jbp123/hello · Datasets at Hugging Face

instruction stringlengths 1 84	input stringlengths 1 85	output stringlengths 1 83
been created in different parts of the world to deal with the redressal	of these grievances:	1. The Ombudsman System
2. The Administrative Courts System	3. The Procurator System	The earliest democratic institution created in the world for the
redressal of citizens’ grievance is the Scandinavian institution of	Ombudsman. Donald C. Rowat, an international authority on the	Ombudsman, calls it a “uniquely appropriate institution for dealing
with the average citizens’ complaints about unfair administrative	actions.”	The institution of Ombudsman was first created in Sweden in
1809. ‘Ombud’ is a Swedish term and refers to a person who acts as	the representative or spokesman of another person. According to	Donald C. Rowat, Ombudsman refers to “an officer appointed by the
legislature to handle complaints against administrative and judicial	action.”	The Swedish Ombudsman deals with the citizens’ grievances in
(i) Abuse of administrative discretion, that is, misuse of official	power and authority	(ii) Maladministration, that is, inefficiency in achieving the targets
(iii) Administrative corruption, that is, demanding bribery for doing	things	(iv) Nepotism, that is supporting one’s own kith and kin in matters
like providing employment	(v) Discourtesy, that is, misbehaviour of various kinds, for instance,	use of abusive language.
The Swedish Ombudsman is appointed by the Parliament for a	term of four years. He can be removed only by the Parliament on	ground of its loss of confidence in him. He submits his annual report
to the Parliament and hence, is also known as ‘Parliamentary	Ombudsman.’ But he is independent of the Parliament (legislature)	as well as the executive and judiciary.
The Ombudsman is a constitutional authority and enjoys the	powers to supervise the compliance of laws and regulations by the	public officials, and see that they discharge their duties properly. In
other words, he keeps a watch over all public officials–civil, judicial	and military–so that they function impartially, objectively and legally,	that is, in accordance with the law. However, he has no power to
reverse or quash a decision and has no direct control over	administration or the courts.	The Ombudsman can act either on the basis of a complaint
received from the citizen against unfair administrative action or suo	moto (i.e. on his own initiative). He can prosecute any erring official	including the judges. However, he himself cannot inflict any
punishment. He only reports the matter to the higher authorities for	taking the necessary corrective action.	In sum, the characteristics of the Swedish institution of
Ombudsman are as follows:	(i) Independence of action from the executive	(ii) Impartial and objective investigation of complaints
(iii) Suo moto power to start investigations	(iv) Uninterrupted access to all the files of administration	(v) Right to report to the Parliament as opposed to the executive;
the institution of ombudsman is based on the doctrine of	administrative accountability to legislature.	(vi) Wide publicity given to its working in press and other media
complaints	From Sweden, the institution of Ombudsman spread to other	Scandinavian countries– Finland (1919), Denmark (1955) and
Norway (1962). New Zealand is the first Commonwealth country in	the world to have adopted the Ombudsman system in the form of a	Parliamentary Commissioner for Investigation in 1962. The United
Kingdom adopted Ombudsman-like institution called Parliamentary	Commissioner for Administration in 1967. Since then, more than 40	counties of the world have adopted Ombudsman-like institutions with
different nomenclature and functions. The Ombudsman in India is	called Lokpal/Lokayukta. Donald. C. Rowat says that the institution of	Ombudsman is a “bulkwork of democratic government against the
tyranny of officialdom.” While Gerald E. Caiden described the	Ombudsman as “institutionalised public conscience.”	Another unique institutional device created for the redressal of
citizens’ grievances against administrative authorities, is the French	system of Administrative Courts. Due to its success in France, the	system has gradually spread to many other European and African
countries like Belgium, Greece and Turkey.	The socialist countries like the former USSR (now Russia), China,	Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Romania have created their
own institutional device for the redressal of citizens’ grievances. It is	called ‘Procurator System’ in these countries. It should be noted here	that the office of the Procurator-General is still functioning in Russia.
POSITION IN INDIA	The existing legal and institutional framework to check corruption and	redress citizens’ grievances in India consists of the following:
1. Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850	2. Indian Penal Code, 1860	3. Special Police Establishment, 1941
4. Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946	5. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988	6. Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (against political leaders and
