Lokayukta in Maharashtra: the 1971 Act, and the 2023 Act awaiting commencement

An Upa-Lokayukta may investigate the action of any public servant other than a Minister, Secretary or other public servant referred to in sub-section (1), on the same basis. The Lokayukta may, for reasons recorded in writing, investigate any action falling to an Upa-Lokayukta, whether or not a complaint has been made, which is the suo motu power.

Section 8 lists the matters not subject to investigation, which every Ombudsman statute contains.

The two key definitions

The Act works through two defined expressions in section 2, and an answer that gives them is much stronger than one that does not.

"Maladministration" means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where such action, or the administrative procedure or practice governing it, is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory, among other limbs.

"Grievance" is a complaint by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration, and "allegation" concerns abuse of position, corruption, improper motives or personal interest on the part of a public servant.

This is the point on which the 1971 Act differs from the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 and from the 2023 Act. The 1971 Act covers maladministration as well as corruption, which is the classical Ombudsman jurisdiction described in [The Ombudsman]. The 2013 Act is confined to corruption. So the older State Act is, on this measure, closer to the original idea than the modern central one.

Procedure and powers, sections 9 to 11

• Section 9: provisions relating to complaints, including who may complain and in what form.
• Section 10: procedure in respect of investigations, which is to be conducted in private, with the public servant concerned given an opportunity to be heard.
• Section 11: evidence, giving the Lokayukta the powers necessary to require information and the production of documents.

Reports, sections 12 and 17 to 18

• Section 12: reports of the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas. Where the investigation discloses that injustice or undue hardship has been caused, the Lokayukta reports his findings and recommendations to the competent authority, which is required to examine the report and communicate the action taken. If the Lokayukta is not satisfied with that action he may make a special report, and an annual report is laid before the legislature.
• Section 17: conferment of additional functions. Section 18: power to exclude complaints against certain classes of public servants.

Protection and miscellaneous, sections 13 to 16 and 19 to 22

• Section 13: staff. Section 14: secrecy of information, which reflects the private character of an Ombudsman inquiry. Section 15: penalty for intentional insult or interruption to, or bringing into disrepute, the Lokayukta, which serves the purpose contempt power serves for a court. Section 16: protection for action taken in good faith. Sections 19 to 22: delegation, rule making, removal of doubts and savings.

The essential limitation

The Lokayukta recommends; he does not decide. Section 12 is a reporting provision. The competent authority must consider the report and say what it has done, and the Lokayukta's remedy for inaction is a special report and publicity. That is the classical Ombudsman position, and its strength and weakness are those described in [The Ombudsman].

The Maharashtra Lokayukta Act 2023, and why the 1971 Act is still the law

This is the part of the chapter that no other set of notes will have right, and it must be stated precisely.

What exists. A new statute called the Maharashtra Lokayukta Act, 2023, enacted as Maharashtra Act No. XLVI of 2025 and assented on 8 December 2025. Its preamble recites section 63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 and states that it is necessary to enact a new law on the lines of that Act, to enlarge the scope of the existing 1971 Act and to entrust more powers to the Lokayukta.

What it would do. It establishes a Lokayukta consisting of a Chairperson and Members, with a Selection Committee, benches, jurisdiction, inquiry and prosecution machinery, on the model of the central Act. Its section 66(1) provides that on the commencement of this Act, the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act 1971 shall, from such commencement, stand repealed, with savings in section 66(2) for pending inquiries, appointments, rules and prosecutions.

Why it has not replaced the 1971 Act. Its section 1(3), as substituted by Mah. Act 50 of 2025 with effect from 8 December 2025, commences the Act in stages:

(i) Sections 1, 3 and 4 shall come into force on the date of publication of this Act in the Official Gazette.

(ii) Remaining sections shall come into force on such date as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions.

Section 66 is one of the "remaining sections". Until the State Government notifies it, the repeal has not taken effect, and the 1971 Act continues in force.

What was checked. As at 19 August 2026, the consolidated text of the 2023 Act published by India Code is headed "Text as on 7th January 2026" and shows section 1(3) in the staged form above with no notification for the remaining sections; India Code records the 1971 Act with its own "repealed" flag set to false; and the Lokayukta Maharashtra institution's own list of Acts and Rules publishes the 1971 Act and its 1973 and 1974 Rules, and no 2023 Act.

This is a moving target. A notification may issue at any time, and section 4 of the 2023 Act, dealing with the appointment of the Chairperson and Members, is already in force, which is what one would expect if the machinery were being put in place before the substantive provisions are commenced. A student sitting the paper should state the position as above and add that the remaining provisions may since have been notified.

Section 3(6) of the 2023 Act provides for continuity: a person serving as Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta under the 1971 Act on the date of commencement becomes the Chairperson or a Member of the new Lokayukta on the same terms, until the completion of his term.

The 1971 Act and the 2023 Act compared

A worked example

Sanjay More complains that a Deputy Collector has sat on his mutation application for two years and has twice asked for money.

Under the 1971 Act, which is the operative law. Both limbs are within section 7. The delay is a grievance founded on maladministration, since administrative action that is unreasonable, unjust or oppressive falls within the definition in section 2; the demand for money is an allegation. The complaint goes to the Upa-Lokayukta if the officer is not a Minister or Secretary, the inquiry is conducted in private under section 10 with the officer given an opportunity to be heard, and the outcome is a report to the competent authority under section 12, which must state the action taken. If the Government does nothing, the Lokayukta may make a special report.

Under the central Act. Only the second limb would be within the Lokpal's jurisdiction, and then only if the officer served in connection with the affairs of the Union, which he does not.

Under the 2023 Act, when it is fully commenced. The corruption allegation would be dealt with by machinery closer to the central Act's. Whether the pure delay complaint survives will depend on how that Act defines its jurisdiction, which is why the loss of the 1971 Act's maladministration jurisdiction is worth noting.

