Meaning and Origin

The term "Ombudsman" is of Swedish origin, roughly translating to "a person who represents others." It refers to an official appointed to investigate complaints made by individuals against maladministration or unfair practices by public bodies.

An official appointed to investigate complaints against maladministration

The core function of an Ombudsman is to act as an impartial investigator of grievances lodged by citizens against government departments, agencies, or other public authorities. The Ombudsman is typically independent of the administration it scrutinizes.

Key characteristics of an Ombudsman:

• Independence: The Ombudsman operates independently of the government and its administrative bodies, ensuring impartiality in investigations.
• Investigative Powers: They have the authority to investigate complaints, gather evidence, and question officials.
• Recommendation-based Powers: While Ombudsmen usually cannot impose legally binding decisions, they can make recommendations for redressal, compensation, or changes in administrative practices.
• Focus on Maladministration: Their investigations typically focus on issues such as unfairness, bias, negligence, unreasonable delay, lack of proper procedure, or failure to follow established rules in administrative actions.
• Accessibility: The office of the Ombudsman is usually accessible to all citizens without cost, making it an important avenue for redressal.

The concept of the Ombudsman gained prominence in the 20th century as a means to provide a check on the growing power of the administrative state and to ensure accountability to the citizens.

Types of Ombudsman Schemes

Ombudsman systems vary across different countries, reflecting their unique administrative structures and legal traditions. However, they can broadly be categorized into a few main types.

Parliamentary Ombudsman (e.g., UK)

In this model, the Ombudsman is appointed by Parliament and reports to Parliament. The Ombudsman investigates complaints of maladministration against government departments and their agencies.

• Appointment: Appointed by the sovereign on the recommendation of the government, but with a strong parliamentary oversight.
• Reporting: Reports directly to Parliament, making the process accountable to the elected representatives.
• Jurisdiction: Primarily covers central government departments and agencies.
• Powers: Investigates complaints of injustice due to maladministration, such as delay, failure to act, or incorrect advice. Can recommend compensation or other forms of redressal, which the government typically follows.
• Example: The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) in the United Kingdom.

Administrative Ombudsman (e.g., India)

This type of Ombudsman is often established by statute and may have a broader scope, potentially covering various levels of government and even certain private sector entities performing public functions.

• Appointment: Appointed by the government, often through a specific legislative act.
• Reporting: May report to the government, a legislative body, or both.
• Jurisdiction: Can vary widely. In India, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, aims to establish an Ombudsman-like body at the central and state levels to investigate corruption charges against public functionaries. This is an evolution of the concept where the focus is also on tackling corruption.
• Powers: Similar to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, with powers to investigate, recommend, and, in some cases, initiate legal proceedings or impose penalties, especially when corruption is involved.
• Example: The Lokpal in India (although its full implementation and scope are still evolving), and various Lokayuktas in Indian states. Other countries like Sweden and New Zealand also have administrative ombudsmen.

In the Indian context, the Ombudsman concept is often intertwined with the fight against corruption and aims to provide a mechanism for addressing grievances against a wider range of public officials, including ministers and senior bureaucrats.

Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, is a significant piece of legislation in India that seeks to establish an institutional mechanism to combat corruption and address grievances against public functionaries at both the central and state levels. It embodies the Ombudsman concept tailored to the Indian context.

Establishment of Lokpal at the Centre

The Act provides for the establishment of a body called the Lokpal at the Union level.

• Composition: The Lokpal shall consist of a Chairperson and not more than eight members, of whom at least fifty percent shall be judicial members.
• Appointment: The Chairperson and members are to be appointed by the President of India on the recommendation of a Selection Committee. The Committee includes the Prime Minister, the Speaker of Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or a judge nominated by him, and an eminent jurist.
• Purpose: To inquire into or cause inquiry into allegations of corruption against public functionaries.

Establishment of Lokayuktas in States

The Act also mandates that each State shall establish by law, a Lokayukta or such other institution to inquire into allegations of corruption against persons holding specified public offices within that State.

