“Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they

undoubtedly are today.” –Mahatma Gandhi.

INTRODUCTION

Now days Corruption has its deep roots in Indian Society. People who work on right
principles are unrecognized and considered to be foolish in the modern society. Earlier,
bribes were paid for getting wrong things done, but now bribe is paid forgetting right things
done at right time. In today’s scenario, if a person wants a government job he has to pay lakhs
of rupees to the higher officials irrespective of satisfying all the eligibility criteria. In every
office one has either to give money to the employee concerned or arrange for some sources to
get work done. There is not a single forum or organizations of the citizens of India unaffected
from Corruption.

The term “access to justice” cannot be given any precise meaning. Its meaning is
intricately intertwined with the meaning of the term ‘justice’. On its turn, the definition of
justice depends on the context it is being used. For every society the term has a different
significance. For some it may be fairness whereas others might term it as advantage of the
stronger. The notion of justice evokes the cognition of the rule of law, of the resolution of
conflicts, of institutions that make law and of those who enforce it; it expresses fairness and
the implicit recognition of the principle of equality.1 However, a concept common to all
definitions of justice is its intrinsic nexus with the dispute resolution. The primary goal of a
dispute resolution mechanism is to do justice, yet dispute resolution and justice cannot be
used interchangeably. The dispute resolution mechanism chosen by a society reflects the
concept of justice in that society.2

It is the duty of a state to perform the functions of legislative, executive and judiciary.
The Constitutions of democratic set up clearly define these functions. The legislature has to
make the laws. The executive has to execute or implements these laws and the judiciary
interprets and applies these laws. Judiciary has authority to pertain the office of a judge and
this authority relates to hearing and determining the questions in controversy. Further, this
judicial authority includes Court and appellate Court.3

1
J. Rawl, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University press, Edition 1997, at 11.
2
available at https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/lokpal-act-workable-in-present-form-says-
apex-court/article9666322.ece retrieved on 22.04.2018.
3
available at PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC POLICY vol. II-The Ombudsman Office-S.
E.Aufrecht:E1-34-05-08.pdf retrieved on 22.04.2018.

1
 DEFINITION OF THE TERM “OMBUDSMAN”

The term “Ombudsman” is Scandinavian, meaning something in the nature of

“entrusted person” or “grievance representative”. The part word “man” is taken directly from
the Swedish (the old Norse word was “umbodhsmadr”) and does not connote any necessity
that the holder be of the male gender. Indeed, if one was to survey the present Ombudsman
community worldwide, it would be seen that there are many women Ombudsman. My tracing
of the office will start with the Scandinavian “grievance person” since this model is said to
set a standard. I do acknowledge, however, that there are several precedents from Asian (and
other) settings of people, in former times, undertaking office to provide relief and redress to
citizens adversely affected by government action. In earlier times it is also recorded that the
Romans installed an officer called the “tribune” to protect the interests and rights of the
plebeians from the patricians. There are also writings in both China and India, which suggest
that three thousand and more years ago, special officials were designated to function in the
manner of Ombudsmen. In China during the Yu and Sun dynasties it was the duty of the
incumbent, who was called the “control yuan” , to “report the voice of the people to the
Emperor and to announce the Emperor’s decrees to the people”. In India today there are
Ombudsmen appointed in twelve of the Indian states, though not at Federal level. The term
for them is “Lokayukta”, an ancient word revived so as to make it meaningful in a local sense
in that country.4

In 1809 Sweden appointed an official entitled the “justitie ombudsman” to enquire

into actions of the government administration, including the military, and the courts. The
Ombudsman Committee of the International Bar Association has described the office thus:

“An Office provided for by the Constitution or by action of the Legislature or

Parliament and headed by an independent, high-level public official, who is
responsible to the Legislature or Parliament, who receives complaints from aggrieved
persons against Government agencies, officials and employees, or who acts on [his]
own motion, and who has the power to investigate, recommend corrective action, and
issue reports.”5

This contemporary definition of the term “Ombudsman”is not agreed to universally,

but it does serve as a starting point in defining the role.
4
available at PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC POLICY vol. II-The Ombudsman Office-S.
E.Aufrecht:E1-34-05-08.pdf retrieved on 22.04.2018.
5
International Bar Association.

