Ombudsman is The Sensational Knight For Administrative Fails

INTRODUCTION

Ombudsman is also known as the watchdog of the administration or protector of the “little man”. The “little man” refers to the citizens who may get overwhelmed by the interpersonal bureaucratic system. The chances of administrative failure with regards to the life of a citizen, his person, or property have increased tremendously. This is due to the proliferation of administrative agencies affecting the life of citizens in every conceivable aspect.

Origin and Global Adoption

The post of the ombudsman was created in order to protect a person from administrative abuse. This institution of ombudsman was first developed in Sweden in the year 1809. It soon turned into an important and cherished commodity. It was imported all over the world. This institution of ombudsman is unique in its own right. It leads to an open government by providing a democratic control mechanism. This control is over the powers of the state.

In modern democracies, the post of an ombudsman has become quite a necessity. In the 21st century, almost all countries have undergone a change. They moved from the system of laissez-faire to a system of regulation. This is due to the fact that the new economic policy changed the state’s role. The state now acts as a facilitator, enabler and regulator. Due to this change in systems, friction chances have increased. There is now more conflict between a government official and a private citizen.

The institution of the ombudsman is of great importance. It strives to protect the “little man” against administrative failures. It keeps a check on the administration during present times. Individual justice against administrative failures may slip into a low visibility zone.

 

Ensuring Administrative Accountability

The role of the ombudsman is only that of a non-adversarial adjudicator of disputes. The ombudsman acts as an alternative to the adversarial system. This is for resolution of disputes between citizens and government agencies. The ombudsman is an independent and non-partisan officer. They look after specific complaints from citizens against administrative bodies. These are cases involving injustice and maladministration. Court jurisdiction prevails over the ombudsman in pending cases, restricting the ombudsman from exercising authority.

OMBUDSMAN AND DEVELOPMENT IN ENGLAND

The first office of the ombudsman was established in the year 1967 in England through Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967. Under this Act, the ombudsman was known as the Parliamentary Commissioner. This parliamentary commissioner was appointed on the advice of the Prime Minister with a tenure of 65 years and this Parliamentary Commissioner was to be the permanent appointee under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967 who enjoyed the security of the high court judge. The Act grants the parliamentary commissioner jurisdiction over the central government as outlined in the Second Schedule. The British Parliament enacted a law in the year 1974 to enhance the jurisdiction of parliamentary commissioners. This enhancement was to be made at the local government level. Due to this, the local councillors could launch complaints against the local government body in order to seek redressal. It is also it is to be noted that complaints against the administration cannot be made to the ombudsman, but the ombudsman can receive complaints only through the members of the House of Commons.

OMBUDSMAN'S ROLE IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

In the United States of America, the concept of “Ombudsmania” is very common. However, the office of ombudsman has exists in only three states namely, Hawaii, Nebraska and Oregon for local government agencies. Even though a bill has been introduced every year to establish the office of an ombudsman since the year 1963. The reason for the failure of establishing the office of an ombudsman in the states is often observed to be because of because in the United States the institution of ombudsman is considered to be an attack on the pride of the status and power of the members of the Congress as they believe that it is their sole duty to represent their constituencies and handle the grievances of their citizens. It is also noted that departments like the police and review boards perform the functions of the ombudsman.

OMBUDSMAN IN INDIA

In India, the suggestion for the institution of an office of the Ombudsman was given by M. Setalvad in his speech at the All India Lawyer's Conference, which was held in the year 1962 It was considered to be a suitable idea which the Administrative Reforms Commission thoroughly investigated, and they arrived on a definite suggestion and placed it before the government in their interim report. On October 14, 1966, the government passed the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill in Parliament in 1968 based on this commission. However, this bill was allowed to lapse. This bill was again introduced in the year 1971, but it was also allowed to last in lapse again then again in the year 1977. Another attempt was made it by the Joint Selection Committee of the Parliament in the 1979 monsoon session, but due to the resignation of Prime Minister decided this session was a not signed.

Proposed Lokpal Bills and Public Reaction

In 1985, a different Lokpal Bill was introduced in Parliament, restricted to offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The new Bill drew violent protest from the public as they were against it. This was why the government withdrew it again, citing its highly limited jurisdiction. In 1989, another Lokpal Bill was introduced in Parliament, but it did not develop into an Act. Then in the 1990s, India adopted its new liberal economic policy and due to the lack of proper accountability mechanisms and lack of effective control investigation and prosecution, a strong demand was made for the establishment of lokpal at the centre. Then again in the year 1993, the monsoon session of the Parliament was held and a promise to appoint a lokpal was made which would look into the corruption of the government. However, this too proved to be a failure. The Bill was introduced in the year 1997 in the budget session of the Parliament, however, because of the fall of the government, this Bill again did not lead to the evolution of becoming an Act.

Anna Hazare's Campaign and the Jan Lokpal Bill

In 2011, the demand for the institution of Lokpal and lokayukta gained momentum when social activist Anna Hazare went on fast unto death to push for the Jan Lokpal Bill. The salient features of this Bill included constitutional position for lokpal and Lokayukta. This Bill proposed transparency and merger of anti-corruption agencies like Central vigilance commission, vigilance department and anti-corruption branch of the Central bureau of investigation and to sort of extend its jurisdiction to all public officers. However, no agreement could be reached. And now the government has decided to circulate both the Bills. Its own as well as that of Anna Hazare’s for wider consultations with all political parties. The failure creation of the institution of Lokayukta is due to the fact that it has received a lot of criticism with regards to it being essentially against the basic feature of the Constitution, as it is observed that the office of the Lokayukta would result in to it holding a superior position to that of the legislature, executive and Judiciary. The Lokayukta would also be devoid of any control or system of checks over it. Thus, it would result into absolutism and would be antithesis to the concept of natural justice and rule of law.

Functioning of Lokayukta at the State Level

The conception of the institution of the Lokayukta at the Central level is rather doubtful however, the institution of the Lokayukta is functioning in thirteen states. These states are Assam, Bihar Gujarat Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Orissa, Punjab, Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir where various investigating bodies function. Also, in the case of Delhi, the institution of ombudsman is in existence.

CONCLUSION

In India, the failure of the institution of the office of the Ombudsman despite several attempts are due to several reasons. For example, it is often criticised that the failure of the institution of the Lokayukta was due to the reason of lack of political will to combat corruption, the politicisation of appointment of the Lokayukta, lack of infrastructural facilities, lack of public cooperation, lack of political ability, lack of public cooperation for fear of reprisals, lack of independent investigatory machinery and advisory nature of recommendations. It is observed that the institution itself can is also responsible for its failure. This is because there exists an impression that the Lokayukta is a government nominee who is appointed to protect the government and to demolish the opposition. Also, the courts have observed that any inquiry by the Lokayukta against a public servant in cases of corruption cannot be considered as an inquiry under the CCA rules.