NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL

PROJECT – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

CONCEPT OF LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY:

Dr.Sushma Sharma Vidhyanshi Bhanwar

2016BALLB117

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This project is an analysis of Global administrative Law. I would like to begin with
acknowledging our Associate Professor SUSHMA SHARMA who gave us this opportunity to
work on a project work, giving us full autonomy to choose our topics as well as guidance where
ever needed. I would also like to thank the director of the university Mr. V. VIJAY KUMAR
and the administration who have given us all the requisite facilities like library, Wi-Fi
connection, and computer lab, photo stat which make the task much easier and efficient. Also, I
would like to extend my gratefulness to my batch mates and parents who have supported me
throughout in this Endeavour.

2
 CHAPTERIZATION

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..04

1. History of Lokayukta …………………………………………………………04

2. The need for Lokayukta ………………………………………………………08

CHAPTER II HOW LOKAYUKTA WORK………………………………….13

CHAPTER III FEATURES OF LOKAYUKTA……………………………….14

1. Benefits and Limitations of Lokayukta………………………………………..15

2. Difference between Lokayukta and Lokpal …………………………………..17

CHAPTER IV FINDING AND SUGGESTIONS ……………………………..19

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION………………………………………………..…20

3
 CHAPTER- I
INTRODUCTION

The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 provides for the establishment of Lokpal for the Union
and Lokayukta for the States. These institutions are statutory bodies without any constitutional
status. They perform the function of an "ombudsman” and inquire into allegations of corruption
against certain public functionaries and for related matters.

Why do we need such institutions?

Maladministration is like a termite which slowly erodes the foundation of a nation and hinders
administration from completing its task. Corruption is the root cause of this problem. Most of the
anti-corruption agencies are hardly independent. Even Supreme Court has been termed CBI as a
“caged parrot” and “its master’s voice”. Many of these agencies are advisory bodies without any
effective powers and their advice is rarely followed. There is also the problem of internal
transparency and accountability. Moreover, there is not any separate and effective mechanism to
put checks on these agencies. In this context, an independent institution of Lokpal has been a
landmark move in the history of Indian polity which offered a solution to the never-ending
menace of corruption.

HISTORY OF OMBUDSMAN IN INDIA

The origin of the Lokayukta can be traced to the Ombudsmen in Scandinavian countries. In
1809, the institution of ombudsman was inaugurated officially in Sweden. In the 20th century,
Ombudsman as an institution developed and grew most significantly after the Second World
War. New Zealand and Norway adopted this system in the year 1962 and it proved to be of great
significance in spreading the concept of the ombudsman. In 1967, on the recommendations of
the Whyatt Report of 1961, Great Britain adopted the institution of the ombudsman and became
the first large nation in the democratic world to have such a system. In 1966, Guyana became the
first developing nation to adopt the concept of the ombudsman. Subsequently, it was further
adopted by Mauritius, Singapore, Malaysia, and India as well. In India, the concept of
constitutional ombudsman was first proposed by the then law minister Ashok Kumar Sen in

4
parliament in the early 1960s. The term Lokpal and Lokayukta were coined by Dr. L. M.
Singhvi.

In 1966, the First Administrative Reforms Commission recommended the setting up of two
independent authorities- at the central and state level, to look into complaints against public
functionaries, including MPs. In 1968, Lokpal bill was passed in Lok Sabha but lapsed with the
dissolution of Lok Sabha and since then it has lapsed in the Lok Sabha many times. Till 2011
eight attempts were made to pass the Bill, but all met with failure. In 2002, the Commission
to Review the Working of the Constitution headed by M.N. Venkatachaliah recommended the
appointment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas; also recommended that the PM be kept out of the
ambit of the authority.

In 2005, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission chaired by Veerappa

Moily recommended that the office of Lokpal should be established without delay. In 2011, the
government formed a Group of Ministers, chaired by Pranab Mukherjee to suggest measures to
tackle corruption and examine the proposal of a Lokpal Bill. "India Against Corruption
movement" led by Anna Hazare put pressure on the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)
government at the Centre and resulted in the passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2013, in
both the Houses of Parliament. It received assent from President on 1 January 2014 and came
into force on 16 January 2014. Lokayukta investigates cases of corruption, where substantiated,
recommend action. It is a great check on corruption, brings about transparency in the system, and
makes administrative machinery citizen friendly. Its functions largely depend upon jurisdiction
vested in it and facilities provided for taking cognizance of citizens’ grievances promptly,
dexterously and expeditiously through simple, informal mechanism devoid of technicalities.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Administrative Law – Ninth Edition IP Massey

In this book Prof. Massey has well explained about the concept and aspect of Lokpal and
lokayukta where he talked about the benefits of having it. As the role of Lokayukta is that he or
she examines complaints from outside the offending state institution, thus avoiding the conflicts
of interest inherent in self policing. However, this system lies heavily on the selection of an

5
appropriate individual for the office, and on the cooperation of at least some effective official
from within the apparatus of the state. Credibility and increasing white money but the chapter
also talks about the limitation 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.