2
 MEANING AND IMPORTANCE

Ombudsman offices are form of watchdog on government, investigating and resolving

citizen’s complaints. Ombudsman means “a public official who acts as an impartial
intermediary between the public and government or bureaucracy, or an employee of an
organization who mediates disputes between employees and management”6. An indigenous
Danish, Norwegian and Swedish term, Ombudsman is etymologically rooted in the Old
Norse word umboðsmaðr, essentially meaning “representative”. In its most frequent modern
usage, an ombudsman is an official, usually appointed by the government or by parliament
but with a significant degree of independence, who is charged with representing the interests
of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individuals.7

The institution of ombudsman originated in Scandinavian countries. The institution of

‘Ombudsman’ first came into being in Sweden in 1713 when a ‘Chancellor of Justice ‘was
appointed by the King to act as invigilator to look into the functioning of war-time
government. Thereafter, a new beginning was made in 1809, when it was laid down that the
Ombudsman would be made thereafter by the legislature.8 Other Scandinavian countries
followed the model of Sweden almost after a century. Amongst other countries, New Zealand
was the first country outside Scandinavian to institute an Ombudsman in 1962.9 It has been
adopted in a number of countries, such as Finland,1919; Denmark, 1954; Norway, 1960;
Mauritius, 1966;Guyana, 1966; United Kingdom, 1967; Australia, 1976.10Today there are
Ombudsman offices in over 80 countries at the national provincial and local level.11

Office of Ombudsman was established under the provisions of constitutional law in

Austria, Burkina Faso, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain and
Sweden. While in other countries12 belonging to Anglo-Saxon legal traditions, the office is
generally regulated under ordinary statute law.13

6
available at www.Legal-dictionary.thefreelegaldictionary.com retrieved on 22.04.2018.
7
available at: www.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ombudsman retrieved on 22.04.2018.
8
Triloknath Mishra,Lokpal in India-An Analysis, 2011
9
Standing Committee on Home Affairs eighty fourth Report on Lokpal Bill, 2001
10
J.J.R. Upadhaya, Administrative Law (2004) p. 382
11
available at PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND PUBLIC POLICY vol. II-The Ombudsman Office-S.
E.Aufrecht:E1-34-05-08.pdf retrieved on 22.04.2018.
12
Great Britain, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Slovenia, South Africa, Zambia.
13
Standing Committee on Home Affairs eighty fourth Report on Lokpal Bill, 2001.

3
 CHARACTERISTICS AND OBJECTIVES OF OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION

With the spread of ombudsman concept and its utility, several surrogate institutions have
emerged in the private sector, which claim the title of ombudsman. Some scholars drew
distinction between, “classical” ombudsman and other kinds of “quasi” or “executive
ombudsman”. However, Gellhorn made clear distinction between classical and other agencies
performing the ombudsman function. Professor Larry B Hill has enumerated the following
characteristics of the pure ombudsman:14

i. Established as separate entity that is functionally autonomous.

ii. Operationally independent of both the legislature and the executive.
iii. Ombudsman is a legally established governmental official.
iv. A monitoring specialist.
v. Administrative expert and professional.
vi. Nonpartisan.
vii. Normatively universalistic.
viii. Client centred, but not ant administration.
ix. Popularly accessible and visible.
x. High status institutions
xi. Have extensive resources to perform his mission.

