Module 7: Maladministration and Alternative Remedies

Introduction
Citizens and the government are considered as two sides of the same coin. Since the emergence of the
civilization, the communication and relationship between the citizens and government has become the major
concern for the policy makers, jurists and administrators.
For an ideal state, the communication and interaction between them has to be in consonance with the principles
laid down by the policy makers for the betterment of the public as a whole.
But in reality, the communication is plagued with sense of injustice, arbitrariness, abuse of power and
discrimination. The nature and pattern of communication have been a perpetual source of discussion, inquiry
and analysis in the light of accountability of administrative machinery to the legislature.
Maladministration
Maladministration refers to mala fide exercise of powers or dishonest management of public affairs. It is
opposed to the efficient and service oriented administration that is expected of the public servants as servants
of the people in a democratic polity.
Governance
Democracy and Good Governance are two intermingled terms, if democracy can establish its objectives that
it thrives for. Again, without good governance, democracy would be hollow within or at best more formal
than real.
Democratic government by itself does not guarantee good governance, unless it ensures accountability and
transparency for their actions and policies to the people at large. For democratic government to be capable of
attaining the objectives of good governance, a constant control, both political and legal, are imposed on the
functionaries of the government.
The institution of ombudsman as a control mechanism of Parliament aims at restricting administrative excess
and ensuring fair play in the exercise of administrative powers. For the citizens in democratic states, it is vital
that all the powers of State should be exercised in a way comfortable to their ideas of liberty, fair dealing and
good administration.
Corruption
All societies face the problem of official corruption in one way or the other and at almost all the levels of the
government. It taints every section of society and stretches right across the political spectrum. Corruption
takes place both at political and bureaucratic levels. Corruption in India is a dysfunctional outcome of the
interaction between the public and the private. This action includes corruption, bribery, nepotism etc.
“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupts absolutely.” A statement by Lord Acton which
signifies that with the increase in the functions and powers of administrative authorities, the chances of misuse
of power by them also increases.
In our democratic set up, the prosperity and satisfaction of people is of paramount consideration, but looking
at the present scenario, the grievances of the people go unheard and they become the victims of administrative
vicious decisions or injustice and left unaddressed.
The main problem before the administrative system, therefore, is how to provide the citizen with an alternative
institution with in the democratic framework which enjoys the confidence of the people and provides for better
redressal mechanism. An urgent need to watch over the government is necessary; therefore, according to
experts, the concept of ombudsman is the solution to the problem of maladministration and corruption.
Case Law: Vineet Narain & Others v. Union of India & Another, (1 SCC 226)-
Summary: This case concerns the historic Hawala scandal in India, which uncovered possible bribery
payments to several high-ranking Indian politicians and bureaucrats from a funding source linked to suspected
terrorists. Following news coverage of the scandal, members of the public were dismayed by the failure of the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate investigations of the officials with the apparent intent to
protect certain implicated individuals who were extremely influential in government and politics.
This litigation was the result of public interest petitions filed on these matters with the Court pursuant to
Article 32 of the Indian Constitution (which empowers the Supreme Court to issue directions for the
enforcement of fundamental rights contained in the Constitution).
The Court agreed that the CBI had failed in its responsibility to investigate allegations of public corruption. It
laid down guidelines to ensure independence and autonomy of the CBI and ordered that the CBI be placed
under the supervision of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), an independent governmental agency
intended to be free from executive control or interference.
This directive removed the CBI from the supervision of the Central Government thought to be partly
responsible for the inertia that contributed to the CBI’s previous lack of urgency with respect to the
investigation of high-ranking officials. The CVC was now responsible for ensuring that allegations of
corruption against public officials were thoroughly investigated regardless of the identity of the accused and
without interference from the Government.
Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes: In terms of enforcement, following Court orders, investigations
were conducted and charge sheets were filed against certain accused. However, all the cases collapsed at the
stage of prosecution in court.
The Court’s directions pertaining to structural relief were followed by the executive in the immediate
aftermath of the decision but without a detailed investigation into individual cases it is not possible to assess
the extent to which they were enforced.
The Court in this case had struck down the validity of a directive issued by the Ministries and Departments in
the Central Government that required the CBI to seek approval of the Central Government before pursuing
investigation against bureaucrats of the level of Joint Secretary and above on grounds that it violated the
independence of the investigative process. However, the Central Vigilance Commissioner Act, 2003,
reinstated this requirement. This directive was again struck down by the Supreme Court in the course of
another judgment in 2014 on the basis that it violated the right to equality guaranteed by the Constitution.
The primary purpose of the case was to compel a proper investigation into the scam, however this never
happened. The focus of the judgment on the future and autonomy of the CBI may have been a way to divert
attention from the issue of the scam. And as regards the directions of the court relating to the CBI, these were
heavily diluted by politicians during implementation which resulted in the CVC being essentially toothless
and controlled by the government. Nothing substantial changed in the aftermath of the case and today, scams
continue with impunity.