What it does NOT mean

It does not mean the 2023 Act has replaced the 1971 Act. It has not, because section 66 has not been notified.

It does not mean the 2023 Act is a dead letter. Sections 1, 3 and 4 are in force.

It does not mean the Lokayukta can punish. Under the 1971 Act he reports and recommends.

It does not mean the position will stay as stated. The remaining sections may be notified at any time.

Quick revision

1. Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act 1971, twenty-two sections, enacted after the Administrative Reforms Commission's 1966 recommendation.
2. Section 3: appointment by the Governor. Section 4: no other office. Sections 5 and 6: term and removal.
3. Section 7: the Lokayukta may investigate action taken by or with the approval of a Minister or Secretary and certain other public servants; an Upa-Lokayukta may investigate other public servants; the Lokayukta may act suo motu, for reasons recorded, whether or not a complaint has been made. Section 8: matters not subject to investigation.
4. Definitions in section 2: maladministration means action, or the procedure or practice governing it, which is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; a grievance is a complaint of injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration; an allegation concerns abuse of position, corruption or improper motives.
5. The 1971 Act covers maladministration as well as corruption, which is wider than the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013.
6. Sections 9 to 11: complaints, private investigation with a hearing, and evidence. Section 12: report and recommendation to the competent authority, special report, annual report. Sections 14, 15 and 16: secrecy, penalty for bringing the Lokayukta into disrepute, and good faith protection.
7. Section 63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 requires every State to establish a Lokayukta within one year of that Act's commencement.
8. Maharashtra Lokayukta Act 2023, enacted as Maharashtra Act XLVI of 2025, assented 8 December 2025. Section 66(1) repeals the 1971 Act on commencement. Section 1(3), as substituted by Mah. Act 50 of 2025 with effect from 8 December 2025, brings only sections 1, 3 and 4 into force on publication, the rest on dates to be notified. Section 66 is not yet notified, so the 1971 Act stands.

Test yourself

1. Describe the scheme of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act 1971. The Act provides for the appointment by the Governor of a Lokayukta and one or more Upa-Lokayuktas under section 3, who may hold no other office under section 4, with their term and conditions of service under section 5 and a difficult removal procedure under section 6 to secure independence. Section 7 allows the Lokayukta to investigate action taken by or with the approval of a Minister or a Secretary and certain other public servants, and an Upa-Lokayukta to investigate other public servants, in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made, or where the action could in his opinion be the subject of one; the Lokayukta may also act of his own motion for reasons recorded in writing. Section 8 excludes certain matters. Sections 9 to 11 govern complaints, the conduct of investigations in private with an opportunity to the public servant to be heard, and evidence. Section 12 requires the findings and recommendations to be reported to the competent authority, which must communicate the action taken, with provision for a special report where the Lokayukta is not satisfied. Sections 13 to 22 deal with staff, secrecy, penalty for bringing the office into disrepute, protection for good faith, additional functions, exclusion of classes of public servants, delegation, rules, removal of doubts and savings.

2. How does the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Lokayukta differ from that of the Lokpal? The Maharashtra Act of 1971 covers both a grievance and an allegation. A grievance is a complaint of injustice or undue hardship suffered in consequence of maladministration, and maladministration is defined as action, or the administrative procedure or practice governing it, which is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory. An allegation concerns abuse of position, corruption or improper motives. The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013, by contrast, is confined to allegations of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. The older State Act is therefore closer to the classical Ombudsman, since it reaches the delay, unfairness and inattention that most citizens actually complain of, while the central Act does not.

3. Has the Maharashtra Lokayukta Act 2023 replaced the Act of 1971? No. The 2023 Act was enacted as Maharashtra Act No. XLVI of 2025 and assented on 8 December 2025, and its section 66(1) provides that on the commencement of the Act the 1971 Act shall stand repealed, with savings for pending inquiries, appointments, rules and prosecutions. But section 1(3), as substituted by Mah. Act 50 of 2025 with effect from 8 December 2025, brings only sections 1, 3 and 4 into force on publication in the Official Gazette, and provides that the remaining sections shall come into force on such dates as the State Government may notify, with different dates permitted for different provisions. Section 66 is among the remaining sections and has not been notified, so the repeal has not taken effect and the 1971 Act continues to be the operative law. As at 19 August 2026 the consolidated text published by India Code, dated as on 7 January 2026, showed no such notification, India Code recorded the 1971 Act as not repealed, and the Lokayukta institution's own publications listed only the 1971 Act and its rules.

4. What is the effect of section 63 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 on the States? It provides that every State shall establish a body to be known as the Lokayukta for the State, if not so established, constituted or appointed, by a law made by the State Legislature, to deal with complaints relating to corruption against certain public functionaries, within a period of one year from the date of commencement of that Act. It is the reason States revisited their Lokayukta legislation after 2014, and the preamble of the Maharashtra Lokayukta Act 2023 recites it expressly, together with the intention to enact a new law on the lines of the central Act, to enlarge the scope of the 1971 Act and to entrust more powers to the Lokayukta.

5. What is the essential limitation of the Lokayukta under the 1971 Act? That he investigates and reports but does not decide. Section 12 requires him, where the investigation discloses that injustice or undue hardship has been caused, to report his findings and recommendations to the competent authority, which must examine the report and communicate the action taken; if he is not satisfied with that action he may make a special report, and an annual report is laid before the legislature. He cannot quash an order, award compensation or punish an officer. The force of the office therefore lies in publicity and in the report to the legislature rather than in any power to compel, which is the classical Ombudsman position and both its strength, since it makes the process quick, cheap and informal, and its weakness, since a determined administration can simply not act.