An ombudsman is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between either the state,
elements of state or an organization, and some internal or external constituency, while
representing not only but mostly the broad scope of constituent interests. Ombudsman is
etymologically rooted in the Old Norse word umboðsmaðr, essentially meaning
“representative”. In its most frequent modern usage, an ombudsman is an official, usually
appointed by the government or by parliament but with a significant degree of independence,
who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing
complaints reported by individuals.15

14
“Citizen Complaints as Social Indicators: The Negative Feedback Model of Accountability” by Drew Hyman,
The Ombudsman Journal, November 6, 1987. Website
http://csisweb.aers.psu.edu/PUBLICATIONS/complaints.htm.
15
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/ombudsman-critical-appraisal/

4
 INDIAN OMBUDSMAN

After independence setting up of a democratic system of Government raised tremendous

hopes and high expectations among people. From a purely regulatory and police
administration, the government came to be entrusted with the responsibility of economic and
social transformation and that too in a hurry. The state entered economic field in a big way
and a number of regulations were brought into play to promote socialistic pattern of the
society and to ensure distributive justice. Now let us try to find out the effect of the above
upon the lives of the citizens and the type of interface between the government and the
citizens it created. The Gandhian principle that, “that governments is the best which governs
the least was substituted by a government which was as the American saying goes, a ‘big
government’ affecting the lives of citizens from cradle to grave if not from conception itself.
The committee on “Prevention of Corruption” (popularly known as the Santhanam
Committee) in its report gave special attention to create machinery in the government, which
should provide quick and satisfactory redress of public grievances. Accordingly, the
Government on June 29, 1964 providing, inter alia, issued detailed instructions: 16

1. It is the basic proposition that the prime responsibility for dealing with a complaint from
the public lies with the government organization whose activity or lack of activity gives rise
to the complaint. Thus; the higher levels of the hierarchical structure of an organization are
expected to look into the complaints against lower levels. If the internal arrangements within
each organization are effective enough, there should be no need for a special ‘outside’
machinery to deal with complaints.

2. For dealing with grievances involving corruption and lack of integrity on the part of
government servants; special machinery was brought into existence in the form of the Central
Vigilance Commission.

3. For dealing with grievances, while outside machinery was not considered necessary of
feasible for the present, the organizations and the departments should provide for quickest
redressal of such grievances.

4. The internal arrangement for handling complaints and grievance should be quickly
reviewed by each ministry, special care being bestowed on the task by those ministries whose
work brings them in touch with the public. Every complaint should receive quick and

16
Study material provided to Batch of 2013-2018 for administrative law Paper.

5
sympathetic attention. leaving in the outcome, as far as possible, no ground in the mind of the
complaint for a continued feeling of grievance.

5. For big organizations having substantial contact with the public, there should be distinct
cells under a specially designated senior officer which should function as a sort of outside
complaint agency within the organization and, thus, act as a second check on the adequacy of
disposal of complaints.

Simultaneously, a demand articulated in many, from time to time, for setting up an

independent authority with power and responsibility of dealing with major grievances
affecting large sections of the people. It was averred that the hierarchical type of remedy for
grievances of citizens should be improved by tightening up the existing arrangements and by
providing an internal ‘outside’ check to keep things up to the mark. Since the main limitation
of the hierarchical remedy is that the various authorities act too departmental check system. A
proposal was placed before the Cabinet to the effect that this “extra-departmental check”
should operate through a commissioner for redress of Citizens’ grievances, whose main
functions should be to ensure that arrangements are made in each ministry/department/office.
For receiving and dealing with the citizens’ grievances and that they work efficiently. In
exercise of this function, the Commissioner should inspect these units, advise those who hold
charge of these units and communicate his observations to the Head of Department or to the
Secretary as may be necessary. He should also keep the minister informed of how the
arrangements in the department under the minister are working. The proposal in essence was
that the Commissioner would be an inspector and supervisor under each minister although
located outside. The location for the Commissioner was suggested to be in the Home
Ministry from where he would provide a common service. The proposal made it clear that the
proposed Commissioner would not be anything like an Ombudsman.17

Firstly, he would be appointed by the government and not elected by Parliament. Secondly,
he would only be an inspector and supervisor of the existing hierarchical arrangements and
not an independent investigating authority, like an Ombudsman. Thirdly, the Commissioner
would be very much a part of the Government machinery and not an outside agency although
he would e outside the individual ministries/departments.18

