Law and You > Administrative Law > Introduction to Ombudsman
The concept of Ombudsman at first originated in Sweden, a Scandinavian state, in 1809. The meaning of Ombudsman is a public official appointed to investigate individuals’ (citizen’s) complaints and the grievances against maladministration, especially that of public authority. Garner defines ombudsman as “an officer of parliament, having as his primary function, the duty of acting as an agent for parliament, for the purpose of safeguarding the citizen against abuse or misuse of administrative power by the executive”. Thus the Ombudsman is a grievance officer or Commissioner of Administration. If there are gross lapses in the functioning of the public administration the citizens have the power to lodge a complaint against the concerned authority. He is an officer of parliament.
Judges, Lawyers, or Higher Officers are qualified to be an Ombudsman. He is appointed by the Parliament, but the Parliament does not interfere with the functions of the Ombudsman. Ombudsman can make suggestions or recommendations for changes in the Administrative Law for higher transparency, efficiency, and justice.
Whether appointed by the legislature, the executive, or an organization, the typical duties of an ombudsman are to investigate constituent complaints and attempt to resolve them, usually through recommendations or mediation. Ombudsmen sometimes also aim to identify systemic issues leading to poor service or breaches of people’s rights.
Objectives of the Institution of Ombudsman: –
- To correct individual wrongs.
- To make bureaucracy more humane.
- To lessen popular alienation from government.
- To prevent abuses by acting as a bureaucratic watchdog.
- To vindicate civil servants when unjustly accused, and
- To introduce administrative reform.
Ombudsman is a supervisor of the Administrative Authority. It is the duty of the Ombudsman to inquire and investigate complaints made by the Government against the Administrative Authorities. Wide powers are conferred upon the Ombudsman to carry out such actions. The powers of Ombudsman are not restricted as powers of the Civil Court. Suo Moto action can be taken by him.
Information obtained by the Ombudsman in an investigation is confidential. At the conclusion of an investigation, the Ombudsman may make formal recommendations, including to:
- refer the matter to another agency;
- rectify administrative actions;
- vary administrative practice;
- reconsider the law which underpins administrative action; or
- give reasons for a decision.
This institution has some disadvantages. It can be successful in countries with lower populations but a single person cannot deal with complaints of the large populations as in the case of India. Such an institution may lose its hold if there are more than one person or there is a large number of sub-ordinate officers on whom the Ombudsman has to rely upon. Some jurists have considered this institution not suitable for India and would amount to an impractical and disastrous experiment.
Characteristics of the Ombudsman:
- Established as a separate entity that is functionally autonomous.
- Operationally independent of both the legislature and the executive.
- Ombudsman is a legally established governmental official, a monitoring specialist, administrative expert and professional.
- Non-partisan.
- Normatively universalistic.
- Client-centered, but not anti-administration.
- Popularly accessible and visible.
- High-status institutions
- Have extensive resources to perform his mission.
The Concept of Ombudsman in India:
The Ombudsman idea is not altogether a new idea for Indians. It was first talked of in the country by late Mr. K.M. Munshim167, who, in the national debate on the need for a Parliamentary Tribunal of Enquiry commended the Swedish practice of appointing an Ombudsman for controlling mal-administration. But the credit of generating a live interest on Ombudsman goes to Late Mr. M.C. Setalvad, then the Attorney General of India, in an inaugural address to the Third All India Law Conference in August 1962 (New Delhi) urged upon the participants to undertake a study about its feasibility in India. It was then spoken of by Dr. L.M. Singhvi, M.P., who raised the issue of setting up an office of Ombudsman in emphatic terms and consistently campaigned for it in Parliament during the years 1963 -1965. In July 1963, Mr. P.B. Gajendragadkar, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India, in his address to the IIPA made a strong plea for its adoption in India.
Recommendations of the First Administrative Reform Commission:
In its Report dated 20th October, 1966, ARC felt that the redressal of citizen’s grievances is basic to the functioning of the democratic governments, and will strengthen the hands of the government in administering the laws of the land, its policies “without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”, and enable it to go up in public faith and confidence without which progress would not be possible. It recommended the appointment of one authority called ‘LOKPAL’ dealing with complaints against the administrative acts of Ministers or Secretaries to Government at the Centre and in the States and another authority called ‘LOKAYUKTA’ in each State and at the Centre for dealing with complaints against the administrative acts of other officials. It also suggested the establishment of inbuilt departmental machinery within each Ministry or Department for providing redress against cases that arise at lower levels of administration. This will reduce the number of cases which will have to go to Lokpal or Lokayukta.
The Commission recommended following to be the main features of the institutions of Lokpal and Lokayukta
- They should be demonstrably independent and impartial.
- Their investigations and proceedings should be conducted in private and should be informal in character.
- Their appointment should, as far as, possible be nonpolitical.
- Their status should compare with the highest judicial functionaries in the country.
- They should deal with matters in the discretionary field involving acts of injustice, corruption or favouritism.
- Their proceedings should not be subject to judicial interference and they should have the maximum latitude and powers in obtaining information relevant to their duties.
- They should not look forward to any benefit or pecuniary advantage from the executive Government.
Nothing was done to pass the Bill to appoint the Lokpal and Lokayukta till 2011. Under the pressure of an anti-corruption movement launched by Anna Hazare, the Bill was passed on December 17, 2013, by Rajyasabha and on December 18, 2013, by Loksabha. The president of India gave assent to it on January 1, 2014, and came into force on January 16, 2014. In 2016 Lok Sabha agreed to amend the Lokpal Act.
Whilst Parliament continued to struggle unsuccessfully with Ombudsman legislation, several states in India took the initiative in the right direction. At the state level, Orissa was the first state to introduce a Lokayukta Bill in 1970. Maharashtra was the first state to establish the institution of the Lokayukta in 1972. Several other states including, Bihar, U.P., M.P., Assam. H.P., Gujarat, Kerala, Punjab, Haryana, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, and Uttrakhand, have also passed Ombudsman Law.
Retired Supreme Court judge Pinaki Chandra Ghose is appointed as the first Lokpal of India by a committee consisting of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Lok Sabha speaker Sumitra Mahajan on 23 March 2019