Significance of the Case: Effectively addressing public corruption is essential for the sustainable realization
of economic and social rights since the impact of corruption often overlaps with violations of economic and
social rights. This case is thus a step in the right direction in providing a mode of accountability in public life.
This case is also significant because the Supreme Court liberally interpreted its powers under the Constitution
to devise various innovative procedural techniques. These include: the appointment of amicus curiae to
provide assistance to the court on legal issues: exercising supervisory jurisdiction to monitor implementation(,
and delivering detailed directions to the executive and formulating guidelines to fill a legislative vacuum on
the issue of public corruption.
This case created public awareness regarding the issue of corruption, and inspired people to engage with the
judicial system through the process of public interest litigation.
Ombudsman
Ombudsman means a commissioner or an agent. In 1809, the office of Riskdagens (Parliament) of Sweden
created Justitie Ombudsman to look after the interest of justice in the affairs between the government and the
citizens.
In other words, the ombudsman as an institution first appeared in Sweden as ‘Parliamentary Supervisor’,
referring to ‘a Parliament-nominated commissioner of relative independent standing empowered to investigate
complaints by citizens and watch for illegal or unreasonable behaviour by administrative agencies or public
servants.’
From legislation to organisation, the Indian government has implemented measures to check and detect
corruption, with appropriate penalties; various commissions and statues have been established by the Indian
government. So, the idea of ombudsman likes independent institution to look into the administrative
faults/maladministration and the public grievance is six decades old and it has chequered history. The
establishment for the institution of an ombudsman has become a sine qua non (absolutely necessary) to curb
the inefficiencies in the administration.
Mahatma Gandhi- “Corruption will be out one day, however much one may try to conceal it: and the public
can as its right and duty, in every case of justifiable suspicion, call its servants to strict account, dismiss them,
sue them in a law court, or appoint an arbitrator or inspector to scrutinize their conduct, as it likes.”
An ‘Ombudsman’ is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an organization and some internal
or external constituency and represents mostly the broad scope of constituent interests.
K.C. Wheare- “It is not eccentric to conclude that if there is more administration, there will be more mal-
administration.”
Garner- “Ombudsman is an officer of Parliament, having as his primary function, the duty of acting as an
agent for Parliament, for the purpose of safeguarding citizens against abuse or misuse of administrative
power.”
H.W.R Wade- Describes Ombudsman as “an important adjunct to the machinery of government” calling him
“an ally of an independent judiciary and legal profession” and declares that “he can be fitted into almost any
term of democratic Constitution.”
Need of Ombudsman in India
 Administrative delay and discourtesy towards the citizens.
 The mechanism and procedure to redress the grievances of the individual against the administration
are inadequate.
 The administration in India has been acquiring vast powers in the name of socio- economic
development and chances for abuse of powers are bound.
 Conferment of large administrative and discretionary powers on administrative authorities.
 The public feeling against prevalence of corruption, widespread inefficiency and administration's
unresponsiveness to popular needs.
An ombudsman is an official- usually appointed by the government or by parliament,- who is charged with
representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual
citizens.
An Ombudsman:
 Is usually appointed by the organization, but sometimes elected by the constituency.
  may, for example, investigate constituent complaints relating to the organization and attempt to resolve
them, usually through recommendations or mediation.
 may sometimes identify organizational roadblocks running counter to constituent interests
In some jurisdictions an Ombudsman charged with the handling of concerns about national government is
more formally referred to as the "Parliamentary Commissioner" (e.g., the United Kingdom Parliamentary
Commissioner for Administration, and the Western Australian state Ombudsman).
In many countries where the ombudsman's remit extends beyond dealing with alleged maladministration to
promoting and protecting human rights, the Ombudsman is recognized as the National Human Rights
Institution.
The Government of India has designated several ombudsmen for the redress of grievances and complaints
from individuals in the banking, insurance and other sectors being serviced by both private and public bodies
and corporations.
The Ombudsman in India are sometimes referred to as Chief Vigilance Officer or CVO.
The CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) was set up on the recommendation of the Santhanam Committee
(1962–64).
In India, the Ombudsman is more commonly known as the Lokpal or Lokayukta.
An Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) was set up on 5 January 1966 under the Chairmanship of
Shri Morarji Desai.
It recommended a two-tier machinery: Lokpal at the Centre and one Lokayukta each at the State level for
redress of people's grievances.
However, the jurisdiction of the Lokpal did not extend to the judiciary.
The Central Government introduced the first Lokpal Bill, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill in 1968, and further
legislation was introduced in 2005, but it has been enacted only in 2013.
The state-level Lokayukta institution has developed gradually:
 Maharashtra was the first to establish the institution, in 1972.