17
Supra note 16.
18
id.

6
 LOKPAL IN INDIA

The Indian Lokpal is synonymous to the institution of Ombudsman existing in the

Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark etc). The office of the Ombudsman
originated in Sweden in 1809 and has been adopted by many nations. The Swedish word
Ombudsman means ―a procurator or agent of civil affairs which may be interpreted as ―the
people advocate‖. Ombudsman is a government official who investigates citizen‘s complaints
against the administrative and judicial action. Though appointed by the legislature he is an
independent functionary – independent of all three organs of the state, but reports to the
legislature. The Ombudsman can act both on the basis of complaints made by citizens or suo
moto-that is, on his own initiative. He can look into allegations of corruption as well as
maladministration.19

[A] LOKAYUKTAS IN STATE

Even after a lapse of so many years nothing has been done substantially at the central
level for implementing the institution of Lokpal. But at the state level, many states have
adopted this institution in the name of Lokayukta. There are as many as 17 states where the
institution of Lokayukta has been constituted, beginning with Orissa in 1971. However, the
power, functions of jurisdiction of Lakayuktas are not uniform in the country. In some state,
it has been applicable to the entire elected representative including CM. on the contrary, in
some other state legislators have been deliberately kept out of his purview. Lokayuktas have
not been provided with their independent investigating machinery making them dependent on
the government agencies. As a result there lies enough scope for the politicians and the
bureaucrats to tinker with the process of investigation.

[B] RATIONALE FOR AN INSTITUTION – LOK PAL

The mechanisms available in the regular process of government, are inadequate to
check corruption in administrative department, for example, and any decision of an official
can be appealed to a higher official all the way up to the head of a department. However this
mechanism has inherent flaws. Though officers enjoy departmental fraternity with those
against whom complaints are made, and both sail the same boat. Therefore their impartiality
in judging appeals is always doubted. On the legislative side, an individual can approach the
member representing his constituency for his demands but given the absence of easy access
of an ordinary to his representative, this has more remained a myth than reality. Other than
this politics is now ridden with nepotism and favouritism, criminals have easy access to
19
C. Rowat Donald, The Ombudsman: Citizen's Defender, 1965. Pp. 348, University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

7
legislature, political corruption is mounting this is more dangerous than bureaucratic
corruption.

Among the organs of state, the judiciary has proved itself to have highest credibility
in protecting individual right. However, due to procedural complexities involved in the court
cases– right from the filing a case to the delivery of final verdict – there are inevitable delays
of justice, which often are considered as denial of justice. The existing devices for checks on
elected and administrative officials have not been effective as the growing instances of
corruption cases suggest. The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is designed to inquire
into allegations of corruption by administrative officials only but cannot punish the guilty
The CBI ,the premier investigating agency of the country, functions under the supervision of
the Ministry of Personnel, public grievances and pensions (under the Prime Minister) and is
therefore not immune from political pressure during investigation it can be said, the CVC is
independent but does not have powers while CBI has power but is not independent‖. As a
result the first cannot punish while the latter cannot investigate fairly. All these have
necessitated the creation of an independent and high powered Lokpal with its own
investigation team.20

Therefore there is a need for a mechanism that would simple, independent, speedy
and inexpensive means of delivering justice by redressing the grievances of the people.
Examples from various countries suggest that the institution of ombudsman has very
successfully fought against corruption and unscrupulous administrative decisions by the
person held high offices.

20
available on Anil Dharker, The Topiwala Camera, The Outlook, New Delhi, 2011 retrieved on 21.04.2018.

