Grievance Redress, and the Statute India Never Passed
Chapter Thirty-Seven
Syllabus topic 1, "Ombudsman"
Pages 181 to 185 of 1033
In one line
The First Administrative Reforms Commission proposed an institution for allegations and for grievances; India built the allegations half in 2013 and the grievances half not at all.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: the Administrative Reforms Commission recommended in 1966 an institution dealing both with allegations of corruption and abuse and with grievances of injustice or undue hardship arising from maladministration; the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 covers allegations only, the definition of complaint in section 2 being confined to an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988; the grievance half was placed in the Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill 2011, which lapsed; and section 49 of the Lokpal Act, which makes the Lokpal the final appellate authority under any other law providing for the delivery of public services, has no such central law beneath it to operate on.
How the split happened
1966. Chapter 70 read the Interim Report. Its Lokpal and Lokayukta were to deal with allegations and with grievances both, and the Commission put the citizen's grievance first because that is what an ordinary person meets when dealing with the State.
1971 onwards. The States legislated, and the older State Acts kept both. Chapter 260 read sections 9 and 12 of the Maharashtra Act of 1971: a grievance may be complained of by the person aggrieved, and a report on a grievance recommends that the injustice or undue hardship be remedied within a stated time.
2011. The Government introduced two Bills. The Lokpal Bill carried the allegations. The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill carried the grievances, together with a citizens' charter for every public authority, a Grievance Redress Officer in every office, and appeals to designated authorities.
2013. The Lokpal Bill became the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013. The grievances Bill lapsed.
And the split hardened. Chapter 100 read the definition of "complaint" in section 2: a complaint alleging that a public servant has committed an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. A citizen with a complaint about delay has no complaint the Act recognises.
What a citizens' charter and a grievance statute would have done
A citizens' charter is a published statement by a public authority of what services it provides, to what standard and in what time. It converts an expectation into a measurable commitment.
A grievance redress statute turns that commitment into a right. The standard design, which the Bill of 2011 followed and which several States have enacted, is:
- every public authority publishes a charter listing its services and the time limit for each;
- a Grievance Redress Officer in every office receives complaints of failure;
- an appeal lies to a designated authority, and a further appeal to a State or Central commission;
- penalties for the officer who fails without sufficient cause, and in some designs compensation to the citizen.
Grievance Redress, and the Statute India Never Passed
Several States have such Acts. Madhya Pradesh's Public Services Guarantee Act of 2010 was the first, and Bihar, Delhi, Rajasthan, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh, Kerala, Karnataka, Jharkhand and Maharashtra followed with legislation on the same pattern.
Maharashtra's is the Maharashtra Right to Public Services Act 2015, and a student of this University should know it exists. It obliges notified public services to be delivered within notified time limits, provides for designated officers and appellate authorities, and establishes a Right to Service Commission.
The consequence for the Lokpal Act
Section 49 was drafted for a world that did not arrive. Chapter 200 read it: the Lokpal is the final appellate authority for appeals arising out of any other law providing for the delivery of public services and the redressal of public grievances, where the decision contains findings of corruption.
Two conditions, and both bite. There must be a law below providing for service delivery and grievance redress, and the decision must contain a finding of corruption. There is no such central law, and a decision on a delayed certificate does not ordinarily contain a finding of corruption. So section 49 is an appellate jurisdiction with almost nothing to hear.
The gap, stated as a citizen would meet it
Against a State department in Maharashtra. The citizen has two routes. Under the Maharashtra Right to Public Services Act 2015 he may complain that a notified service was not delivered in time and appeal. Under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act 1971 he may complain of a grievance, that is injustice or undue hardship from maladministration, and the Lokayukta may report recommending redress within a stated time. When the 2023 Act is fully notified, Chapter VI preserves the second route.
Against a Union department. He has neither. There is no central right to services statute and the Lokpal Act does not take grievances. What remains is the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System, an administrative mechanism and not a statutory right, and a writ petition, which chapter 10 explained is disproportionate to the wrong.
That asymmetry is the finding of this chapter, and it is the sort of concrete point that lifts an answer above a summary of the Act.
Why the grievance half is harder to legislate
An answer that simply says the Government did not want it is incomplete. Three genuine difficulties explain the failure and are worth stating.
Grievance Redress, and the Statute India Never Passed
Volume. Allegations of corruption against senior public servants are counted in thousands. Grievances about delay are counted in millions. An institution that takes both must be built quite differently, which is why the 1966 design put grievances with the lower tier.
Federalism. Most services a citizen deals with are delivered by State and local authorities. A central statute guaranteeing time bound delivery runs into the same objection chapter 220 recorded about section 63, and the fact that eleven or more States legislated while the Centre did not is the same pattern as the Lokayuktas.
