CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SUBJECT – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

TOPIC – LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. PAWAN KUMAR MISHRA

FACULTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SUBMITTED BY:

ZAINUL ABEDEEN

B.A.LL.B.(H), 6th Sem

Enrolment- CUSB1613125054

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1
Without your kind support Dr. PAWAN Kr. MISHRA, it would not have been possible for me to
write this project. You have always been very responsive in providing necessary information,
you have always been my source of inspiration and will remain forever I admit this too. Without
your generous support I might not have been able to complete this project.

I am very thankful to you and for your magnanimous support!

- Zainul Abedeen

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement……………………………………………………..………..2
Aim, Objective and Research Methodology………………………….………....4
1. Introduction……………………………….…………………..………………5
2. Historical Background………………………………………….…………… 6
3. Silent Features of the Lokpal………………………………………………….7
4. Criticism………………………………………………………………………..11
5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..13
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………15

2
Aim and Objectives

 To study about the Lokpal and Lokayukta

 To analyse their functions, powers and jurisdiction

Research Methodology

The researcher has adopted secondary data sources mainly from electronic and library books.

3
INTRODUCTION

Lokpal is an ombudsman appointed to work on citizen’s complaints and grievances regarding

corruption at the Central level. On the on the hand, at the State level, Lokayukta is set up to take
action against the corruption complaints made by the residents of the State.

The word “Lokpal” is derived from the Sanskrit word “Loka” meaning people and “Pala”
meaning protector or caretaker. Together it means “protector of people”. The aim of passing such
law is to eradicate corruption at all levels of the Indian polity. For a nation to develop it needs to
have an extremely well organized and meticulously planned organization. A failure of the
administration can be attributed to the ill effects of corruption. The growth of the country has
been plagued by corruption and it has extended its wings through ought the entire administrative
set up. To root out the menace of corruption the institution of “ombudsman” came up and has
played a great role in fighting administrative malpractices.

For a nation to prosper and develop holistically it need to have an organized system of
administration: a system which seeks to redress the problems of the people and most importantly,
is free from corruption. Maladministration leads to various obstacles in the progress of a nation
and is like a termite which slowly erodes the very foundation of a nation and prevents the very
structure of administration from accomplishing its task. The root cause of this problem of
maladministration is corruption. Administrative law is an ever growing subject which cannot be
confined to one single terrain. It does not confine itself to any one branch of law and is
eventually bound to be present at every instance where there is an abuse of powers. For an
administrative system to be good it must not obstain from being answerable to the public. But, as
has been sais, absolute power corrupts absolutely which implies that if there is power then its
abuse is bound to be there. With the administrative agencies pervading every aspect of our lives,
the chances of administrative law interfering with the rights of a person have increased manifold.
It eventually leads to the need for an appropriate mechanism which can secure the rights of a
person from being infringed by administrative wrongs. For this reason, the institution of

4
“ombudsman” came to the rescue and proved to be of immense importance and has been still
being adopted by various nations to protect the rights of the individuals against the
administrative practices of the State and also to avoid inefficiency in the administrative set up of
the State.

Historical Background

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

ombudsman first came into being in Sweden a “a chancellor of justice” was appointed by the
king to act as an invigilator to look into the functioning of a war time government. From 1713
the duty of this ombudsman was to mainly ensure the correct conduct of royal officials. The
institution of the ombudsman was firmly incorporated into the Swedish constitution from 1809.

It was defined as the parliamentary body supervising judges, government and other officials, and
ensuring their compliance with laws and other legal regulations.

The embedding of the ombudsman in the constitution was completed by a further law specifying
in greater details of his activities and his legal authority. The institution of the ombudsman
developed and grew most significantly in the 20th Century. Ombudsman institutions were on the
increase especially in the period after the Second World War when almost a hundred of them
where established. The institutions took varied forms and modifications depending on the
historical, political and social background of the given society.