8
 HISTORICAL ASPECT

After independence when increasing practice of corruption, maladministration and

misuse of authority and resource couldn’t be curbed by existing measures under the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, need for an agency
independent of the executive, legislative and judiciary, to look into citizens’ grievances and
cases of corruption have been widely felt.21

The Lokpal Bill provides for constitution of the Lokpal as an independent body to
enquire into cases of corruption against public functionaries, with a mechanism for filing
complaints and conducting inquiries etc.22 Dr. L.M. Singhvi moved a resolution in the Lok
Sabha on 3 April 1964, reiterating his demand for setting up an officer of Parliament known
as People’s Procurator. The resolution was discussed in detail by all sections of the House but
was withdrawn on the assurance of the Government that it would look into the matter. In
pursuance of this assurance, the Government constituted a Special Consultative Group of
Members of Parliament on administrative reforms, in early 1965, which favoured a high
powered inquiry commission on administrative reforms. Accordingly, an Administrative
Reforms Commission (ARC) was appointed in January 1966, for making recommendations
on their organization of the administrative system of the country.23 First Administrative
Reforms Commission in its report submitted in 1966 suggested that:

“The special circumstances relating to our country can be fully met by providing for
two special institutions for their dress of citizens’ grievances. There should be one
authority dealing with complaints against the administrative acts of Ministers or
Secretaries to the government at the centre and in the states. There should be another
authority in each state and at the centre for dealing with complaints against the
administrative acts of other officials. The setting up of these authorities should not,
however, be taken to be a complete answer tithe problem of redress of citizens’
grievances. They only provide the ultimate set-up for such redress as has not been
available through the normal departmental or governmental machinery and do not
absolve the department from fulfilling its obligations to the citizen for administering
its affairs without generating, as far as possible, any legitimate sense of grievance.
Thus, the administration itself must play the major role in reducing the area of

21
Triloknath Mishra, Lokpal in India-An Analysis, 2011
22
Second Administrative Reforms Commission: Twelfth report, February, 2009, pg. no. 3
23
Supra note 19.

9
 grievances and providing remedies where necessary and feasible. When this
machinery (in-built departmental machinery) functions effectively, the number of
cases which will have to go to an authority outside the Ministry or the Department
should be comparatively small in number”24

The ARC while preparing its report had three ends in view:

i. Evolution of a suitable grievance procedure for the individuals to invoke in

complaints of maladministration;
ii. Creation of a mechanism which would reduce corruption in the administrative
services; and
iii. Setting up a mechanism which would take cognizance of complaints of
favouritism and nepotism against Central and State Ministers.25

[A] LOKPAL
The Lokpal Bill was for the first time presented by Mr. Shanti Bhushan 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 so the bill was not passed at that time.
Subsequently, Lokpal bills were introduced in 1971, 1977, 1985 (again by Ashoke Kumar
Sen when serving as Law Minister in the Rajiv Gandhi cabinet), 1989, 1996, 1998, 2001,
2005 and in2008, yet they were never passed.26 Each time, after the bill was introduced to the
house, it was referred to some committee for improvements a joint committee of parliament,
or a departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry and before the government could
take afinal stand on the issue, the house was dissolved again.27

In 2002, the report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the
Constitution urged that the Constitution should provide for the appointment of the Lok Pal
and Lokayuktas in the states but suggested that the Prime Minister should be kept out of the
purview of the authority.28 In 2004, the UPA government’s National CommonMinimum
Programme promised that the Lok Pal Bill would be enacted.29 The Second Administrative

24
Administrative Reforms Commission Report submitted in 1966: Quoted from Para 6
25
Interim Report of the Administrative Reforms Commission on Problems of Citizen’s Grievances, 1966, p.8-
15.
26
available at http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200804051550.htm retrieved on 22.04.2018.
27
available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal retrieved on 22.04.2018.
28
“Executive and Public Administration,” Chapter 6 of the National Commission to Review the Working of the
Constitution (Chairperson: Shri M.N. Venkatachiliah),March 31, 2002
29
National Common Minimum Programme of the Government of India, May 2004 available at
http://pib.nic.in/archieve/upareport/upa_3_year_highlights.pdf) retrieved on 22.04.2018.