eminent public men)	7. All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968	8. Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964
9. Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966	10. Vigilance organisations in ministries / departments, attached	and subordinate offices and public undertakings
11. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1963	12. Central Vigilance Commission, 1964	13. State Vigilance Commissions, 1964
14. Anti corruption bureaus in states	15. Lokpal (Ombudsman) at the Centre	16. Lokayukta (Ombudsman) in states
17. Divisional Vigilance Board	18. District Vigilance Officer	19. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
20. National Commission for SCs	21. National Commission for STs	22. Supreme Court and High Courts in states
23. Administrative Tribunals (quasi-judicial bodies)	24. Directorate of Public Grievances in the Cabinet Secretariat,	1988
25. Parliament and its committees	26. ‘File to Field’ programme in some states like Kerala. In this	innovative scheme, the administrator goes to the village/area
LOKPAL	The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) of India (1966–1970)	recommended the setting up of two special authorities designated as
‘Lokpal’ and ‘lokayukta’ for the redressal of citizens’ grievances2.	These institutions were to be set up on the pattern of the institution of	Ombudsman in Scandinavian countries and the parliamentary
commissioner for investigation in New Zealand. The Lokpal would	deal with complaints against ministers and secretaries at Central and	state levels, and the lokayukta (one at the Centre and one in every
state) would deal with complaints against other specified higher	officials. The ARC kept the judiciary outside the purview of Lokpal	and lokayukta as in New Zealand. But, in Sweden the judiciary is
within the purview of Ombudsman.	According to the ARC, the Lokpal would be appointed by the	president after consultation with the chief justice of India, the
Speaker of Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.	The ARC also recommended that the institutions of Lokpal and	lokayukta should have the following features:
1. They should be demonstratively independent and impartial.	2. Their investigations and proceedings should be conducted in	private and should be informal in character.
3. Their appointment should be, as far as possible, non-political.	4. Their status should compare with the highest judicial	functionaries in the country.
5. They should deal with matters in the discretionary field	involving acts of injustice, corruption or favouritism.	6. Their proceedings should not be subject to judicial interference.
7. They should have the maximum latitude and powers in	obtaining information relevant to their duties.	8. They should not look forward to any benefit or pecuniary
advantage from the executive government.	The Government of India accepted the recommendations of ARC	in this regard. So far, ten official attempts have been made to bring
about legislation on this subject. Bills were introduced in the	Parliament in the following years:	1. In May 1968, by the Congress Government headed by Indira
2. In April 1971, again by the Congress Government headed by	Indira Gandhi.	3. In July 1977, by the Janata Government headed by Morarji
Desai.	4. In August 1985, by the Congress Government headed by Rajiv	Gandhi.
5. In December 1989, by the National Front Government headed	by V.P. Singh.	6. In September 1996, by the United Front Government headed
by Deve Gowda.	7. In August 1998, by the BJP-led coalition Government headed	by A.B. Vajpayee.
8. In August 2001, by the NDA government headed by A.B.	Vajpayee.	9. In August 2011, by the UPA government headed by Manmohan
Singh.	10. In December 2011, by the UPA government headed by	Manmohan Singh.
The first four bills lapsed due to the dissolution of Lok Sabha,	while the fifth one was withdrawn by the government. The sixth and	seventh bills also lapsed due to the dissolution of the 11th and 12th
Lok Sabha. Again, the eighth bill (2001) lapsed due to the dissolution	of the 13th Lok Sabha in 2004. The ninth bill (2011) was withdrawn by	the government.
LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS ACT (2013)	Features	The salient features of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act (2013) are as
follows.3	1. It seeks to establish the institution of the Lokpal at the Centre	and the Lokayukta at the level of the State and thus seeks to
provide a uniform vigilance and anti-corruption road map for the	nation both at the Centre and at the States. The jurisdiction of	Lokpal includes the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of
Parliament and Groups A, B, C and D officers and officials of	the Central Government.	2. The Lokpal to consist of a Chairperson with a maximum of 8
members of which 50% shall be judicial members.	3. 50% of the members of the Lokpal shall come from amongst	the SCs, the STs, the OBCs, minorities and women.
