“The Role and Relevance of the Ombudsman in India: A Legal and Institutional Analysis”

Divya Gupta, 4th Year BLS/LLB. (A-19)

Thakur Ramnarayan College of Law.

Research Paper on topic The Role and Relevance of the Ombudsman in India .
Abstract

This research paper explores the concept of the Ombudsman with a focus on its development, relevance, and
application in India. It examines the institutional framework, analyzes landmark case laws, and discusses the
efficacy of existing mechanisms such as the Lokpal and Lokayuktas. Comparative insights with global practices
are also included to contextualize the Indian model. In addition, the research analyzes landmark case laws and
critically assesses the efficacy of existing mechanisms in delivering justice and restoring public trust. The study
also incorporates comparative insights from global Ombudsman models, offering a broader perspective on how
India’s approach aligns with or diverges from international standards of governance and accountability.
Keywords: Ombudsman, Lokpal and Lokyuktas, development, practices.
Introduction

The term Ombudsman refers to an independent official appointed to investigate individual complaints against
maladministration, especially by public authorities. Originating in Sweden in 1809, the concept has since
evolved globally. In India, it finds its embodiment in the institutions of the Lokpal (at the central level) and
Lokayuktas (at the state level). This paper explores how effectively the Ombudsman system in India addresses
administrative corruption and citizen grievances. Ombudsman means a delegate, agent, officer or commissioner.
Gender defines ombudsman as "an officer of parliament, having as his primary function, the duty of acting as an
agent for parliament, for the purpose of safeguarding the citizen against abuse or misuse of administrative
power by the executive ". Administrative law provides for control over the administration by an outside agency,
strong enough to prevent injustice to the individual, at the same time leaving the administration adequate
freedom to enable it to carry on effective government. In every progressive system of administration, there is a
need for a mechanism for handling grievances against administrative fault. Thus ombudsman is one of such
machinery one can find in today's time. The parliamentary and judicial control on the administrative action is
very week, except there is astatutory provision for an administrative tribunal. There is no means for handling
grievances against misconduct, inefficiency, delay, negligence, etc. against the officials. The natural remedy
open to the aggrieved person, in such cases, is for him to persuade the minister if he is accessible to the
aggrieved person, or to draw his attention by raising a question in parliament to which he is responsible .but in
practice it is difficult even the parliamentary remedy is also not adequate. It was felt necessary to have
alternative or additional institution to control wrong decision, maladministration or corruption of public
officials. the ombudsman is one such principle alternative provided for.