In India, the ombudsman is known as Lokpal or Lokayukta. The concept of constitutional

ombudsman was first proposed by the then law Minister Ashok Kumar Sen in parliament in the
early 1960s. The term lokpal and lokayukta were coined by Dr. L.M. Singhvi as the Indian
model of ombudsman for the redressal of public grievances. It was passed in loksabha in the year
1968 but it was lapsed with dissolution og lok sabha and since the has lapsed in the lok sabha
many times.

The Lokpal Bill was for the first time presented by Mr Shanti Bhushan during the fourth
LokSabha in 1968, and was passed there in 1969. However while it was pending in the
RajyaSabha, the LokSabha 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 in
2008, yet they were never passed.1 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

1
http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200804051550.htm

5
departmental standing committee of the Home Ministry and before the government could take a
final stand on the issue, the house was dissolved again.2

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.3
In 2004, the UPA government’s National Common Minimum Programme promised that the Lok
Pal Bill would be enacted.4 The Second Administrative Commission, formed in 2005, also
recommended that the office of the Lok Pal be established without delay.

In January 2011, the government formed a Group of Ministers, chaired by ShriPranab Mukherjee
to suggest measures to tackle corruption, including examination of the proposal of a Lok Pal
Bill.5

The government introduced the Lok Pal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 and the Constitution (116th
Amendment) Bill, 2011 on December 22, 2011. The Lok Pal Bill, 2011, introduced in the
LokSabha on August 4, 2011, was withdrawn by the government upon consideration of the
recommendations of the Standing Committee, and a new
comprehensive Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December
12, 2011. The historic Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011 was finally passed by Parliament
(December 17, 2013 in Rajya Sabha and December 18, 2013 in Lok Sabha) paving the way for
setting up of the institution of Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktasin States by law enacted by
the respective State Legislatures within one year of coming into force of the Act.

Silent Features of The Act

The Bill as passed by Parliament provided broadly for the following:

(a) Establishment of the institution of Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas at the
level of the States, thus providing a uniform vigilance and anti-corruption road-
map for the nation, both at the Centre and the States.

2
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal
3
“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.
4
National Common Minimum Programme of the Government of India, May 2004.
5
“GoM on Corruption to Firm UpLok Pal Bill at the Earliest, Outlook, January 21, 2018

6
(b) The Lokpal to consist of a Chairperson and a maximum of eight Members, of
which fifty percent shall be judicial Members. Fifty per cent of members
of Lokpal shall be from amongst SC, ST, OBCs, Minorities and Women.
(c) The selection of Chairperson and Members of Lokpal shall be through a Selection
Committee consisting of –
Prime Minister;
Speaker of Lok Sabha;
Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha;
Chief Justice of India or a sitting Supreme Court Judge nominated
by CJI;
An eminent jurist to be nominated by the President of India

(d) A Search Committee will assist the Selection Committee in the process of
selection. Fifty per cent of members of the Search Committee shall also be from
amongst SC, ST, OBCs, Minorities and Women.
(e) ƒ A Lokpal can enquire into offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (PCA) committed by:
(a) the PM once he has demitted the office,
(b) current and former Union Ministers,
(c) current and former MPs,
(d) group A officers and above,
(e) persons of equivalent ranks in public sector undertakings and other
government bodies,
(f) officers of organizations having an annual income above a specified
amount receiving funds from the government or the public.
(f) Prime Minister was brought under the purview of the Lokpal. Jurisdiction of
Lokpal shall not include any allegation against the Prime Minister in relation to
his functions concerning national security, foreign affairs and public order. Thus
Prime Minister shall continue to enjoy immunity in all sorts of matters falling
within the ambit of national security and public order. Further, the Bill excludes
the constitutional offices like President, Vice President, Speaker, Dy. Speaker,
Dy. Chairman RajyaSabha, sitting judges of Supreme Court and High Court,
Comptroller and Auditor General, Election Commission, Union Public Service
Commission who shall not be answerable to Lokpal nor their acts shall be called
into question.
(g) Lokpal’s jurisdiction will cover all categories of public servants including Group
‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’ officers and employees of Government. On complaints
referred to CVC by Lokpal, CVC will send its report of Preliminary enquiry in
respect of Group ‘A’ and ‘B’ officers back to Lokpal for further decision. With