4. The selection of the Chairperson and the members of Lokpal	shall be through a Selection Committee consisting of the Prime	Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the
Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or a	sitting Supreme Court Judge nominated by the Chief Justice of	India and an eminent jurist to be nominated by the President of
India on the basis of recommendations of the first four	members of the selection committee.	5. A Search Committee will assist the Selection Committee in the
process of selection. 50% of the members of the Search	Committee shall also be from amongst the SCs, the STs, the	OBCs, minorities and women.
6. The Prime Minister has been brought under the purview of the	Lokpal with subject matter exclusions and specific process for	handling complaints against the Prime Minister.
7. Lokpal’s jurisdiction will cover all categories of public servants,	including Group A, Group B, Group C, and Group D officers and	employees of Government. On complaints referred to the CVC
by the Lokpal, the CVC will send its report of preliminary	enquiry in respect of Group A and Group B Officers back to the	Lokpal for further decision. With respect to categories of
further in exercise of its own powers under the CVC Act subject	to reporting and review by the Lokpal.	8. The Lokpal will have the power of superintendence and
direction over any investigating agency, including the CBI, for	cases referred to them by the Lokpal.	9. A High-Powered Committee chaired by the Prime Minister will
recommend the selection of the Director of CBI.	10. It incorporates provisions for attachment and confiscation of	property of public servants acquired by corrupt means, even
while the prosecution is pending.	11. It lays down clear timelines. For preliminary enquiry, it is three	months extendable by three months. For investigation, it is six
months which may be extended by six months at a time. For	trial, it is one year extendable by one year and to achieve this,	special courts to be set up.
12. It enhances maximum punishment under the Prevention of	Corruption Act from seven years to ten 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.
13. Institutions which are financed fully or partly by Government	are under the jurisdiction of Lokpal, but institutions aided by	Government are excluded.
14. It provides adequate protection for honest and upright public	servants.	15. Lokpal conferred with power to grant sanction for prosecution
of public servants in place of the Government or competent	authority.	16. It contains a number of provisions aimed at strengthening the
CBI such as:	(i) setting up of a Directorate of Prosecution headed by a Director	Prosecution under the overall control of the Director of CBI;
(ii) appointment of the Director of Prosecution on t	recommendation of the CVC;	(iii) maintenance of a panel of advocates by CBI other th
Government advocates with the consent of the Lokpal	handling Lokpal-referred cases;	(iv) transfer of officers of CBI investigating cases referred by Lok
(v) provision of adequate funds to CBI for investigating cas	referred by Lokpal.	17. All entities receiving donations from foreign source in the
context of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in	excess of ₹10 lakhs per year are brought under the jurisdiction	of Lokpal.
18. It contains a mandate for setting up of the institution of	Lokayukta through enactment of a law by the State Legislature	within a period of 365 days from the date of commencement of
this Act. Thus, the Act provides freedom to the states to decide	upon the contours of the Lokayukta mechanism in their	respective states.
Drawbacks	The following are the drawbacks (shortcomings) of the Lokpal and	Lokayuktas Act, 20133a:
1. Lokpal cannot suo motu proceed against any public servant.	2. Emphasis on form of complaint rather than substance.	3. Heavy punishment for false and frivolous complaints against
public servants may deter complaints being filed to Lokpal.	4. Anonymous complaints not allowed -Can’t just make a	complaint on plain paper and drop it in a box with supporting
documents.	5. Legal assistance to public servant against whom complaint is	filed.
6. Limitation period of 7 years to file complaints.	7. Very non-transparent procedure for dealing with complaints	against the PM.
LOKAYUKTAS	Even much before the enactment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act	(2013) itself, many states had already set up the institution of
Lokayuktas.	It must be noted here that the institution of lokayukta was	established first in Maharashtra in 1971. Although Odisha had
passed the Act in this regard in 1970, it came into force only in 1983.	Till 2013, 21 states and 1 Union Territory (Delhi) have established	the institution of Lokyuktas. The details in this regard are mentioned
below in Table 61.1.	Table 61.1 Establishment of Lokayukta in States (Chronological	Order)
Sl. States/UTs Created in (enacted	No. in)	1. Odisha 1970
2. Maharashtra 1971	3. Rajasthan 1973	4. Bihar 1974
5. Uttar Pradesh 1975	6. Madhya Pradesh 1981	7. Andhra Pradesh 1983
8. Himachal Pradesh 1983	9. Karnataka 1985	10. Assam 1985