NATURE OF OMBUDSMAN

1. It is an institution to protect individuals from the injustice done to them by any of the three main organs of the
government. The Ombudsman is an institution designed to protect individuals against wrongs or injustice
caused by the three main organs of the government — the Legislature, Executive, and Judiciary. Though it
mainly deals with the Executive, its broader purpose is to uphold the rights of citizens and ensure fair treatment.
2. It is independent of the three organs of state. In other words, it is an independent body and, once instituted,
neither of the organs of government has any control over it. Every man has free access to it. The Ombudsman
operates independently of the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Once appointed, it is not answerable to any
government body, making it a neutral and unbiased authority. This independence ensures impartiality in its
investigations.
3. This is a great advantage and the citizen can get prompt relief or remedy to his grievances. Citizens can
directly approach the Ombudsman without complex legal procedures. This easy access allows for quick
redressal of grievances, which is a major advantage over traditional court systems that are often time-consuming
and costly.
4. The Ombudsman has power to collect facts taking initiative and can decide the matter. On the other hand, the
courts cannot do this. Unlike courts, which act only on the basis of presented evidence, the Ombudsman can
initiate investigations, gather facts, and reach conclusions independently. This makes it more effective in
exposing hidden or systemic corruption and maladministration.
5. If the issue or problem is placed before it, then only can it take up the case. This special role of the
Ombudsman is of great importance and a critic remembering this write "The Ombudsman is primarily the
people's investigator, guide and defender".The Ombudsman can only act when a complaint is brought before it,
but once it takes up a case, it functions as the investigator, guide, and defender of the people’s rights. This quote
rightly sums it up: "The Ombudsman is primarily the people's investigator, guide and defender."
6. Viewed from this perspective we want to say that the system of ombudsman possesses immense importance.
It is an important mile-stone in the vast field of citizen-administration relationship. By holding public servants
accountable, the Ombudsman builds trust between the government and the people. It acts as a milestone in
promoting good governance, transparency, and responsiveness in administration.
7. Established as separate entity that is functionally autonomous. The Ombudsman is established as a separate
entity with the freedom to function without interference. It doesn’t need permission from the government to
carry out investigations and decisions.
8. Operationally independent of both the legislature and the executive. It is operationally free from both the
legislature and executive, meaning:
 It doesn’t report to any ministry.
 It functions according to its own procedures and rules.
 Its decisions are not subject to political influence.
9. Ombudsman is a legally established governmental official. The Ombudsman is not just an informal or
advisory body—it is a legally constituted authority (under laws like the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 in
India). This gives it statutory backing and defined powers.
10. A monitoring specialist. It serves as a watchdog over government agencies, ensuring that they are
functioning ethically, efficiently, and within legal boundaries.
11. Administrative expert and professional. The Ombudsman is often someone with deep knowledge of
administration and law, enabling them to effectively analyze bureaucratic functioning and spot administrative
lapses.
12. Non-partisan. The Ombudsman must remain politically neutral. It doesn’t take sides with any political party
or ideology and is expected to judge cases on facts and fairness alone.
[Link] universalistic. This means the Ombudsman follows universal norms and values such as justice,
equality, and accountability. It does not discriminate between complainants based on status, power, or political
influence.
14. Client-centered, but not anti-administration. While the Ombudsman works in the interest of the public, it is
not meant to oppose or undermine the government. It aims to improve administration, not destroy it, by
correcting its faults and preventing abuse of power.
15. Popularly accessible and visible. A key strength of the Ombudsman is that it is accessible to all citizens.
People are aware of it, can approach it without fear, and can expect fair treatment regardless of their social or
economic status.

16. High status institutions .Due to its independent role, expertise, and authority, the Ombudsman is viewed as a
high-ranking institution. This ensures that its findings carry weight and are respected by other government
branches.
17. Have extensive resources to perform his mission. To fulfill its mission, the Ombudsman is provided with
adequate staff, office infrastructure, investigative tools, and legal powers. This ensures it is not just a symbolic
body but one capable of real action and enforcement.

The Ombudsman in India: Lokpal and Lokayuktas

India’s version of the Ombudsman is embodied in two key institutions: the Lokpal (at the central level) and
Lokayuktas (at the state level). These institutions were established to address corruption and ensure
accountability in public administration. The idea of establishing an independent authority to investigate
complaints against public officials in India can be traced back to the recommendations of the First
Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), constituted in 1966. The commission, recognizing the growing
need for accountability in public administration, proposed the formation of an institution called the "Lokpal",
modeled on the concept of the Ombudsman in Scandinavian countries. The purpose of the Lokpal was to serve
as a high-level statutory authority tasked with addressing grievances related to corruption and abuse of power
by ministers and other senior officials at the central level.
Following this recommendation, the Indian Parliament witnessed several attempts to legislate the establishment
of the Lokpal. Over the decades, various Lokpal Bills were introduced—starting in 1968, and subsequently in
1971, 1977, 1985, 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005, and 2008. However, despite repeated efforts and growing
public concern over corruption, none of these bills could be enacted. The consistent failure was largely
attributed to political disagreements, lack of consensus across party lines, procedural delays, and at times, an
apparent reluctance among political elites to empower an institution that would scrutinize their own conduct.
The situation dramatically changed in 2011 with the emergence of the India Against Corruption movement, led
by veteran social activist Anna Hazare. The movement demanded stronger anti-corruption measures and the
immediate passage of the Lokpal Bill. Millions of Indians rallied behind the cause, with protests and
demonstrations occurring across the country. Anna Hazare’s indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar in Delhi
became the symbolic epicenter of public discontent with corruption. The widespread media coverage and mass
mobilization created unprecedented public pressure on the government.
In direct response to this overwhelming public demand, the government was compelled to fast-track the
legislative process. After intense debates and negotiations, Parliament passed the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act in
December 2013, and the President of India gave assent on January 1, 2014. This Act formally established the
institution of the Lokpal at the central level, and mandated the formation of Lokayuktas at the state level within
one year. The Act aimed to create an independent, transparent, and accountable mechanism to investigate
allegations of corruption against public servants, including ministers and high-ranking officials. It marked a
significant milestone in India’s democratic and administrative evolution, signaling a step forward in the fight
against corruption.