 Orissa was the first state to present a bill on establishment of Lokayukta in 1970.
Other states followed: Bihar (1974), Uttar Pradesh (1977), Madhya Pradesh (1981), Andhra Pradesh (1983),
Himachal Pradesh (1983), Karnataka (1984), Assam (1986), Gujarat (1988), Delhi (1995), Punjab (1996),
Kerala (1998), Chhattisgarh (2002), Uttaranchal (2002), West Bengal (2003) and Haryana (2004).
The structure of the Lokayukta is not uniform across all the states.
Some states have Upa-Lokayukta under the Lokayukta and in some states, the Lokayukta does not have suo
moto powers of instigating an enquiry.
Kerala State has an Ombudsman for Local Self Government institutions like Panchayats, Municipalities and
Corporations.
He or she can enquire/investigate into allegations of action, inaction, corruption and maladministration. A
retired Judge of the High Court is appointed by the Governor for a term of three years, under the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act.
In the State of Rajasthan, the Lokayukta institution was established in 1973 after the Rajasthan Lokayukta and
Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1973 was passed by the State Legislature.
Ombudsman in different sectors
  Electricity Ombudsman
 Insurance ombudsman
 Banking ombudsman
 Income tax ombudsman
 Anti- corruption ombudsman
The 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement led by social activist Anna Hazare includes in its demands the
creation of a stronger ombudsman agency (with jurisdiction over all State institutions) through the enactment
of a Jan Lokpal Bill, as an alternative to the Lokpal Bill proposed and later on it was enacted by the government
by certain modifications.

Civil Vigilance Commission

History
Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) is an apex Indian governmental body created in 1964 to address
governmental corruption.
It has the status of an autonomous body, free of control from any executive authority, charged with monitoring
all vigilance activity under the Central Government of India, and advising various authorities in central
Government organizations in planning, executing, reviewing and reforming their vigilance work.
It was set up by the Government of India in February, 1964 on the recommendations of the Committee on
Prevention of Corruption, headed by Shri K. Santhanam, to advise and guide Central Government agencies in
the field of vigilance.
The Annual Report of the CVC not only gives the details of the work done by it but also brings out the system
failures which leads to corruption in various Departments/Organisations, system improvements, various
preventive measures and cases in which the Commission's advises were ignored etc.
The current Central Vigilance Commissioner is Sanjay Kothari He took charge on 25 April 2020.
Role of CVC
The CVC is not an investigating agency, and works through either the CBI or through the Departmental Chief
Vigilance Officers.
The only investigation carried out by the CVC is that of examining Civil Works of the Government which is
done through the Chief Technical Officer.
Corruption investigations against government officials can proceed only after the government permits them.
The CVC publishes a list of cases where permissions are pending, some of which may be more than a year
old.
The Ordinance of 1998 conferred statutory status to the CVC and the powers to exercise superintendence over
functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, and also to review the progress of the investigations
pertaining to alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 conducted by them.
In 1998 the Government introduced the CVC Bill in the Lok Sabha in order to replace the Ordinance, though
it was not successful. The Bill was reintroduced in 1999 and remained with the Parliament till September
2003, when it became an Act after being duly passed in both the Houses of Parliament. The CVC has also
been publishing a list of corrupt government officials against which it has recommended punitive action.
Appointment of CVC
The Central Vigilance Commissioner and the Vigilance Commissioners are appointed by the President after
obtaining the recommendation of a Committee consisting of:
  The Prime Minister — Chairperson
 The Home Minister — Member.
 The Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha — Member
Removal
The Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance Commissioner can be removed from his office only by
order of the President on the ground of proved misbehavior or incapacity after the Supreme Court, on a
reference made to it by the President, has, on inquiry, reported that the Central Vigilance Commissioner or
any Vigilance Commissioner, as the case may be, ought to be removed.
The President may suspend from office, and if deem necessary prohibit also from attending the office during
inquiry, the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance Commissioner in respect of whom a reference
has been made to the Supreme Court until the President has passed orders on receipt of the report of the
Supreme Court on such reference.
The President may, by order, remove from office the Central Vigilance Commissioner or any Vigilance
Commissioner if the Central Vigilance Commissioner or such Vigilance Commissioner, as the case may be:
 is adjudged an insolvent; or
 has been convicted of an offence which, in the opinion of the Central Government, involves moral
turpitude; or
 engages during his term of office in any paid employment outside the duties of his office; or
 is, in the opinion of the President, unfit to continue in office by reason of infirmity of mind or body;
or
 has acquired such financial or other interest as is likely to affect prejudicially his functions as a Central
Vigilance Commissioner or a Vigilance Commissioner (As per CVC Act, 2003)
Organization
The CVC is headed by a Central Vigilance Commissioner who is assisted by two Vigilance Commissioners.