7
 respect to Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees, CVC will proceed further in exercise of
its own powers under the CVC Act subject to reporting and review by Lokpal.
(h) All entities receiving donations from foreign source in the context of the Foreign
Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in excess of Rs. 10 lakhs per year are
brought under the jurisdiction of Lokpal.
(i) Lokpal will have power of superintendence and direction over any investigation
agency including CBI for cases referred to them by Lokpal.
(j) A high powered Committee chaired by the Prime Minister will recommend
selection of the Director, CBI.
(k) Attachment and confiscation of property of public servants acquired by corrupt
means, even while prosecution is pending.
(l) The Lokpal shall be constituted of two wings: the Investigation Wing and the
Prosecution Wing.
ƒ The central government is required to constitute Special Courts to hear cases
referred to it by the Lokpal under this Bill. The Lokpal shall recommend the
number of such courts. A complaint against the specified officials may be made
to the Lokpal for actions committed within seven years of the date of complaint.
The Lokpal can ask the Investigation Wing to conduct preliminary investigation
of any offence alleged to be committed under the PCA. The Lokpal shall provide
the accused with copies of the complaint and secure him a hearing. In case a
prima facie case is made out it may then conduct a public inquiry. ƒ If the inquiry
concludes that an offence was committed, the Lokpal may recommend
disciplinary action to the competent authority. It can also file a case before the
Special Court through its Prosecution Wing. The competent authority shall within
30 days of receipt of the recommendation initiate disciplinary proceedings and
inform the Lokpal of the action proposed or taken. The Bill removes the
requirement of sanction for initiating investigation and prosecution.
(m) Clear time lines for:-
Preliminary enquiry – three months extendable by three months.
Investigation – six months which may be extended by six months at a time.
Trial – one year extendable by one year and, to achieve this, special courts to be
set up.
(n) Enhancement of maximum punishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act
from seven years to 10 years. The minimum punishment under sections 7, 8, 9
and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act will now be three years and the
minimum punishment under section 15 (punishment for attempt) will now be two
years.
(o) The Lokpal shall look into the complaints relating to corruption only and its
jurisdiction is not to extend to redressal of grievances. The institution of Lokpal is
not envisaged as mechanism to seek redressal of grievances. Moreover, it shall

8
 have no power to issue any order, writ or direction to any authority except seeking
assistance in gathering facts relating to complaint on corruption. Lokpal shall look
into corruption related complaints only and it shall have no suomoto powers to
assume to itself the jurisdiction to inquire into any case against which there is no
formal complaint. It is debatable why suomoto power should not be granted to
Lokpal especially when it is envisaged to act as watch-dog against corruption.
Absence of any judicial power including power to issue summon and punish for
contempt for itself are summumbonum for the institution of Lokpal to succeed.
(p) The Lokpal may be removed by an order of the President on the basis of the
report of the Supreme Court on a reference by the President. A reference to the
Supreme Court may be made by (a) the President, (b) the President on the basis of
a petition signed by 100 Members of the Parliament and (c) the President if he is
satisfied on the basis of a petition by a citizen.