NEED FOR OMBUDSMAN

One, large powers have been, and are being conferred on the administration with the result that a huge
administrative machinery having vast discretionary powers has come into existence. The administration has
come to play a decisive role in influencing and shaping the socioeconomic order in today's society. The
administration enjoys a vast reservoir of powers to order and affect the daily lives of the people over a wide
canvas. Two, a feeling has arisen in the public mind that vesting of such vast powers in the administration has
generated possibilities and opportunities of abuse or misuse of power by administrative functionaries resulting
in maladministration and corruption. In the flush of power, the administration very often exhibits a tendency to
disregard individual rights and interests in the name of public good. India, as the world’s largest democracy, is
governed by a complex administrative structure that is meant to serve its citizens efficiently and transparently.
However, the growing instances of corruption, maladministration, bureaucratic delays, abuse of power,
and lack of accountability have highlighted the urgent need for an independent grievance redressal
mechanism. This is where the role of an Ombudsman (Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas at the
state level) becomes crucial. The following points elaborate on the need for such an institution in the Indian
context:
1. Rising Corruption in Public Administration

Corruption in government institutions, particularly in service delivery and policy implementation, has been a
persistent issue. Scams involving high-ranking officials and ministers (like the 2G spectrum scam,
Commonwealth Games scam, etc.) have shaken public confidence. An Ombudsman serves as a watchdog
authority to investigate and prosecute such cases.
2. Inadequate Existing Mechanisms

Traditional mechanisms such as CVC (Central Vigilance Commission), CBI (Central Bureau of
Investigation), and departmental inquiries often suffer from lack of independence, bureaucratic control, and
delays in justice. An Ombudsman, being autonomous and focused solely on complaints of corruption and
maladministration, fills this critical gap.
3. Ensuring Accountability and Transparency

An Ombudsman holds public officials accountable for their actions, thus promoting transparency and good
governance. It acts as a bridge between the administration and the citizens, ensuring the voice of the
common man is heard and acted upon.
4. Quick and Accessible Grievance Redressal

The legal and judicial system in India is often slow and expensive. The Ombudsman offers a speedy, cost-
effective, and citizen-friendly alternative to resolve complaints against public authorities.
5. Strengthening Democracy
An Ombudsman safeguards democratic values by ensuring equality before the law, justice in administration,
and protection of citizens' rights. It helps in maintaining public trust in institutions and reinforces the rule of
law.

CASE LAW

In Chandra Bansi Singh vs. State of Bihar it was held that:

