< Previous | Contents | Next >
1. The CBI comes under the administrative control of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) of the Ministry of Personnel.
2. The Hindu, "No sanction needed for CBI to probe bureaucrats: SC,” May 7, 2014.
3. Annual Report 2012, Central Bureau of Investigation, Government of India, pp. 92-93.
Modern democratic states are characterised by a welfare orientation. Hence, the government has come to play an important role in the socio-economic development of a nation. This has resulted in the expansion of bureaucracy and the multiplication of administrative process, which in turn increased the administrative power and discretion enjoyed by the civil servants at different levels of the government. The abuse of this power and discretion by civil servants opens up scope for harassment, malpractices, maladministration and corruption. Such a situation gives rise to citizens’ grievances against administration1 .
The success of democracy and the realisation of socio-economic development depends on the extent to which the citizens’ grievances are redressed. Therefore, the following institutional devices have 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 the following matters:
(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
(vii) Direct, simple, informal, cheap and speedy method of handling
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. He is appointed for a tenure of seven years.
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 and hears public grievances and takes immediate action wherever possible.
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 Gandhi.
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.