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 he suggest that there is a requirement to tone up the state administration itself by
making it more responsive accountable, transparent, efficient and effective.

6
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research method used during the making of this project is secondary research and data collected
has been form secondary sources. This method is considered with legal prepositions. Various E-
sources, books, and journals, articles and case laws have been referred to in this project.

OBJECTIVES

 To elucidate the meaning of lokayukta in India.

 To look into the circumstances in which Lokayuktas were formed.
 To look the concept of lokayukta in Madhya Pradesh.

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The Statement of purpose is to understand the origin, need, working of ombudsman and its role
in India. .

HYPOTHESIS

With the increase in the administrative power and discretion enjoyed by the civil servants at
different levels of the government, there open up and rises scope for harassment, malpractices,
maladministration and corruption. Lokayuktas in India is intended to check and stop corruption
at various levels of the government.

7
 THE NEED FOR LOKAYUKTA

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
realization of socio-economic development depends on the extent to which the citizen's
grievances are redressed.
It is necessary to establish a Lokpal both at the central level and a Lokayukta at the state level.
Both of them will address the inadequacies of the current anti-corruption systems and will have
the power to investigate and prosecute cases of corruption. Indian political system is considered
to be one of the most corrupt systems throughout the world. In 2015, India was ranked 76th out
of the 168 countries in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, which if
compared to other developed states stands pretty low. For a country like India who strives to
achieve a “developed state” status it is extremely necessary to get rid of corruption from the
system as soon as possible.
The need for Lokpal at the centre and Lokayukta in states is justified in this democratic
framework. After all, public also wants that their problems should be looked after and it cannot
be possible without these two separate agencies to function. It will also instill confidence among
the in the administrative bodies and also, it will drive out the corrupt officials from their
chambers which they might have obtained through numerous illegitimate ways.
The need for Lokpal at the centre and Lokayukta in states is justified in this democratic
framework. After all, public also wants that their problems should be looked after and it cannot
be possible without these two separate agencies to function. It will also instill confidence among
the in the administrative bodies and also, it will drive out the corrupt officials from their
chambers which they might have obtained through numerous illegitimate ways.

8
Need for Lokayukta Interim Report of the Administrative Reforms, 1962 gave the following

reasons3:
1. “A Democratic government is a “government of the people, by the people and for the
people”, it has an obligation to satisfy the citizen about its functioning and to offer them
adequate means for the ventilation and redress of their grievances.
2. The redressal of citizen’s grievances is basic to the functioning of democratic governments,
and will strengthen the hands of the government in administering the laws of the land without
fear and favour, affection or ill will and enable it to go up in public faith and confidence
without which progress would not be possible.
3. The existing institutions of judicial review and Parliamentary control are inadequate in view
of the ever expanding range of governmental functions most of which are discretionary.
4. There prevails a public feeling against prevalence of corruption, widespread inefficiency and
administration’s unresponsiveness to popular needs.

THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2016

ARC was requested to consider, inter alia, the problem of redressal of citizen's grievances.

The ARC was expected to examine the following issues1:

(a) The adequacy of existing arrangements for the redress of grievances; and

(b) The need for the introduction of any new machinery or special institution for the
redress of grievances.
The ARC in its interim report favoured the idea of setting up Ombudsman institution. It
recommended the appointment of two special authorities Lokpal and Lokayukta. In the
proposed scheme more stress was laid on the corruption fighting role of the Ombudsman but
the grievance redressal aspect was given secondary emphasis. 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.

9
Part of explanation for this variance lies in the jurisdiction of Lokayuktas. 1 Some of the
Lokayuktas deal only with cases of allegations whereas others deal with both allegations and

grievance cases.2 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. Most of the complainants especially of rural areas,
lost interest once they were asked to file affidavit.

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.