The Central Vigilance Commission has its own Secretariat, Chief Technical Examiners’ Wing (CTE) and a
wing of Commissioners for Departmental Inquiries (CDI).
Powers and Function
Exercise superintendence over the functioning of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI) insofar as it
relates to the investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; or an offence under the
Cr.P.C for certain categories of public servants – section 8(1)(a)
Give directions to the DSPE in Special Police Establishment (CBI) for superintendence insofar as it relates to
the investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – section 8(1)(b)
To inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made on a reference by the Central Government – section
8(1)(c) To inquire or cause an inquiry or investigation to be made into any complaint received against any
official belonging to such category of officials specified in Sub-section 2 of Section 8 of the CVC Act, 2003
– section 8(1)(d)
Review the progress of investigations conducted by the DSPE into offences alleged to have been committed
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or an offence under the Cr.P.C – section 8(1)(e)
Review the progress of the applications pending with the competent authorities for sanction of prosecution
under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – section8(1)(f)
Tender advice to the Central Government and its organizations on such matters as may be referred to it by
them – section 8(1)(g)
Exercise superintendence over the vigilance administrations of the various Central Government Ministries,
Departments and organizations of the Central Government- section 8(1)(h)
Shall have all the powers of a Civil court while conducting any inquiry – section 11
Respond to Central Government on mandatory consultation with the Commission before making any rules or
regulations governing the vigilance or disciplinary matters relating to the persons appointed to the public
services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or to members of the All India Services – section
19
The Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC) is also the Chairperson of the two Committees, on whose
recommendations, the Central Government appoints the Director of the Delhi Special Police Establishment
and the Director of Enforcement –section 25 and section 26
The Committee concerned with the appointment of the Director CBI is also empowered to recommend, after
consultation with the Director (CBI), appointment of officers to the posts of the level of SP and above in DSPE
– section 26
The Committee concerned with the appointment of the Director of Enforcement is also empowered to
recommend, after consultation with the Director of Enforcement appointment of officers to the posts of the
level of Deputy Director and above in the Directorate of Enforcement – section 25
Limitations
CVC is only an advisory body. Central Government Departments are free to either accept or reject CVC's
advice in corruption cases.
CVC does not have adequate resources compared with number of complaints that it receives. It is a very small
set up with a sanctioned staff strength of 299. Whereas, it is supposed to check corruption in more than 1500
central government departments and ministries.
CVC cannot direct CBI to initiate inquiries against any officer of the level of Joint Secretary and above on its
own. Such a permission has to be obtained from the concerned department.
CVC does not have powers to register criminal case. It deals only with vigilance or disciplinary cases.
CVC has supervisory powers over CBI. However, CVC does not have the power to call for any file from CBI
or to direct CBI to investigate any case in a particular manner. CBI is under administrative control of
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). Which means that, the powers to appoint, transfer, suspend
CBI officers lie with DoPT.
Appointments to CVC are indirectly under the control of Govt. of India, though the leader of the Opposition
(in Lok Sabha) is a member of the Committee to select CVC and VCs. But the Committee considers candidates
put up before it. These candidates are decided by the Government.
As a result, although CVC is relatively independent in its functioning, it has neither resources nor powers to
inquire and take action on complaints of corruption that may act as an effective deterrence against corruption.
Vigilance Awareness Week
Driven by the Central Vigilance Commission, Vigilance Awareness Week (VAW) is being celebrated every
year during the last week of October and coincides with the birthday of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, known to
be a man of high integrity. To make\ a New India by the year 2022, which is the 75th anniversary of our
independence, the Vigilance Awareness Week is being celebrated in promoting integrity and eradicating
corruption.
It is undoubtedly true that the corruption, a serious and complex malaise, hinders the growth of a nation,
generate inequalities in the distribution of wealth and lowers the level of Government's income. To build a
new India, multifaceted strategies are required to fight against corruption and to generate awareness in the
public at large regarding the existence, reasons and the ill effects of corruption.
Case Law: Centre for PIL & Anr v. Union of India & Anr. (WRIT PETITION (C) No. 348 of 2010)-
PJ Thomas was appointed as the Chief Vigilance Commissioner in September 2010, on the recommendation
of a High Powered Committee (HPC) headed by the Prime Minister of India. The selection of the new CVC
was marked by controversies, after Sushma Swaraj, who was part of three-member selection committee,
objected to the choice of Thomas, citing the pending charge sheet against him. A public interest litigation was
filed in the Supreme Court of India by Centre for Public Interest Litigation and India Rejuvenation Initiative.
On March 3, 2011, the Supreme Court quashed the appointment of Thomas as the Chief Vigilance
Commissioner, noting that the HPC did not consider the relevant materials on the pending charge sheet.
Subsequently, Mr. Thomas resigned.
