption

wing of the CBI will be one The CBI and Lokpal will be unconnected.
independent body.

Punishments will be a
minimum of 10 years and a Punishment for corruption will be a minimum of 6
maximum of up to life months and a maximum of up to 7 years.
imprisonment.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

11
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. However, the organization has, over
the years, successfully provided relief to a number of complainants concerning
grievance cases arising out of maladministration. For the success of the
organization it is required to tone up the state administration itself by making it
more responsive accountable, transparent, efficient and effective. While assessing
the role performance of the Lokayukta the influence of socio-political and cultural
background of our society should not be ignored. Personal qualities such as the
image, caliber, drive, persuasive power, and dynamism, perception of his role and
institution of the individual Lokayukta also count in the success or failure of the
office. In the final analysis, the attitude of those who appoint the Lokayukta and
the agility and alertness of those for whom he is appointed also go a long way in
determining the level of success or failure of the institution.

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) Barbanas, A.P. (1969), ‘Citizen grievances and Administration (A study in

participation and alienatation)’, IIPA, New Delhi.

2) Chaturvedi, S.N. (1966), 'Machinery for redress of citizen's grievances',

IJPA, Vol XII

3) Dhawan, R.K. (1981), ‘Public grievances and the Lokpal : A study of the

Administrative Machinery for Redress of Public Grievances’, New Delhi.

4) Laxmikanth, M. (2002), ‘Public Administration’, Tata McGraw-Hill

Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi.

13