10
Commission, formed in 2005, also recommended that the office of theLok Pal be established
without delay.30In January 2011, the government formed a Group ofMinisters, chaired by
Shri Pranab Mukherjee to suggest measures to tackle corruption, including examination of
theproposal of a Lok Pal Bill.31

Thus we have seen that the establishment of the institution of Ombudsman is the demand of
time. It will be much useful in redressing the grievances of the citizens against the
administration. Attempts have been made to establish the institution like Ombudsman (called
Lokpal) but unfortunately it has not been established so far. However the institution of
Lokayukta is functioning in some Indian States. The system of Ombudsman enables
Parliament and Ministers both to correct the faults in the administration. The ministerial
responsibility appears to have resulted in sheltering the mistakes in the administration. Often
they make defensive answer in Parliament and found reluctant in admitting mistakes. In such
a situation the system of Ombudsman is of much use. The existence of Ombudsman will
encourage the administration to be sensitive to the public opinion and the demands of
fairness.

It will help in controlling the administration. The Administrative Reform commission has
recommended for the establishment of Ombudsman type of institution in India. A Draft Bill
was appended to the Interim Report of the administrative Law Commission. In 1968 a Bill
called the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha but before it could be
passed, the Lok Sabha was dissolved and therefore the Bill lapsed. In 1971 and another Bill
was introduced in the Lok Sabha but again the Bill lapsed on account of the dissolution of the
Lok Sabha. In 1977 a new Bill called Lokpal Bill, 1977 was introduced in the Lok Sabha.
The Bill was referred to the Joint Select Committee of the two House of Parliament but the
Bill again lapsed on account of the dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Again Lok Pal Bill, 1985
was introduced in the Lok Sabha and it also lapsed because before its passage the term of the
Lok Sabha ended. Again features of the Lokpal Bill, 1989 are as follows: This Bill seeks to
establish the institution of Lokpal. The institution of Lokpal shall consist of a Chairman and
two members who may be either sitting or retired Judges of the Supreme Court. Where all or
any of the allegation have been substantiated against a Minister, the Prime Minister will
decide the action to be taken on the recommendation of the Lokpal and in the case of Prime

30
“Ethics in Governance,” Fourth Report of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, Jan 2007
31
“GoM on Corruption to Firm up Lok Pal Bill at the Earliest, Outlook, January 21, 2011.

11
Minister the Lok sabha will decide the action to be taken thereon. In case the allegation is not
substantiated wholly or partly, the Lokpal will close the case.

The Lokpal has not been given jurisdiction to enquire into the allegation against the
President, the Vice President, the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice or any Judge of the
Supreme Court, the Comptroller and auditor General, the Chief Election Commissioner or
Election Commissioner, the Chairman or any Member of the Union Public Service
Commission. The Institution cannot enquire into any matter concerning any person if the
Lokpal or any member thereof has any bias in respect of the person or matter. Lokpal cannot
enquire into any matter referred for enquiry under the Commission of Enquiries Act. Besides,
Lokpal cannot enquire into any complaint made five years after the date of offence stated in
the complaint. Module – 1 145 The salary, service conditions and removal from the office in
the case of the Chairman will be the same as those of the Chief Justice of India and in the
case of other member will be as those of the Judges of the Supreme Court. These provisions
have been made to ensure the independence of the institution of Ombudsman. The Bill also
provides that a member of the Lokpal cannot be a Member of Parliament or State legislature
or a political party. It also provides that a member thereof should not hold any office of trust
or profit or he should not carry on any business or practice any profession. The Bill also
makes provision for the appointment of staff to assist the Lokpal. The Lokpal can entertain a
complaint from any person other than a public servant. The Bill has empowered the Lokpal to
require a public servant or any other person to give such information as may be desired or to
produce such documents, which are relevant for the purposes of investigation. He will have
the powers of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with respect: i) to summon
a person and examine him on oath; ii) to require a person to disclose and produce a
document; iii) to take evidence on oath; iv) to require any public document or recorded to be
placed before him; v) to issue commission for the examination of evidence and documents;
vi) any other matters as may be provided.32

In August 1998 the Prime Minister Atal Bihari Bajpae presented the Lok Pal Bill in the Lok
Sabha. The Prime Minister has also been brought within the jurisdiction or power of Lok Pal.
Under the Bill the LokPal was empowered to make enquiries in the charges of completion
brought before, it against any Minister or Prime Minister or Member or either House of
Parliament. However, he was not empower thereon the Bill to make enquires in the charges
of corruption against the President, Vice President, Speaker of Lok Sabha, Comptroller and