"It is not eccentric to conclude that if there is more administration, there will be more maladministration". The
greater the power given to the executive, the greater the need to safeguard the citizen against its arbitrary or
unfair exercise. Therefore, an urgent problem of the day is to evolve an adequate and effective mechanism to
contain these dangers by controlling the administration in exercising its powers, safeguarding individual rights,
and creating procedures for redressal of individual grievances against the administration.
In Barium Chemicals Ltd vs. Company Law Boards' it was held that:
The court's reluctance or inability to look into departmental files remains a major hindrance in the way of
challenging an administrative action at the present moment and this saps the efficacy and vitality of judicial
review to a considerable extent. Further, in writ petitions, which is the most common technique of challenging
administrative action, the courts mostly go by the affidavits filed by the parties concerned. They do not usually
call for oral testimony or permit cross-examination or the persons filing affidavits.
In G. Sadanandan vs. State of Kerala, the supreme court of India told that it must be kept in mind :
" continuous exercise of the very wide powers conferred by the rules on the several authorities is likely to make
the conscience of the said authorities insensitive, if not blunt, to the paramount requirement of the Constitution
that even during the emergency, the freedom of Indian citizens cannot be taken away without the existence of
the justifying necessity specified by the (Defence of India) Rules themselves. The tendency to treat these
matters in a somewhat casual and cavalier manner which may conceivably result from the continuous use of
such unfettered powers, may ultimately pose a serious threat to the basic values on which the democratic way of
life in this country is founded."

POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF OMBUDSMAN

(1) An important function of Ombudsman is to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens and needless to say
that primarily for this purpose the post of ombudsman was instituted. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries,
there were autocracies in many European states and even the bureaucracies were indifferent to people's
freedom. This appalling situation inspired freedom-loving men to find out a solution and ombudsman was the
consequence.
(2) In the Scandinavian countries, the ombudsman has another function. The ombudsman shall have the power
to supervise the general civil administration. On this point, the duty of ombudsman is closely connected with
the public administration. Because of the protection of freedom, execution of policies and another fall within the
jurisdiction of public administration and whether these are properly performed or not that requires to be
examined-and ombudsman does this job.
(3) In many states, Ombudsman or institution like this supervises the general administration. It is also called
general surveillance of the functioning of the government. This is a very important function. Particularly in the
Scandinavian states the Ombudsman or person of this type performs this function. In these countries, the
Ombudsman has been found to undertake tour for inspection.

(4) In some countries, the Ombudsman enjoys enormous power. For example, in Sweden, the Ombudsman has
been empowered to investigate the cases of corruption (in any form) not only against the government officers
but also against the judges of the highest court! But the supervising power of Ombudsman over the judges does
not erode the independence of the judiciary. The judges are prosecuted or fined for corruption, negligence of
duties, or delay in delivering judgement.
(5) In the UK the Parliamentary Commissioner (British type of Ombudsman) also acts as a Health
Commissioner. In 1974 the British parliament enacted a law to enhance the jurisdiction of Parliamentary
Commissioner to the level of local government. The local councillors can lodge complaints against the local
body and can seek redressal of grievances.

LOKPAL - AN INDIAN ATTEMPT AT ESTABLISHING AN OMBUDSMAN SYSTEM

A Lokpal is a proposed ombudsman in India. The word is derived from the Sanskrit word "lok" (people) and
"pala" (protector/caretaker), or "caretaker of people. "The concept of a constitutional ombudsman was first
proposed in parliament by Law Minister Ashoke Kumar Sen in the early 1960s. The first Jan Lokpal Bill was
proposed by Shanti Bhushan in 1968 and passed in the 4th Lok Sabha in 1969, but did not pass through the
Rajya Sabha. Subsequently, 'Lokpal bills' were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985, again by Ashoke Kumar Sen,
while serving as Law Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi cabinet, and again in 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001, 2005 and in
2008, yet they were never passed. Forty-two years after its first introduction, the Lokpal Bill is still not enacted
in India.
The Lokpal Bill provides for the filing, with the ombudsman, of complaints of corruption against the prime
minister, other ministers, and MPs. The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) recommended the enacting
of the Office of a Lokpal, convinced that such an institution was justified, not only for removing the sense of
injustice from the minds of citizens but also to instill public confidence in the efficiency of the administrative
machinery.
Following this, the Lokpal Bill was, for the first time, presented 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 thus
the bill was not passed. The bill was revived several times in subsequent years, including in 2011. Each time,
after the bill was introduced to the House, it was referred to a committee for improvements, to a joint committee
of parliament, or to a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry. Before the government could take
a final stand onAnd Vssueti se housentas dissolved [Link] conspicuous flaws were found in the 2008
draft of the Lokpal Bill. The basic idea of a Lokpal isborrowed from the Office of the Ombudsman, which has
the Administrative Reforms Committee of a Lokpal at the Centre, and Lokayukta in the states. Anna Hazare
fought to get this bill passed, and it did pass on Dec 27, 2011, around 9:30, with some modifications. These
were proposed as the Jan Lokpal Bill. However, Hazare and his team, as well as other political parties, claimed
that the Lokpal Bill passed was weak, and would not serve its intended purpose. So, the proposed bill by the
ruling Congress Party has yet to be accepted in the Rajya Sabha. As of Dec 29, 2011, the bill has been referred
to the next parliamentary session, amid much controversy and disruption by the LJP, RJD and SP parties. The
media at large, and the opposition parties, claimed the situation had been staged.