Case Law: Sunil Kumar Banerjee v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1980 SC 1170)-
The appellant was a member of the Indian Administrative Service. In an enquiry under rule 8 of the All India
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 against him the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries,
Vigilance Commission, West Bengal was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. He held that certain charges
framed against the appellant were proved, certain others were partly proved and one was considered to be a
technical omission rather than a serious lapse.
The State Vigilance Commission expressed its view on the Enquiry Officer's Report. Thereafter, after
consulting the Union Public Service Commission, the State Government, which was the Disciplinary
Authority, imposed on the appellant the punishment of reduction in rank from the stage of Rs. 2,750 p.m. to
the stage of Rs. 2,500 p.m. with certain other consequences.
The appellant's writ petition was dismissed by a single Judge of the High Court and his appeal to the Division
Bench was also dismissed.
The SC held that, there is no substance in the contention that the 1955 rules and not 1969 rules were followed.
The charges framed against the appellant as well as in the first show- cause notice, the reference was clearly
to the 1969 rules.
The appellant himself mentioned in one of his letters that the charges had been framed under 1969 rules. The
enquiry report mentioned that the Enquiry Officer was appointed under the 1969 rules. The Court dismissed
the petition.
Case Law: Md. Iqbal Ahmad v. State of A.P. (AIR 1979 SC 677)-
The appellant who was charged with an offence under s. 5(2) read with s.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 was acquitted by the Special Judge. But the High Court on appeal by the State, reversed
the judgment of the Special Judge and convicted him.
In appeal to SC it was contended on behalf of the appellant that there was no evidence to show on what
materials the sanctioning authority applied its mind before granting the sanction under s.6 of the Act. The
entire proceedings are void ab initio.
The SC has held that, the prosecution of the appellant was without valid sanction and, therefore, cognizance
taken by the Special Judge was without jurisdiction.
Any case instituted without proper sanction must fail as the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio.
Therefore, the prosecution must prove that valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority.
The sanctioning authority must be satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting offence.
Case Law: R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay (AIR 1984 SC 684)-
The appellant, R.S. Nayak, filed a complaint against the respondent, A.R. Antualy, a public servant being the
Chief Minister of Maharashtra State under Sections 161, 165 I.P.C. and Sec 5 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 alleging abuse of office of Chief Minister. The complaint was rejected on account of absence of
necessary sanction of the Governor of Maharashtra State under Sec 6 of the 1947 Act to prosecute the
respondent. After the Governor issued necessary sanction, the appellant filed a fresh complaint in the Court
of Special Judge against the respondent on the same grounds.
However, on the date of filing fresh complaint the respondent had already resigned as Chief Minister. The
respondent contended that the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to try him under Sec 7 of the Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1952 and that no cognizance could be taken on private complaint.
The Special Judge rejected both the contentions. In the meantime, the State Government issued a notification
under Sec 7(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 under which the case was transferred to another
Special Judge. In a criminal revision application filed by the respondent against the order of earlier Special
Judge, a Division Bench of the High Court held that the Special Judge had jurisdiction to try the respondent
and that the private complaint was maintainable.
When the latter Special Judge proceeded with the case the respondent filed an application for his discharge on
the grounds that the charge against him was baseless and that he being a Member of legislative Assembly
(M.L.A) requisite sanction under Sec 6 of the 1947 Act was necessary. The Special Judge discharged the
respondent holding that the respondent being M.L.A was a public servant within Sec 21 (12)(a) of I.P.C. and
in the absence of the sanction of the Legislative Assembly he could not take cognizance of offence.
The SC held that M.L.A. is not a public servant under clauses (12)(a), (3) and (7) of Sec 21 I.P.C. and no
sanction under s.6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 is necessary to prosecute him. It is not necessary
to ascertain which would be the authority competent to sanction prosecution of M.L.A.

The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013

The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 mandated for the establishment of Lokpal at the Union level and
Lokayukta at the State level. Lokpal and Lokayuktas are statutory bodies and these do not have any
constitutional status. These institutions perform the function and role of an “Ombudsman” (an official
appointed to investigate individuals’ complaints against a company or organization, especially a public
authority). They inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public bodies/organizations and for other
related matters.
Origin and History
The story of the Lokpal and the Lokayukta has a long story. Lokpal and Lokayukta is not Indian origin concept.
The concept of ombudsman originated in 1809 with the official inauguration of the institution of Ombudsman
in Sweden. Later in the 20th century, after the Second World War, the institution of ombudsman developed
and grew most significantly. Countries like New Zealand and Norway also adopted the system of ombudsman
in the year 1962. This system proved extremely significant in spreading the concept of ombudsman to other
countries across the globe.