32
Anil Dharker, The Topiwala Camera, The Outlook, New Delhi, 2011.

12
Auditor general, Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioner, Judges of
the Supreme Court and Members of the Union Public Service Commission. Under this Bill
the institution of Lok Pal was to consist of three members including its Chairman. Only the
sitting or retired Chief Justice of India or any Judge of the Supreme Court could be appointed
its Chairman while any sitting or retired Judge of the Supreme Court of Chief Justice of any
High Court could be appointed its members.

The appointment was to be made by President on the recommendation of the selection

committee consisting of seven members. The Vice-President would be the Chairman of this
selection committee. The Bill has not been enacted into Act. The establishment of
Ombudsman in India is the demand of time. The consciousness of the existence of
Ombudsman will make the administration more sensitive to the public opinion and to the
demands of fairness.

Though the birth of an Ombudsman in the Centre is still doubtful, but for the States it has
become a cherished institution. The institution of Lokayukta is functioning in 13 States.
These States are: Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab and Haryana. In
Tamil Nadu33 and Jammu & Kashmir34 different investigating agencies are functioning and
35
the similar proposal is pending in the State of Kerala .Delhi has also established the
institution of Ombudsman.36

The Apex Court in Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta v. T. R. S. Reddy37 opined that since the

Lokayuktas/Upa-Lokayuktas are high judicial dignitaries it would be obvious that they
should be armed with appropriate powers and sanctions so that their opinions do not become
mere paper directions. Proper teeth and claws so that the efforts put in by them are not wasted
and their reports are not shelved.

33
Tamil Nadu Public Men (Criminal Misconduct) Act, 1973.
34
Jammu & Kashmir Government Servants (Prevention of Corruption) Act, 1975.
35
Public Men (Investigation About Misconduct) Bill, 1977.
36
Ministry of Law and Justice. “Government Issues Notification to Constitute a Joint DraftingCommittee to
Prepare Draft Lok Pal Bill.” Press Information Bureau, Government of India.
available at http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=71560
37
(1997) 9 SCC 42)

13
 THE LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS ACT, 2013

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, commonly known as The Lokpal Act, is an anti-
corruption Act of Indian Parliament in India which "seeks to provide for the establishment of
the institution of Lokpal to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public
functionaries and for matters connecting them".38

The Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 22 December 2011 and was passed by the House on
27 December as The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011. It was subsequently tabled in the
Rajya Sabha on 29 December. After a marathon debate that stretched until midnight of the
following day, the vote failed to take place for lack of time.39 On 21 May 2012, it was
referred to a Select Committee of the Rajya Sabha for consideration. It was passed in the
Rajya Sabha on 17 December 2013 after making certain amendments to the earlier Bill and in
the Lok Sabha the next day.[11] It received assent from President Pranab Mukherjee on 1
January 2014 and came into force from 16 January.40

The Bill was introduced in the parliament following massive public protests led by anti-
corruption crusader Anna Hazare and his associates.41 The Bill is one of the most widely
discussed and debated Bills in India, both by the media and the People of India at large, in
recent times.42 The protests were named among the "Top 10 News Stories of 2011" by the
magazine Time.43 The bill received worldwide media coverage.444546

As of 1st May 2018, and ever since the related Act of Parliament was passed in India, The
Indian Government is yet to appoint a Lokpal.