The rationale for a thorough inquiry by the Lokayukta without interference has been aptly
brought out by Judge Milvain of Alberta Supreme Court in Re Alerta Ombudsman Act (1970)
10.2

“It must be remembered that the Ombudsman is also a fallible human being and not
necessarily right. However, he can bring the lamp of scrutiny to dark places even over the
resistance of those who would draw the blinds. If his scrutiny and observations are well
founded, corrective measures can be taken in due democratic process, if not, no harm can be
done in looking at that which is good.”

This Bill was passed by Parliament in July 2016 and amended the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act,
2013. It enables the leader of the single largest opposition party in the Lok Sabha to be a

1
Gupta, S.C. (1995), Ombudsman : An Indian perspective
2
Dec LR (3rd) 47.

10
member of the selection committee in the absence of a recognized Leader of Opposition. It also
amended section 44 of the 2013 Act that deals with the provision of furnishing of details of
assets and liabilities of public servants within 30 days of joining the government service. The
Bill replaces the time limit of 30 days, now the public servants will make a declaration of their
assets and liabilities in the form and manner as prescribed by the government. It also gives an
extension of the time given to trustees and board members to declare their assets and those of
their spouses in case of these are receiving government funds of more than Rs. 1 crore or foreign
funding of more than Rs. 10 lakh.

STRUCTURE OF LOKPAL

Lokpal is a multi-member body, that consists of one chairperson and a maximum of 8 members.
Chairperson of the Lokpal should be either the former Chief Justice of India or the former Judge
of Supreme Court or an eminent person with impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, having
special knowledge and expertise of minimum 25 years in the matters relating to anti-corruption
policy, public administration, vigilance, finance including insurance and banking, law and
management. Out of the maximum eight members, half will be judicial members and minimum
50% of the Members will be from SC/ ST/ OBC/ Minorities and women. The judicial member of
the Lokpal either a former Judge of the Supreme Court or a former Chief Justice of a High Court.
The non-judicial member should be an eminent person with impeccable integrity and outstanding
ability, having special knowledge and expertise of minimum 25 years in the matters relating to
anti-corruption policy, public administration, vigilance, finance including insurance and banking,
law and management. The term of office for Lokpal Chairman and Members is 5 years or till the
age of 70 years. The members are appointed by the president on the recommendation of a
Selection Committee.

The selection committee is composed of the Prime Minister who is the Chairperson; Speaker of
Lok Sabha, Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, Chief Justice of India or a Judge nominated by
him/her and One eminent jurist. For selecting the chairperson and the members, the selection
committee constitutes a search panel of at least eight persons. Lokpal Search Committee. Under
the Lokpal Act of 2013, the DoPT is supposed to put together a list of candidates interested to be
the chairperson or members of the Lokpal. This list would then go to the proposed eight-member
search committee, which would shortlist names and place them before the selection panel headed

11
by the Prime Minister. The selection panel may or may not pick names suggested by the search
committee. In September 2018, the government had constituted a search committee headed by
former Supreme Court judge Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai. The 2013 Act also provides that all
states should set up the office of the Lokayukta within one year from the commencement of the
Act.

The name of states, that has enacted lokayukta act are as mentioned5:
1. Andhra Pradesh
2. Assam
3. Bihar
4. Chhattisgarh (ordinance)
5. Delhi
6. Goa
7. Gujarat
8. Haryana
9. Himachal Pradesh Jharkhand
10. Karnataka
11. Kerala
12. Madhya Pradesh
13. Maharastra
14. Lokpal, Orissa
15. Lokpal Punjab
16. Lokpal, Rajasthan
17. Uttarakhand- adopted from Uttar Pradesh
18. Uttar Pradesh

And there are no Lokayukta in these -Jammu and Kashmir Manipur Meghalaya, Mizoram,
Nagaland Sikkim Tamil Nadu West Benga

12
 CHAPTER- II
HOW LOKAYUKTA WORK

The Lokayukta works along with the Income Tax Department and the Anti Corruption Bureau.
The Lokayukta (sometimes referred to the institution itself) investigates allegations of corruption
and mal-administration against public servants and is tasked with speedy redressed of public
grievances.
Where, after investigation into the complaint, the Lokayukta considers that the allegation against
a public servant is prima facie true and makes a declaration that the post held by him, and the
declaration is accepted by the competent authority, the public servant concerned, if he is a Chief
Minister or any other Minister or Member of State Legislature shall resign his office and if he is
any other non-official shall be deemed to have vacated his office, and, if an official, shall be
deemed to have been kept under suspension, with effect from the date of the acceptance of the
declaration. If after investigation, the Lokayukta is satisfied that the public servant has
committed any criminal offence, he may initiate prosecution without reference to any other
authority. Any prior sanction required under any law for such prosecution shall be deemed to
have been granted.
The Vigilance Commission is abolished. But all inquiries and investigations and other
disciplinary proceedings pending before the Vigilance Commission will be transferred to the
Lokayukta.