been created in different parts of the world to deal with the redressal

of these grievances:

1. The Ombudsman System

2. The Administrative Courts System

3. The Procurator System

The earliest democratic institution created in the world for the

redressal of citizens’ grievance is the Scandinavian institution of

Ombudsman. Donald C. Rowat, an international authority on the

Ombudsman, calls it a “uniquely appropriate institution for dealing

with the average citizens’ complaints about unfair administrative

actions.”

The institution of Ombudsman was first created in Sweden in

1809. ‘Ombud’ is a Swedish term and refers to a person who acts as

the representative or spokesman of another person. According to

Donald C. Rowat, Ombudsman refers to “an officer appointed by the

legislature to handle complaints against administrative and judicial

action.”

The Swedish Ombudsman deals with the citizens’ grievances in

(i) Abuse of administrative discretion, that is, misuse of official

power and authority

(ii) Maladministration, that is, inefficiency in achieving the targets

(iii) Administrative corruption, that is, demanding bribery for doing

things

(iv) Nepotism, that is supporting one’s own kith and kin in matters

like providing employment

(v) Discourtesy, that is, misbehaviour of various kinds, for instance,

use of abusive language.

The Swedish Ombudsman is appointed by the Parliament for a

term of four years. He can be removed only by the Parliament on

ground of its loss of confidence in him. He submits his annual report

to the Parliament and hence, is also known as ‘Parliamentary

Ombudsman.’ But he is independent of the Parliament (legislature)

as well as the executive and judiciary.

The Ombudsman is a constitutional authority and enjoys the

powers to supervise the compliance of laws and regulations by the

public officials, and see that they discharge their duties properly. In

other words, he keeps a watch over all public officials–civil, judicial

and military–so that they function impartially, objectively and legally,

that is, in accordance with the law. However, he has no power to

reverse or quash a decision and has no direct control over

administration or the courts.

The Ombudsman can act either on the basis of a complaint

received from the citizen against unfair administrative action or suo

moto (i.e. on his own initiative). He can prosecute any erring official

including the judges. However, he himself cannot inflict any

punishment. He only reports the matter to the higher authorities for

taking the necessary corrective action.

In sum, the characteristics of the Swedish institution of

Ombudsman are as follows:

(i) Independence of action from the executive

(ii) Impartial and objective investigation of complaints

(iii) Suo moto power to start investigations

(iv) Uninterrupted access to all the files of administration

(v) Right to report to the Parliament as opposed to the executive;

the institution of ombudsman is based on the doctrine of

administrative accountability to legislature.

(vi) Wide publicity given to its working in press and other media

complaints

From Sweden, the institution of Ombudsman spread to other

Scandinavian countries– Finland (1919), Denmark (1955) and

Norway (1962). New Zealand is the first Commonwealth country in

the world to have adopted the Ombudsman system in the form of a

Parliamentary Commissioner for Investigation in 1962. The United

Kingdom adopted Ombudsman-like institution called Parliamentary

Commissioner for Administration in 1967. Since then, more than 40

counties of the world have adopted Ombudsman-like institutions with

different nomenclature and functions. The Ombudsman in India is

called Lokpal/Lokayukta. Donald. C. Rowat says that the institution of

Ombudsman is a “bulkwork of democratic government against the

tyranny of officialdom.” While Gerald E. Caiden described the

Ombudsman as “institutionalised public conscience.”

Another unique institutional device created for the redressal of

citizens’ grievances against administrative authorities, is the French

system of Administrative Courts. Due to its success in France, the

system has gradually spread to many other European and African

countries like Belgium, Greece and Turkey.

The socialist countries like the former USSR (now Russia), China,

Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Romania have created their

own institutional device for the redressal of citizens’ grievances. It is

called ‘Procurator System’ in these countries. It should be noted here

that the office of the Procurator-General is still functioning in Russia.