38
"Minutes of the Eight Meeting". . 2011, The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Government of India available at http://164. 100.24.219/ BillsTexts/ LSBillTexts/ asintroduced/
Lokpal%20%2039% 20of%202011%20English.pdf
39
ibid
40
available at http://rajyasabha.nic.in/rsnew/48th_lokpal_report.pdf retrieved on 22.04.2018.
41
Ministry of Law and Justice. “Government Issues Notification to Constitute a Joint Drafting Committee to
Prepare Draft Lok Pal Bill.” Press Information Bureau, Government of India. available at
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=71560.
42
"The NCPRI approach to Lokpal and comparative differences of it with the Jan Lokpal Bill". [17]. 2011,
Prajn available at http://retro.prajnya.in/lokpaldebate.htm retrieved on 22.04.2018.
43
"The United Kingdom Bribery Act, 2010” 2010, FDR India.
44
"The Anti-Corruption Act of Bhutan 2006" 2006, FDR India.
45
Ibid.
46
"CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS". 1997 Convention, the 2009 Recommendation of the
Council for Further Combating Bribery, the 2009 Recommendation on the Tax Deductibility of Bribes to
Foreign Public Officials and other related instruments, OECD.

14
 CONCLUSION

India is a country where honesty and integrities in public and private life have been
glorified and upheld in great epics such as Vedas, Upanishad and in the books and practices
of every religion practiced here. Yet, India today is one of the most corrupt countries in the
world. Bringing public servant and public functionaries under a scanner which makes them
strictly accountable, is the start of a movement against corruption in India. And one
significant step in attacking the spectrum of corruption in India will be the implementation of
the Lok Pal Bill. Realizing the need of such institution with its immediate effect, a movement
started by Anna Hazare with the support of other volunteers and social activists. The
movement has also shown how media can effectively be used. Though the propriety
regarding active participation of news media in a movement is debatable, it is true to an
extent that Indian media has voluntarily become a party, a sort of participant, in this drive for
Jan Lokpal Bill. There are charges that elitist media groups that are mostly anti-reservation
and want to establish hegemony over institutions, are behind this movement. No wonder that
the ruling party feels that this mass movement is a media creation.

The role of the media as an institutional limb of modern democracy‖ was yet again amply
demonstrated during the recent phase of the Jan Lokpal movement that was unprecedented in
many ways. Projecting the anti-corruption Jan Lokpal movement as a second freedom
struggle was nothing short of a masterstroke by Team Anna. The movement has seen all the
elements of the freedom struggle an insensitive government disconnected with the pulse of
the people, a Gandhian non-violent protest with an indefinite fast, the waving of the tricolour,
slogans of Jail Bharo, Inquilab Zindabad, Jai Hind and Vande Mataram and the over
whelming participation of the youth. Such was the impact that even the Indian Diaspora was
inspired. Many genuinely felt that since they were not there during Mahatma Gandhi‘s
freedom struggle, let‘s now be a part of this movement for freedom from corruption.

The massive use of social media in Lok Pal movement is a trend setter and can be seen as
a successful experimentation for good cause. People can use social media content to gauge
the status of a movement and to identify the goals it seeks to attain. It is true that the
movement which was initiated by the social media geared up the main stream media. Main
stream media did not have any alternative as the visual popularity of the movement has given
a sharp rise in TRP rating of the issue and main stream media had to depend on it because of
its revenue generation. Secondly this movement had its youth based and could spread to the

15
rural areas with huge middle class audience and viewers. Thirdly this was an occasion where
media could project its role through intervention to claim for its fourth pillar status and avoid
the criticism of paid news. And most importantly, people were disenchanted due to the
number of scams and political corruption for last one decade and eagerly waiting for a
platform to show their protest. Finally, the strategic use of media in different format by the
volunteers could help in drawing the crowd manifold.

The main objective behind the institution of Lokpal is to give strength to citizens so that
they can raise their voice against corruption without any fear. The existing devices like CVC
and CBI for checks on elected and administrative officials have not been effective, as the
growing instances of corruption cases suggest. All these have necessitated the creation of
Lokpal with its own investigating team.

Therefore, there is a need for a mechanism that would adopt very simple, independent,
speedy and cheaper means of delivering justice by redressing the grievances of the people.
But our Country is famous for its beautiful numerous laws and its poor execution. Most of the
laws have been proved fail to achieve its goal. No law or institution would have been helped
to remove deep roots of corruption from our country without its proper execution.

It is rightly said by Publius Comelius Tecitus that “the more corrupt the state, the more
laws”.

16