Great Britain adopted the institution of the Ombudsman in the year 1967, on the recommendations of the
Whyatt Report of 1961. Through the adoption of such a system, Great Britain became the first eminent nation
in the democratic world to have such an anti-corruption institution. After great Britain, Guyana emerged as
the first developing nation to adopt the concept of the ombudsman in the year 1966. Subsequently, this concept
was further adopted by Mauritius, Singapore, Malaysia, and India as well.
In India, the former law minister Ashok Kumar Sen became the first Indian to propose the concept of
constitutional Ombudsman in Parliament in the early 1960s. Further, Dr. L. M. Singhvi coined the term Lokpal
and Lokayukta. Later in the year 1966, the First Administrative Reform Commission passed recommendations
regarding the setting up of two independent authorities at the central and at the state level. According to the
commission’s recommendation, the two independent authorities were appointed to look into complaints
against public functionaries, including members of Parliament as well.
After the recommendations from the commission, the Lokpal bill was passed in Lok Sabha in 1968 but lapsed
due to the dissolution of Lok Sabha. Since then, the bill was introduced many times in Lok Sabha but has
lapsed. Till 2011 as many as eight attempts were made to pass the Bill, but each of them failed.
Before 2011, a commission, headed by M.N. Venkatachaliah, was also set up, in the year 2002 to review the
working of the Constitution. This Commission recommended the appointment of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas.
The commission also recommended that the Prime Minister ought to be kept out of the ambit of the Lokpal.
Later in 2005, the Second Administrative Reforms Commission chaired by Veerappa Moily came up with the
recommendation that the office of Lokpal needs to be established without delay.
Though all these recommendations were never given the due preference, the government in 2011 formed a
Group of Ministers, chaired by the former President Pranab Mukherjee. These groups of ministers worked to
examine the proposal of a Lokpal Bill and to suggest measures to tackle corruption.
Not only the administration and the government but even the people of India felt the need for such a system
to be introduced into the Indian governance system. India rose into a nationwide protest for Lokpal. The “India
Against Corruption” movement was led by Anna Hazare to exert pressure on the United Progressive Alliance
(UPA) government at the Centre.
The protests and the movement resulted in the passing of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2013, in both the
Houses of Parliament. The bill received assent from President on 1 January 2014 and came into force on 16
January 2014 under the name “The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013”.
Lokpal and Lokayukta Amendment Act, 2016
After the introduction of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013, a bill was passed by Parliament in July 2016
which amended the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013. This amendment enabled the leader of the single largest
opposition party in the Lok Sabha to become a member of the selection committee in the absence of a
recognized Leader of Opposition.
This bill also amended Section 44 of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013. Section 44 of the Act dealt with the
provisions of furnishing of details of assets and liabilities, within 30 days of joining the government service,
of any public servant. This amendment replaced the time limit of 30 days. It stated that the public servants
will make a declaration of their assets and liabilities in the form and manner as prescribed by the government.
In the case where any non-governmental organization receives funds of more than Rs. 1 crore from
government or receives foreign funding of more than Rs. 10 lakh then the assets of the trustees and board
members were to be disclosed to the Lokpal. The bill provided an extension to the time limit given to trustees
and board members to declare their assets and those of their spouses.
Structure of the Lokpal
Lokpal is a multi-member body consisting of one chairperson and a maximum of 8 members.
The person to be appointed as the chairperson of the Lokpal must be either:
1. The former Chief Justice of India; or
2. The former Judge of the Supreme Court; or
3. An eminent person with impeccable integrity and outstanding ability, who must possess special
knowledge and a minimum experience of 25 years in matters relating to:
 Anti-corruption policy
 Public administration
 Vigilance
  Finance including insurance and banking
 Law and management
The maximum number of members must not exceed eight. These eight members must constitute:
 Half members to be judicial members.
 Minimum 50% of the Members should be from SC/ ST/ OBC/ minorities and women.
The judicial member of the Lokpal must be either:
 A former Judge of the Supreme Court, or
 A former Chief Justice of the High Court.
The non-judicial member of the Lokpal needs to be an eminent person with flawless integrity and outstanding
ability. The person must possess special knowledge and an experience of a minimum of 25 years in matters
relating to:
 Anti-corruption policy
 Public administration
 Vigilance
 Finance including insurance and banking
 Law and management
Term and appointment to the office of Lokpal
Lokpal Chairman and the Members can hold the office for a term of 5 years or till they attain the age of 70
years, whichever is earlier. The members and the chairman of Lokpal are appointed by the president on the
recommendation of a selection committee.
The selection committee consists of:
 The Prime Minister of India
 The Speaker of Lok Sabha
 The Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha
 The Chief Justice of India or any Judge nominated by Chief Justice of India
 One eminent jurist
The Prime Minister is the Chairperson of the selection committee. The selection of the chairperson and the
members is carried out by a search panel of at least eight persons, constituted by the selection committee.