POSITION IN INDIA

The existing legal and institutional framework to check corruption and

redress citizens’ grievances in India consists of the following:

1. Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, 1850

2. Indian Penal Code, 1860

3. Special Police Establishment, 1941

4. Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946

5. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

6. Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (against political leaders and

eminent public men)

7. All-India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968

8. Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964

9. Railway Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966

10. Vigilance organisations in ministries / departments, attached

and subordinate offices and public undertakings

11. Central Bureau of Investigation, 1963

12. Central Vigilance Commission, 1964

13. State Vigilance Commissions, 1964

14. Anti corruption bureaus in states

15. Lokpal (Ombudsman) at the Centre

16. Lokayukta (Ombudsman) in states

17. Divisional Vigilance Board

18. District Vigilance Officer

19. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

20. National Commission for SCs

21. National Commission for STs

22. Supreme Court and High Courts in states

23. Administrative Tribunals (quasi-judicial bodies)

24. Directorate of Public Grievances in the Cabinet Secretariat,

1988

25. Parliament and its committees

26. ‘File to Field’ programme in some states like Kerala. In this

innovative scheme, the administrator goes to the village/area

LOKPAL

The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) of India (1966–1970)

recommended the setting up of two special authorities designated as

‘Lokpal’ and ‘lokayukta’ for the redressal of citizens’ grievances2.

These institutions were to be set up on the pattern of the institution of

Ombudsman in Scandinavian countries and the parliamentary

commissioner for investigation in New Zealand. The Lokpal would

deal with complaints against ministers and secretaries at Central and

state levels, and the lokayukta (one at the Centre and one in every

state) would deal with complaints against other specified higher

officials. The ARC kept the judiciary outside the purview of Lokpal

and lokayukta as in New Zealand. But, in Sweden the judiciary is

within the purview of Ombudsman.

According to the ARC, the Lokpal would be appointed by the

president after consultation with the chief justice of India, the

Speaker of Lok Sabha and the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

The ARC also recommended that the institutions of Lokpal and

lokayukta should have the following features:

1. They should be demonstratively independent and impartial.

2. Their investigations and proceedings should be conducted in

private and should be informal in character.

3. Their appointment should be, as far as possible, non-political.

4. Their status should compare with the highest judicial

functionaries in the country.

5. They should deal with matters in the discretionary field

involving acts of injustice, corruption or favouritism.

6. Their proceedings should not be subject to judicial interference.

7. They should have the maximum latitude and powers in

obtaining information relevant to their duties.

8. They should not look forward to any benefit or pecuniary

advantage from the executive government.

The Government of India accepted the recommendations of ARC

in this regard. So far, ten official attempts have been made to bring

about legislation on this subject. Bills were introduced in the

Parliament in the following years:

1. In May 1968, by the Congress Government headed by Indira

2. In April 1971, again by the Congress Government headed by

Indira Gandhi.

3. In July 1977, by the Janata Government headed by Morarji

Desai.

4. In August 1985, by the Congress Government headed by Rajiv

Gandhi.

5. In December 1989, by the National Front Government headed

by V.P. Singh.

6. In September 1996, by the United Front Government headed

by Deve Gowda.

7. In August 1998, by the BJP-led coalition Government headed

by A.B. Vajpayee.

8. In August 2001, by the NDA government headed by A.B.

Vajpayee.

9. In August 2011, by the UPA government headed by Manmohan

Singh.

10. In December 2011, by the UPA government headed by

Manmohan Singh.

The first four bills lapsed due to the dissolution of Lok Sabha,

while the fifth one was withdrawn by the government. The sixth and

seventh bills also lapsed due to the dissolution of the 11th and 12th

Lok Sabha. Again, the eighth bill (2001) lapsed due to the dissolution

of the 13th Lok Sabha in 2004. The ninth bill (2011) was withdrawn by

the government.

LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTAS ACT (2013)

Features

The salient features of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act (2013) are as

follows.3

1. It seeks to establish the institution of the Lokpal at the Centre

and the Lokayukta at the level of the State and thus seeks to

provide a uniform vigilance and anti-corruption road map for the

nation both at the Centre and at the States. The jurisdiction of

Lokpal includes the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of

Parliament and Groups A, B, C and D officers and officials of

the Central Government.

2. The Lokpal to consist of a Chairperson with a maximum of 8

members of which 50% shall be judicial members.

3. 50% of the members of the Lokpal shall come from amongst

the SCs, the STs, the OBCs, minorities and women.

4. The selection of the Chairperson and the members of Lokpal

shall be through a Selection Committee consisting of the Prime

Minister, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of the

Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or a

sitting Supreme Court Judge nominated by the Chief Justice of

India and an eminent jurist to be nominated by the President of

India on the basis of recommendations of the first four

members of the selection committee.