CRITICISM

Dual jurisdiction of Lok Pal and CVC

The Lok Pal shall have jurisdiction over public servants categorised as Group ‘A’
officers. Presently, these officers fall under the purview of the Central Vigilance
Commission (CVC). Therefore, both the CVC and Lok Pal will have jurisdiction over
Group ‘A’ officers. The Second ARC recommended the constitution of a Lok Pal for
investigation of Ministers and MPs while the CVC continues with its present role. It had
further suggested that there be a link between the two bodies to address collusion
between Ministers and bureaucrats.
Multiplicity of agencies
Currently, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is supervised by the CVC for
corruption cases. This Bill creates a separate Investigation Wing under the Lok Pal. A
Parliamentary Standing Committee, in its report on the CBI, recommended against the
creation of more agencies to tackle corruption, transnational terrorism or organised
crimes.10 It felt that multiple agencies would involve more expenditure and lead to
overlapping jurisdictions.6
Inclusion of private citizens
Officers of private trusts and companies deemed as “public servants” .Under this Bill,
officers of every trust, society and association of persons (whether registered or not) will
be considered to be public servants if
(a) the organisation receives government fund or donations from the public and

6
24th Report on the “Working of Central Bureau of Investigation,” Standing Committee on Personnel,
Public Grievances, Law and Justice, March 11, 2008.

9
 (b) its annual income is above a specified amount. This differs from the definition of
public servants in other laws. Under the IPC7, a “public servant” is a person who
performs a public duty and receives a fee or salary from the government. The PCA has a
similar definition but includes officers of cooperative societies receiving government aid.
The Right to Information Act, 20058 includes only those non-government organisations
which
receive government funding.
Unequal treatment of entities
The UN Convention against Corruption3
requires member states to penalise corruption between private entities.
The Lok Pal Bill does not cover acts of corruption by every private entity. Officials of
private organisations who
engage in corrupt activities are deemed to have committed an offence if their organisation
(association of persons,
trusts, etc) receives public donations and has an annual income above a specified amount.
Officers of organisations that have an annual income below the specified amount are not
covered under the PCA, the IPC or other criminal laws. The Bill criminalises acts of
officers of certain entities based on the entities’ income.
Lack of clarity
The Bill states that any association of persons “wholly or partly financed and aided by the
government” whose annual income is above a prescribed amount shall be under the
purview of the Lok Pal. It remains unclear whether the term “wholly or partly financed”
will include a company which has taken a loan from a public sector bank.
Procedural gaps
The Lok Pal may inquire into complaints only if they are made before seven years of the
date on which the offence was committed. This implies that the first three years of a two-
term Prime Minister would be beyond the purview of the Lok Pal once he has demitted
office.
Receiving bribes and abetting bribery are offences under the PCA. The Lok Pal may
inquire or investigate a complaint against a person who receives bribes or abets bribery.
However, while the Lok Pal may prosecute public servants, it is not empowered to
prosecute others abetting bribery.
The Bill provides that the inquiry should be completed within 12 months of filing the
complaint. However, it does not provide a timeframe for conducting the investigation.
No safeguards for information related to national security
The Bill does not specifically provide safeguards for information related to national
security or public safety. Under this Bill, certain provisions explicitly require disclosure
of information. For instance:

7
See Sections 21, 170 and 186 of the IPC and Section 2(c) of PCA, 1988.
8
Section 2(h)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

10
 (a) the Lok Pal requires any public servant to furnish information, which is relevant to the
inquiry; and
(b) a public servant under investigation has the right to inspect any record in connection
with the case and extract information as is considered necessary to defend his case. The
Bill allows an inquiry to be held in-camera in exceptional circumstances but does not
specify the circumstances. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure9 the judge may hold in-
camera trials in certain offences such as rape. In the absence of any guidelines on sharing
of sensitive information with public servants and private citizens, there may be a risk to
national security or public safety.

CONCLUSION
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.

9
Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

11
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 BOOKS:-

 Administrative Law, C K Takwani, EBC Publication, 6th edn

 Administrative Law, I.P. Massey 9th edn 2016

 ARTICLES:-

 Ombudsman in India by Aamna. Published on: August 4, 2017

 WEBSITES

 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/All-you-want-to-know-about-Lokpal-
Bill/articleshow/27570010.cms
 http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200804051550.htm
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lokpal

12
13