Jurisdiction and powers of Lokpal
The Jurisdiction of Lokpal extends to:
 Prime Minister, Ministers,
 Members of Parliament,
 Groups A, B, C and D officers,
 Officials of Central Government.
The Jurisdiction of the Lokpal extends to the Prime Minister, except in the cases of allegations of corruption
relating to:
 International relations
 Security
 The public order
 Atomic energy and space
The jurisdiction of the Lokpal does not include ministers and members of Parliament in the matter relating to:
  Any speeches delivered in the Parliament, or
 For a vote cast in the Parliament.
Lokpal’s jurisdiction also includes:
 Every person who is or has been in charge (director/ manager/ secretary) of a body or a society set up
by the act of central government,
 Any society or body financed or controlled by the central government,
 Any person involved in act of abetting,
 Bribe giving or bribe-taking.
The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act states that all public officials need to furnish their assets and liabilities as well
as their respective dependents. The Lokpal also possesses the powers to superintendence over the CBI. It also
has the authority to give direction to CBI. If a case is referred to CBI by the Lokpal, then the investigating
officer in such a case cannot be transferred without the prior approval of the Lokpal. The powers of a civil
court have been vested with the Inquiry Wing of the Lokpal.
The Lokpal also possesses powers regarding the confiscation of assets, proceeds, receipts, and benefits arisen
or procured by means of corruption in special circumstances. It also has the power to make recommendations
regarding the transfer or suspension of public servants connected with the allegations of corruption.
Lokpal is capable of giving directions to prevent the destruction of records during the preliminary inquiry.
Limitations
The institution of Lokpal came up as a much-needed change in the battle against corruption. The Lokpal was
a weapon to curtail the corruption that was spreading in the entire administrative structure of India. But at the
same time, there are loopholes and lacunae which need to be corrected. The appointing committee of Lokpal
consists of members from political parties that put Lokpal under political influence.
There are no criteria to decide who is an ‘eminent jurist’ or ‘a person of integrity’ which manipulates the
method of the appointment of Lokpal. The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013 failed to provide any kind of
concrete immunity to the whistleblowers. The provision related to the initiation of inquiry against the
complainant, in cases where the accused is found innocent, leads to discouraging people from making
complaints. One of the biggest lacunae is the exclusion of the judiciary from the ambit of the Lokpal.
The Lokpal does not have any constitutional backing. Also, there are no adequate provisions for appeal against
the actions of Lokpal. The states have complete discretion with respect to the specific details in relation to the
appointment of Lokayukta. The need for functional independence of the CBI has been catered to some extent,
by the change brought forth in the selection process of CBI’s Director, by the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act.
The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act also mandates that no complaint against corruption can be registered after a
period of seven years from the date on which the mentioned offense is alleged to have been committed.

The Right Information Act, 2005

The journey of the Right To Information from a "Bill" to an "Act" may be divided into three phases.
PHASE 1:1975 to 1996 - There were infrequent, irregular demands to public and private authorities for
information, from various constituent social groups, coming to a crescendo in more focused ones in the mid-
1980s. Grassroots movements in rural Rajasthan in the early 1990s were a major push. The National Campaign
for People's Right to Information (NCPRI) was formed in 1996, and that culminated this phase. Various
judicial orders in support of transparency were seen during this period.
PHASE 2: 1996 to 2005 - This phase is marked by the formulation of a draft RTI bill, spearheaded by the
NCPRI. The subsequent processing by the government and the Parliament of the same is too, a bit of it. Rapid
growth in size and influence of the RTI movement in India was seen, and as the National RTI Act was passed
in 2005, this phase came to a close. This is also the period that sees a large number of countries across the
world enact transparency laws.
PHASE 3: 2005 - The consolidation of the Act and on pushing for proper implementation has been taken up
as the new challenge. Part of the effort has also been to afford protection to the RTI Act from any attempt to
weaken it by those in power and being called "public" authorities. To push the boundaries of the RTI regime
and make it deeper and wider in coverage, participation, and impact is a matter gaining rapid importance. The
increasing efforts to look at the Constitutional perspective and newer applications bringing out loopholes in
the form of relevant questions can be seen here.
An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the
working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information
Commissions and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto.
RTI came into force on the 12th October, 2005
Who is covered under RTI?
 The Central RTI Act extends to the whole of India.
 All bodies are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Government are covered.
 Central Public Information Officers or State Public Information Officers.

Rights available under RTI 2005

Right to Information Act 2005 empowers every citizen to -
 Ask any questions from the Government or seek any information.
 Take copies of any government documents.
 Inspect any government documents.
 Inspect any Government works
 Take samples of materials of any Government work.
Obtaining Information
 Receive request
 Payment of fee
 SPIO solicit assistance
 Provide information
Fee payment
 In person by paying cash
 By Post through: Demand Draft, Indian Postal Order, Money orders (only in some states), Affixing
Court fee Stamp (only in some states), Banker’s cheques.