• Mandatory Requirement: While the Act was passed in 2013, states were given time to enact their own laws for the establishment of Lokayuktas. Many states already had Lokayukta acts, but this central legislation aimed to strengthen and standardize the institution across the country.
• State-Specific Laws: The composition, jurisdiction, and powers of State Lokayuktas can vary as they are enacted by the respective State Legislatures, subject to the guidelines of the central Act.
• Objective: To ensure accountability and transparency at the state level, similar to the Lokpal at the centre.

The overarching goal is to create a hierarchical structure of anti-corruption bodies to deal with complaints at different levels of governance.

Jurisdiction and Powers

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, grants significant powers to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas to investigate allegations of corruption effectively.

Investigation into allegations of corruption

The Lokpal has the authority to inquire into any or all allegations of corruption against any person to whom the Act applies.

• Persons Covered: The jurisdiction of the Lokpal extends to:
  • The Prime Minister: With certain safeguards, like disclosure only after the PM demits office and with the approval of the Lokpal.
  • Ministers (Union Government).
  • Members of Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).
  • Members of All India Services and officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above under the Central Government.
  • Officials holding posts in any group 'A', 'B', 'C', or 'D' services or equivalent under the Central Government.
  • Any person who is or has been in a position connected with the organization or administration of a Government or any body owned or controlled or substantially financed by the Government, or a Government company.
• Investigation Process:
• Upon receiving a complaint, the Lokpal can initiate a preliminary inquiry.
• If there are grounds to proceed, the Lokpal can order a full investigation by its own inquiry wing or direct any agency, including the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), to conduct the investigation.
• The Lokpal has the power to summon witnesses, examine evidence, seize documents, and direct the attachment of property suspected to be acquired through corrupt means.
• Powers of Civil Court: For the purpose of conducting investigations, the Lokpal is vested with the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the power to:
• Summon and enforce attendance of any person and examine them on oath.
• Compel the production of any records or documents.
• Receive evidence on affidavits.
• Requisition any public records from any court or office.
• Issue commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents.
• Prosecution: If the investigation reveals sufficient evidence of corruption, the Lokpal can initiate prosecution proceedings in a designated Special Court.
• Recommendation for Dismissal/Removal: The Lokpal can also recommend the dismissal, removal, or suspension of public servants, or take other appropriate actions as deemed fit.

The Lokayuktas in the states exercise similar powers within their respective jurisdictions over state-level functionaries.

Exclusions and Limitations

While the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, significantly expands the scope of anti-corruption mechanisms, it also contains certain exclusions and limitations to ensure the effective and fair application of the law.

• Prime Minister's Office: Allegations against the Prime Minister are subject to specific procedural safeguards. An inquiry cannot be initiated if the alleged offence relates to national security, public order, or is in relation to foreign affairs. Furthermore, an inquiry into allegations relating to the Prime Minister can only be initiated after the approval of the Lokpal and the alleged offence relates to a period when the Prime Minister was not in office.
• Safeguards for Public Servants: The Act ensures that no inquiry is made against any person referred to in Sections 4(1)(a) to (f) (which include PM, Ministers, MPs, senior officers) if the matter is pending for disposal before any Parliamentary committee, or any commission of inquiry appointed by the Government, or any court of law.
• Other Investigations: If a matter is already being investigated by any other agency (like CBI, State Police, etc.), the Lokpal may decide to proceed with its inquiry or direct that agency to complete its investigation.
• Judicial Officers: The Act specifies that the Lokpal shall not inquire into any matter relating to the armed forces of the Union. However, it can inquire into allegations of corruption against judicial officers in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned.
• Confidentiality: Certain information, particularly related to national security or ongoing investigations, might be exempted from disclosure to protect sensitive data.
• Operational Challenges: The effectiveness of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas also depends on factors like timely appointments, adequate resources, and the willingness of investigative agencies to cooperate fully.

These exclusions and limitations are intended to prevent harassment of public functionaries, protect sensitive information, and avoid duplication of efforts with other existing investigative and judicial mechanisms.