LOKAYUKTA – AN INDIAN ATTEMPT AT ESTABLISHING A STATE-LEVEL OMBUDSMAN

SYSTEM

A Lokayukta is the state-level equivalent of the Lokpal, acting as an ombudsman to investigate and address
complaints of corruption and maladministration against public functionaries in the states of India. The term is
derived from the Sanskrit words "lok" (people) and "ayukta" (appointed or authorized), meaning “appointed by
the people” or “people’s representative for justice”.
The idea of a Lokayukta was first proposed by the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) in 1966. In its
report, the ARC recommended the establishment of independent institutions at both the central and state levels
—Lokpal for the Centre and Lokayukta for the States—to address grievances against government officials and
reduce corruption in public administration. The ARC emphasized that such an institution would not only restore
public trust but also improve the efficiency and fairness of the state administrative machinery.
Unlike the Lokpal, the appointment of Lokayuktas is governed by state laws, and there is no uniformity across
the country in terms of structure, powers, or procedures. The first state to establish a Lokayukta was
Maharashtra in 1971, under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act. This model inspired several
other states to follow suit, including Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Delhi, Andhra Pradesh, and
Rajasthan.
However, the functioning of Lokayuktas across states has remained inconsistent. Some states have strong and
active Lokayuktas, such as Karnataka, where the institution has unearthed several high-profile corruption cases.
In contrast, other states either do not have a Lokayukta at all, or have one with limited powers and resources. In
some cases, the appointment of a Lokayukta has been delayed due to political and bureaucratic resistance.
The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, which came into force on January 1, 2014, mandated that each state
must establish a Lokayukta within one year of the Act's commencement. Despite this legal requirement, many
states failed to comply within the deadline, and as of today, several states still do not have a functioning
Lokayukta.
While the idea of Lokayukta mirrors the Ombudsman system seen in democratic countries like Sweden, it faces
several challenges in India. These include lack of uniform legal backing, political interference, inadequate
funding, absence of investigative powers, and low public awareness.
Though a promising step towards transparency and accountability in state governance, the Lokayukta system in
India is yet to evolve into a robust, independent, and effective institution. For it to truly succeed, there is a need
for strong political will, uniform legislation, and institutional strengthening.
CONCLUSION

Since the ombudsman's powers lie essentially in recommendation there is a genuine concern that the
ombudsman lacks 'teeth'. For instance, the annual report (for many ombudsmen the only public document
issued) is often considered an inadequate instrument for influencing administration procedures and practice,
informing mass media and educating the public. Moreover, the ombudsman is generally powerless to change or
reverse decisions. In fact, some believe that the ombudsman's powers as critic and reformer must be
strengthened to influence changes in legislation and policy and not just administrative procedures. The
ombudsman should be concerned not merely with laws or codes as they stand, but also as they might be. The
institution of the Ombudsman holds immense potential in enhancing transparency and accountability in
governance. While India has taken a step forward with the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, the
implementation remains far from ideal. A reinvigorated political will and systemic reforms are essential to make
the ombudsman system a robust pillar of administrative justice in India.

References

[Link]

[Link]
lokpal-lokayukta-ombudsman-upsc-governance-transparency

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.

[Link]