Exemptions
 Affects the sovereignty and integrity of India.
 Forbidden by any court of law or tribunal.
 Breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature.
 Information related to agencies mentioned in the Second Schedule of the Act.
 Commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property.
 Information from a foreign government.
 Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries or
prosecution of offenders.
 Information which relates to personal matters, the disclosure of which has no bearing on any public
activity or interest.
Penalties under the Act
 If concerned officer does not provide information in time, a penalty of Rs 250 per day of delay can be
imposed by the Information Commissioner.
 If the information provided is false, a penalty of a maximum of Rs 25000 can be imposed.
 A penalty can also be imposed for providing incomplete or for rejecting your application for mala fide
reasons.
 This fine is deducted from the officer’s personal salary.
Impact of RTI on Indian Society
1. Greater Transparency
With a view to ensuring maximum disclosure of information regarding government rules, regulations and
decisions, every public authority is mandated to maintain all its records. This has increased the interaction
between the public authorities and the society.
 Request any information.
 Take copies of documents.
 Inspect documents, works and records.
 Take certified samples of materials of work.
 Obtain information in form of printouts, diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes 'or in any other
electronic mode' or through printouts.
The RTI applications filed by activists Yogacharya Anandji and Simpreet Singh in 2008 exposed the infamous
Adarsh Housing society scam, which eventually led to the resignation of the then Maharashtra chief minister
Ashok Chavan.
That RTI application revealed that flats in the Adarsh Housing Society, a 31-storey building, which was
originally meant to provide residence for war widows and veterans, were used to house politicians, bureaucrats
and their relatives.
In the 2G scam, in which the then Telecom Minister A Raja undercharged mobile phone companies for
frequency allocation licenses and caused a loss of Rs 1.76 lakh crore to the Indian government, an RTI
application by Subhash Chandra Agrawal revealed that Raja had a “15-minute-long” meeting with then
solicitor-general Goolam E Vahanvati in December 2007 after which a "brief note was prepared and handed
over to the minister", but the minutes of the meeting were not recorded.
The RTI Act was also used to expose corruption after the Commonwealth Games scam, in which the corrupt
deals by politician Suresh Kalmadi embarrassed the nation. The report said that an RTI application filed by
non-profit Housing and Land Rights Network showed that the then Delhi government had diverted Rs 744
crore from social welfare projects for Dalits to the Commonwealth Games from 2005-06 to 2010-11.
In 2007, the RTI request filed by Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti, an NGO, revealed irregularities in the
distribution of food meant for people living below the poverty line by the public distribution system in Assam.
In 2008, an RTI application by a Punjab-based NGO revealed that heads of the local branches of the Indian
Red Cross Society had used money intended for the victims of the Kargil war and natural disasters to buy cars,
air-conditioners and pay for hotel bills.
In July 2016 said that an RTI query showed that only 12 members of the Maharashtra Cabinet have declared
their assets and liabilities details as per Central governments code of conduct for ministers. Another one filed
by social activist Anil Galgali showed that as many as 118 complaints of sexual harassment were filed at the
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) between 2013 TO 2016.
An RTI query filed by Child Rights and You (CRY) revealed in May this year that twenty-two children go
missing in the national capital everyday with most of them being boys aged upto 12 years.
2. Citizen-Centric Approach to Development
Now Govt. has shifted to citizen centric approach of development. Now the Government is aware of this fact
that the citizens can ask for any type of information and now the approach is concerned with the development
of the country.
3. Democratization of information and knowledge
Information and knowledge regarding the activities of the government is easily available now. The Govt. is
easily assessable.
4. Reduction in Corruption
Lack of transparency and accountability encourage the government officials to indulge in corrupt practices,
which result in lower investments due to misuse or diversion of funds for private purposes. But RTI Act has
reduced corruption to a great deal because Govt. is aware of the fact that now it can be asked for any type of
information so it needs to be cautious.
5. Promotion of Citizen-Government Partnership
The RTI Act provides a framework for promotion of citizen government partnership in carrying out the
programmes for welfare of the people.
6. Greater Accountability
It means that the Govt. is required or expected to justify actions or decisions which it is taking in the name of
welfare of the people. If anyone isn’t getting the benefits which come under the Govt. policies, then he/she
can make use of RTI Act.
Information not to be disclosed under RTI
 Strategic, scientific or economic information is not open for disclosure.
 Information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property.
 Information received in confidence from foreign Government.
 Information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person.
 Cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other
officers.
Recommendations
 Awareness programmes for villagers can be started so that they come to know about RTI Act.
 Procedure for application filing can be simplified and duration after which information is provided can
be reduced so that the information can be easily transferred to those citizens who are willing to have
that information.