Remedy. A finding of corruption leads to prosecution. A finding of delay leads to what? Compensation costs money and requires assessment; a penalty on the officer requires a disciplinary process; a direction to decide within a time is what a mandamus already gives. Designing an effective remedy for maladministration is genuinely hard, and the ombudsman's answer, publicity, works less well for a wrong that is repeated a million times.
A worked example
Mr Fernandes waits fourteen months for a Union pension and eleven months for a State land record correction.
The land record. A notified service under the Maharashtra Right to Public Services Act 2015, so he applies, the time limit runs, and he appeals to the designated officer and then to the appellate authority. Separately he may complain to the Lokayukta of a grievance under section 9(1)(a) of the 1971 Act, and the Lokayukta may report recommending redress within a stated time, with the competent authority obliged to respond within one month.
The pension. No central right to services Act. Not a complaint under the Lokpal Act, because it alleges no offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Not within the Central Vigilance Commission's function, because there is no vigilance angle. He may lodge a grievance on the central portal, which is administrative, or file a writ petition, which costs more than the pension.
Same citizen, same kind of wrong, two entirely different answers depending on which Government kept him waiting.
What beginners get wrong
That the Lokpal handles citizens' grievances. It does not; section 2's definition of complaint confines it to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
That the grievances Bill was rejected. It lapsed, which chapter 80 explained is the ordinary way an Indian Bill dies.
That section 49 gives the Lokpal a grievance jurisdiction. It gives an appellate jurisdiction that requires both a service delivery law below and a finding of corruption in the decision appealed from.
That the States have the same gap. Many do not. Maharashtra has both a right to services Act and a Lokayukta with grievance jurisdiction.
Quick revision
1966: the Administrative Reforms Commission proposed an institution for allegations and grievances both.
Grievance Redress, and the Statute India Never Passed
2011: two Bills. The Lokpal Bill and the Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill. The second lapsed.
2013: the Lokpal Act covers allegations only; section 2 defines a complaint as one alleging an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
s.49 makes the Lokpal the final appellate authority under any other service delivery law where the decision contains findings of corruption. There is no central law beneath it.
The States: right to public services Acts from Madhya Pradesh 2010 onwards, including the Maharashtra Right to Public Services Act 2015; and the older Lokayukta Acts, including Maharashtra's of 1971 and Chapter VI of the 2023 Act, keep a grievance jurisdiction.
Three reasons the grievance half is hard: volume, federalism and the difficulty of designing a remedy.
Test yourself
1. What was the grievance half of the 1966 design, and what happened to it? The Administrative Reforms Commission proposed that the Lokpal and Lokayukta deal not only with allegations of abuse of position and corruption but with grievances, meaning injustice or undue hardship suffered in consequence of maladministration. In 2011 the grievance half was placed in a separate Bill, the Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, together with citizens' charters and grievance redress officers. That Bill lapsed, and the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 was enacted covering allegations alone.
2. Why does section 49 of the Lokpal Act do so little? Because it makes the Lokpal the final appellate authority for appeals arising out of any other law providing for the delivery of public services and the redressal of public grievances, and only where the decision appealed from contains findings of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. There is no central law of that kind, the Bill of 2011 having lapsed; and a decision about a delayed service ordinarily contains no finding of corruption. It is an appellate jurisdiction with nothing beneath it.
3. Compare the position of a citizen aggrieved by a State department in Maharashtra with that of one aggrieved by a Union department. In Maharashtra he has two routes: the Maharashtra Right to Public Services Act 2015 for a notified service not delivered within the notified time, with a designated officer and appellate authorities; and a complaint of grievance to the Lokayukta under section 9(1)(a) of the 1971 Act, on which the Lokayukta may report recommending redress within a stated time, the competent authority being bound to respond within one month. Against a Union department he has neither, because there is no central right to services statute and the Lokpal Act takes only complaints of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Grievance Redress, and the Statute India Never Passed
4. Give three genuine difficulties in legislating a central grievance statute. Volume, because grievances about delay are counted in millions while allegations against senior public servants are counted in thousands, so the institution must be built quite differently. Federalism, because most services a citizen deals with are delivered by State and local authorities, so a central guarantee of time bound delivery runs into the same objection that led section 63 to oblige the States to legislate rather than legislating for them. And remedy, because a finding of delay does not lead anywhere obvious: compensation costs money and needs assessment, a penalty needs a disciplinary process, and a direction to decide within a time is what a writ of mandamus already provides.
The rest of this subject
These notes are cut from the University's printed syllabus. Open the syllabus itself, or the past papers, for the same subject.