Corruption, maladministration and the ombudsman: Lokpal and Lokayukta

1. Administrative deviance: corruption and maladministration

Corruption is the misuse of public office for private gain: bribery, extortion, nepotism, embezzlement, accumulation of assets disproportionate to known income. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (substantially amended in 2018) defines the offences. Maladministration is wider. The phrase used when the British Parliamentary Commissioner was created in 1967, the “Crossman catalogue”, lists bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, ineptitude, perversity, turpitude and arbitrariness.

Causes commonly listed: wide discretion without accountability, complex procedures that create opportunities for rent-seeking, low pay and weak incentives in parts of the service, political interference in postings, delay in disciplinary action, and lack of transparency.

Control mechanisms (the syllabus asks for these):

• Internal: departmental supervision, vigilance officers in every ministry and public undertaking, conduct rules, disciplinary proceedings, annual property returns.
• Investigative and prosecuting: the Central Bureau of Investigation (Delhi Special Police Establishment), State anti-corruption police, the Central Vigilance Commission (next note).
• Ombudsman-type: the Lokpal and the Lokayuktas.
• Parliamentary: questions, committees, the Comptroller and Auditor General.
• Judicial: writs, PIL, and criminal trials by special courts.
• Transparency: the Right to Information Act, 2005, citizens' charters, social audit, e-governance.

2. The ombudsman

The office began in Sweden in 1809, when the Riksdag appointed the Justitieombudsman to supervise the observance of laws by officials and courts. Finland (1919), Denmark (1955), Norway (1962) and New Zealand (1962) followed; the United Kingdom created the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in 1967. Common features:

• independence from the executive, usually appointed by or answerable to the legislature;
• power to receive complaints from citizens, and in some systems to act on his own motion;
• informal, inexpensive and private investigation, with access to departmental files;
• no power to quash or to punish; he recommends, and relies on publicity and on reports to the legislature to secure compliance.

In India, the First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966), in its interim report on problems of redress of citizens' grievances, recommended a Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in the States. Lokpal Bills were introduced from 1968 onwards and lapsed each time. The public movement of 2011 led to the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (Act 1 of 2014), which came into force on 16 January 2014. The first Chairperson and Members were appointed in March 2019.

3. The Lokpal: main features of the Act of 2013

• Composition (section 3). A Chairperson, who is or has been Chief Justice of India or a Judge of the Supreme Court, or an eminent person meeting the prescribed criteria; and up to eight Members, half of whom must be Judicial Members (former Supreme Court judges or High Court Chief Justices). Not less than half the Members must be from the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, minorities and women. Members of a legislature, persons below forty-five, and persons removed from public service are ineligible.
• Selection (section 4). The President appoints on the recommendation of a Selection Committee of the Prime Minister (chair), the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, the Chief Justice of India or a Supreme Court judge nominated by him, and an eminent jurist nominated by the President on the recommendation of the other four. A Search Committee of at least seven persons prepares a panel.
• Term (section 6). Five years or until the age of seventy, whichever is earlier.
• Jurisdiction (section 14). Allegations of corruption against a present or former Prime Minister, Union Ministers, Members of Parliament, Group A, B, C and D officers and officials of the Union, and officers of bodies established by Act of Parliament or financed or controlled by the Central Government. For the Prime Minister there are safeguards: no inquiry into allegations relating to international relations, external and internal security, public order, atomic energy and space; an inquiry only if the full bench considers it and at least two-thirds of the Members approve; proceedings in camera; and if the complaint is dismissed, the records are not published.
• Machinery. An Inquiry Wing (section 11) and a Prosecution Wing (section 12); a preliminary inquiry and investigation procedure (section 20); a hearing for persons likely to be prejudicially affected (section 21); power of superintendence and direction over the CBI in cases referred by the Lokpal (section 25); powers of search, seizure and of a civil court (sections 26 and 27); provisional attachment and confiscation of assets acquired by corruption (sections 29 to 31); power to recommend transfer or suspension of a public servant (section 32).
• Special Courts (section 35) to try cases arising under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 from Lokpal investigations.
• Removal (section 37). By the President on grounds of misbehaviour after an inquiry by the Supreme Court on a reference made on a petition signed by at least one hundred Members of Parliament, or for insolvency, unfitness and similar grounds.
• Limitation (section 53). No complaint after seven years from the date of the alleged offence.
• False complaints (section 46) are punishable, to deter frivolous complaints.
• Lokayuktas (section 63). Every State was to establish a Lokayukta by State law within one year of commencement, if it had not already done so.

Criticism: the Lokpal deals only with corruption, not with grievances or maladministration generally, so it is not a true ombudsman; the Prime Minister's safeguards are wide; the dependence on the CBI for investigation limits independence; the five-year delay in appointment weakened confidence at the start.

4. The Karnataka Lokayukta

Karnataka has one of the older and more active institutions, under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (Karnataka Act 4 of 1985), in force from 15 January 1986.

• Appointment (section 3). The Governor appoints the Lokayukta and one or more Upalokayuktas, on the advice of the Chief Minister given in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka, the Chairman of the Legislative Council, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Leaders of the Opposition in both Houses. The Lokayukta must have been a Supreme Court judge, a High Court Chief Justice, or a High Court judge for at least ten years; an Upalokayukta a High Court judge for at least five years.
• Term (section 5). Five years; no further office of profit under the State afterwards.
• Removal (section 6), only by order of the Governor after an address by each House of the Legislature, on proved misbehaviour or incapacity, with special majorities.
• Jurisdiction (section 7). The Lokayukta investigates action taken by or with the approval of the Chief Minister, Ministers, legislators, and chairpersons and members of State bodies and corporations, and of senior public servants; the Upalokayukta investigates other public servants. Both may investigate any complaint referred by the State Government.
• Grievances and allegations. The Act distinguishes a grievance (injustice or undue hardship from maladministration) from an allegation (abuse of position, corruption, lack of integrity). It therefore covers maladministration as well as corruption, closer to the classic ombudsman.
• Exclusions (section 8). Matters in the Second Schedule; grievances where the complainant has an unused remedy by appeal or revision; matters already before a formal public inquiry or a Commission of Inquiry with the Lokayukta's concurrence; and, unless sufficient cause is shown, grievances raised after six months and allegations after five years.
• Reports (section 12). On a grievance, the Lokayukta recommends redress to the competent authority, which must report the action taken. On an allegation found substantiated, he sends his findings and recommendations to the competent authority, which must report within three months. If not satisfied, he may make a special report to the Governor, which is laid before both Houses with an explanatory memorandum. An annual consolidated report is presented to the Governor.
• Section 13. Where an allegation is substantiated and the Lokayukta declares that the public servant should not continue in office, the competent authority may accept or reject the declaration after a hearing; if it is not rejected within three months, it is deemed accepted, and the public servant must resign or is deemed to have vacated office.
• Property statements (section 22) from public servants each year.

The Lokayukta in Karnataka has its own police wing for criminal investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act. In 2016 the State created a separate Anti-Corruption Bureau under the Government and withdrew those cases from the Lokayukta police; in 2022 the Karnataka High Court quashed the orders creating the Bureau, and the Lokayukta police's role was restored.

How this is examined

January 2026: a 6-mark note on the Lokpal. June 2025: a note on the Lokayukta in Karnataka. An essay on the ombudsman in India, or on corruption and maladministration and the control mechanisms, is also set. For the Lokpal note: origin (ARC 1966), the 2013 Act and its commencement, composition and selection, jurisdiction with the Prime Minister's safeguards, and one criticism. For the Karnataka Lokayukta: appointment, jurisdiction, the grievance and allegation distinction, reports and section 13.