5. A Search Committee will assist the Selection Committee in the

process of selection. 50% of the members of the Search

Committee shall also be from amongst the SCs, the STs, the

OBCs, minorities and women.

6. The Prime Minister has been brought under the purview of the

Lokpal with subject matter exclusions and specific process for

handling complaints against the Prime Minister.

7. Lokpal’s jurisdiction will cover all categories of public servants,

including Group A, Group B, Group C, and Group D officers and

employees of Government. On complaints referred to the CVC

by the Lokpal, the CVC will send its report of preliminary

enquiry in respect of Group A and Group B Officers back to the

Lokpal for further decision. With respect to categories of

further in exercise of its own powers under the CVC Act subject

to reporting and review by the Lokpal.

8. The Lokpal will have the power of superintendence and

direction over any investigating agency, including the CBI, for

cases referred to them by the Lokpal.

9. A High-Powered Committee chaired by the Prime Minister will

recommend the selection of the Director of CBI.

10. It incorporates provisions for attachment and confiscation of

property of public servants acquired by corrupt means, even

while the prosecution is pending.

11. It lays down clear timelines. For preliminary enquiry, it is three

months extendable by three months. For investigation, it is six

months which may be extended by six months at a time. For

trial, it is one year extendable by one year and to achieve this,

special courts to be set up.

12. It enhances maximum punishment under the Prevention of

Corruption Act from seven years to ten 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.

13. Institutions which are financed fully or partly by Government

are under the jurisdiction of Lokpal, but institutions aided by

Government are excluded.

14. It provides adequate protection for honest and upright public

servants.

15. Lokpal conferred with power to grant sanction for prosecution

of public servants in place of the Government or competent

authority.

16. It contains a number of provisions aimed at strengthening the

CBI such as:

(i) setting up of a Directorate of Prosecution headed by a Director

Prosecution under the overall control of the Director of CBI;

(ii) appointment of the Director of Prosecution on t

recommendation of the CVC;

(iii) maintenance of a panel of advocates by CBI other th

Government advocates with the consent of the Lokpal

handling Lokpal-referred cases;

(iv) transfer of officers of CBI investigating cases referred by Lok

(v) provision of adequate funds to CBI for investigating cas

referred by Lokpal.

17. All entities receiving donations from foreign source in the

context of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) in

excess of ₹10 lakhs per year are brought under the jurisdiction

of Lokpal.

18. It contains a mandate for setting up of the institution of

Lokayukta through enactment of a law by the State Legislature

within a period of 365 days from the date of commencement of

this Act. Thus, the Act provides freedom to the states to decide

upon the contours of the Lokayukta mechanism in their

respective states.

Drawbacks

The following are the drawbacks (shortcomings) of the Lokpal and

Lokayuktas Act, 20133a:

1. Lokpal cannot suo motu proceed against any public servant.

2. Emphasis on form of complaint rather than substance.

3. Heavy punishment for false and frivolous complaints against

public servants may deter complaints being filed to Lokpal.

4. Anonymous complaints not allowed -Can’t just make a

complaint on plain paper and drop it in a box with supporting

documents.

5. Legal assistance to public servant against whom complaint is

filed.

6. Limitation period of 7 years to file complaints.

7. Very non-transparent procedure for dealing with complaints

against the PM.

LOKAYUKTAS

Even much before the enactment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act

(2013) itself, many states had already set up the institution of

Lokayuktas.

It must be noted here that the institution of lokayukta was

established first in Maharashtra in 1971. Although Odisha had

passed the Act in this regard in 1970, it came into force only in 1983.

Till 2013, 21 states and 1 Union Territory (Delhi) have established

the institution of Lokyuktas. The details in this regard are mentioned

below in Table 61.1.

Table 61.1 Establishment of Lokayukta in States (Chronological

Order)

Sl. States/UTs Created in (enacted

No. in)

1. Odisha 1970

2. Maharashtra 1971

3. Rajasthan 1973

4. Bihar 1974

5. Uttar Pradesh 1975

6. Madhya Pradesh 1981

7. Andhra Pradesh 1983

8. Himachal Pradesh 1983

9. Karnataka 1985

10. Assam 1985