13
 CHAPTER - III

FEATURES OF LOKAYUKTA
1. Tenure of Lokayukta is fixed to enable it to discharge its function honestly, 3-5 years.
Generally a retired Supreme Court or High Court judge is appointed in consultation with
the state governor, ruling and opposition leaders of the state legislative assembly. A
Lokayukta does not hold a separate office for profit and is not connected with any
political party. Also debarred from being a member of Parliament or State Legislature.
Lokayukta’s office has been provided equivalence with the status of a Judge of the High
Court. Governors are authorised to remove the Lokayuktas but only for misbehaviour or
incapacity. However, procedures for removal are not uniform.
2. The Lokayukta is created as a statutory authority with a fixed tenure to enable it to
discharge its functions independently and impartially. Each state dictates how its
Lokayukta is set up and its set of powers. This has led to various different Lokayuktas
being setup, some with more power than the others. There is no uniformity in terms of
covering authorities. Permission is also required to investigate cases concerning officials
above a certain rank.
3. It Include under its ambit – matters of pension, gratuity, PF, any claims related to
retirement, removal or termination of service. It exclude from its jurisdiction : Matters
concerning State security; actions taken in respect of appointments, pay and other matters
of employmen to Complaints which have or had any remedy before any Tribunal or
Court of Law. Any action in which a public inquiry as ordered under Public Servants
(Inquiries) Act, 1950. Complaint made beyond the period of limitation (generally 3-5
years) stipulated by the Acts. Any matter concerning any person if he has any bias in
respect of such matter or person.

14
LOKPAL JURISDICTION AND POWERS

Jurisdiction of Lokpal includes Prime Minister, Ministers, members of Parliament, Groups A, B,

C and D officers and officials of Central Government. Jurisdiction of the Lokpal included the
Prime Minister except on allegations of corruption relating to international relations, security, the
public order, atomic energy and space. The Lokpal does not have jurisdiction over Ministers and
MPs in the matter of anything said in Parliament or a vote given there. Its jurisdiction also
includes any person who is or has been in charge (director/ manager/ secretary) of anybody/
society set up by central act or any other body financed/ controlled by central government and
any other person involved in act of abetting, bribe giving or bribe taking. The Lokpal Act
mandates that all public officials should furnish the assets and liabilities of themselves as well as
their respective dependents. It has the powers to superintendence over, and to give direction to
CBI.

If Lokpal has referred a case to CBI, the investigating officer in such case cannot be transferred
without the approval of Lokpal.

The Inquiry Wing of the Lokpal has been vested with the powers of a civil court. Lokpal
has powers of confiscation of assets, proceeds, receipts and benefits arisen or procured by means
of corruption in special circumstances. Lokpal has the power to recommend transfer or
suspension of public servant connected with allegation of corruption. Lokpal has the power to
give directions to prevent the destruction of records during the preliminary inquiry.

BENEFITS AND LIMITATIONS OF LOKAYUKTA

The major advantage of a Lokayukta is that he or she examines complaints from outside the
offending state institution, thus avoiding the conflicts of interest inherent in self- policing.
However, this system lies heavily on the selection of an appropriate individual for the office, and
on the cooperation of at least some effective official from within the apparatus of the state.
Advantages of our credible Lokayukta Policy:
1. More Money in the white economy.
2. Reduce Poverty.
3. Higher Income.

15
 4. More Revenue.
5. Higher Budget for Public Welfare.
One advantage leads to another , thus providing us with a solution to combat the "Bigger
Picture".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. Lack of prosecution
powers, adequate staff, funds and lack of independence are some of the limitation of the
Lokayukta. In many States, the office of the Lokayukta is vacant. For instance, Gujarat did not
have a lokayukta for eight years until Governor Kamla Beniwal appointed Justice R.A. Mehta to
the post.

The institution of lokpal has tried to bring a much needed change in the battle against corruption
in the administrative structure of India but at the same time, there are loopholes and lacunae
which need to be corrected. Five years have passed since the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013
was passed by parliament, but not a single Lokpal has been appointed till date indicating the lack
of political will. The Lokpal act also called upon states to appoint a Lokayukta within a year of
its coming to force. But only 16 states have established the Lokayukta. Lokpal is not free from
political influence as the appointing committee itself consist of members from political parties.
The appointment of Lokpal can be manipulated in a way as there is no criterion to decide who is
an ‘eminent jurist’ or ‘a person of integrity.’

The 2013 act did not provide concrete immunity to the whistle blowers. The provision for
initiation of inquiry against the complainant if the accused is found innocent will only discourage
people from complaining. The biggest lacuna is the exclusion of judiciary from the ambit of the
Lokpal. The Lokpal is not given any constitutional backing and there is no adequate provision
for appeal against the Lokpal. The specific details in relation to the appointment of Lokayukta

16
have been left completely on the States. To some extent, the need for functional independence of
the CBI has been catered to by a change brought forth in the selection process of its Director, by
this Act. The complaint against corruption cannot be registered after a period of seven years from
the date on which the offence mentioned in such complaint is alleged to have been committed.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LOKAYUKTA AND LOKPAL

Lokpal Lokayukta

Central governing body that has State level governing bodies that has
Description jurisdiction over all Members of jurisdiction over state government
Parliament and central government employees in cases of corruption.
employees in cases of corruption.

To address complaints of corruption, To address complaints of corruption, to

Function to make inquiries, investigations, and make inquiries, investigations, and to
to conduct trials for the cases. conduct trials for the cases.

On a national government level

Scope basis On a state level basis

Corruption in the central

Responsibility government Corruption in the state government

17
 a chairperson and a maximum of Proposal: three-member body, headed
eight members, of which 50% will be by a retired Supreme Court judge or
judicial members 50% members of high court chief justice and comprising
Committee Lokpal shall be from SC/ST/OBCs, the state vigilance commissioner and a
minorities and women jurist or an eminent administrator as
other members

18
 CHAPTER- IV

FINDINGS AND SUGGESTIONS

In order to tackle the problem of corruption, the institution of the ombudsman should be
strengthened both in terms of functional autonomy and availability of manpower. Greater
transparency, more right to information and empowerment of citizens and citizen groups is
required along with a good leadership that is willing to subject itself to public scrutiny.
Appointment of Lokpal in itself is not enough. The government should address the issues based
on which people are demanding a Lokpal. Merely adding to the strength of investigative
agencies will increase the size of the government but not necessarily improve governance. The
slogan adopted by the government of “less government and more governance”, should be
followed in letter and spirit. Moreover, Lokpal and Lokayukta must be financially,
administratively and legally independent of those whom they are called upon to investigate and
prosecute. Lokpal and Lokayukta appointments must be done transparently so as to minimize the
chances of the wrong sorts of people getting in.

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
autonomy is being raised. An amendment to the Constitution has been proposed to implement
the Lokayukta uniformly across Indian states. The proposed changes will make the institution of
Lokayukta uniform across the country as a three-member body, headed by a retired Supreme
Court judge or high court chief justice and comprising the state vigilance commissioner and a
jurist or eminent administrator members.

19
 CHAPTER- V
CONCLUSION

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, dynamism,
perception of his role and institution of the individual Lokayukta also count in the success or
failure of the office.
It is necessary to drive out those political dignitaries who are working for the general good just
for name sake. This system will prove to be an effective weapon to drive out the corrupt
bureaucrats and political personnel. This system is designed to keep a track and check on the
political personnel to prevent from any sort of corruption to take place and in case they are found
to be corrupt they will be driven out.

20
REFERENCE AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOK SOURCE:
 Gupta, S.C. (1995), Ombudsman : An Indian perspective
 Shukla, K.S. and Singh, S.S. (1988), Lokayukta (Ombudsman in India) A social legal
study, IIPA, New Delhi.
 e.v., Transparency International. “How corrupt is your country?”.

WEBSITE SOURCE:
 http://www.biomedsearch.com
 https://www.slideshare.net/vincydavis/lokayukta
 http://currentaffairs.gktoday.in/lok-sabha-passes-lokpal-lokayukta-amendment-bill-2016-
07201634730.html
 http://mplokayukt.nic.in/sandj.htm

CASE LAW:
 Re Alerta Ombudsman Act (1970) 10.Dec LR (3rd) 47.

21