The First Administrative Reforms Commission and the Lokpal Proposal
Chapter Seven
Syllabus topic 1, "Ombudsman"
Pages 27 to 30 of 1033
In one line
In 1966 a commission headed by Morarji Desai looked at the ombudsman institutions of Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand and Britain, and recommended that India create two of them: a Lokpal at the Centre and a Lokayukta in every State.
In the wording a student can write in an exam: the Administrative Reforms Commission, constituted by the Government of India in January 1966 and chaired first by Morarji Desai and then by K. Hanumanthaiya, issued as its first report an Interim Report on Problems of Redressal of Citizens' Grievances in October 1966, recommending a two-tier institution consisting of a Lokpal at the Centre to deal with complaints against Ministers and Secretaries and a Lokayukta in each State and at the Centre to deal with complaints against other officials, both to be independent of the executive and the judiciary, appointed on a non-partisan basis, with proceedings conducted in private and in an informal manner and with a duty to report annually to Parliament.
Why an interim report, and why this subject first
The Commission was set up to examine the whole of public administration, a task that took it five years and twenty reports. It chose to deal with citizens' grievances first and to issue an interim report on it within nine months.
The reason it gave is worth quoting in substance. Administrative reform is a long business and the citizen's ordinary experience of the State is immediate: delay, discourtesy, inaction and the sense that there is nowhere to complain. A reform programme that produced nothing usable for five years would not carry public confidence, so the Commission took the problem that touched the ordinary person and dealt with it first.
That reasoning matters for an answer because it explains the character of what was proposed. The Lokpal of 1966 was a grievance institution first and an anti-corruption institution second. The Lokpal of 2013 is an anti-corruption institution and not a grievance institution at all. The transformation between those two dates is the real content of MU's second question, and chapter 100 onwards traces it.
The design the Commission proposed
Two tiers, with a division by rank. The Lokpal at the Centre would deal with complaints against Ministers and Secretaries, at the Union and at the State level. The Lokayukta, one at the Centre and one in each State, would deal with complaints against other officials. The division is by the seniority of the person complained against, not by the subject matter.
Both to be independent of the executive and of the judiciary.
Appointment on a non-partisan basis. The Commission's suggestion was appointment by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, given after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition. The three-cornered consultation is the ancestor of every selection committee in this book: the Central Vigilance Commissioner's committee under the Act of 2003, the Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation's committee under section 4A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, and the Lokpal's own Selection Committee under section 4 of the Act of 2013.
The First Administrative Reforms Commission and the Lokpal Proposal
Both allegations and grievances. This is the feature the Act of 2013 abandoned. The Commission proposed that the institution deal with allegations, meaning abuse of position, corruption, favouritism and improper motive, and with grievances, meaning injustice or hardship from maladministration. Chapter 10 explained the difference and chapter 330 explains what its loss cost.
Informal, private proceedings. Not a court, no lawyers as of right, no rules of evidence, and inquiries conducted in private so that a person against whom nothing is found is not damaged by the inquiry.
A duty to report annually to Parliament, which is the classical sanction.
Both to be free from executive interference in their functioning, with their own staff and a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
Where the names come from
Neither word existed before 1966 in this sense. Lokpal was coined from lok, the people, and pal, protector or guardian: protector of the people. Lokayukta was coined from lok and ayukta, an officer or commissioner: the people's commissioner. L.M. Singhvi is generally credited with proposing them, in the Lok Sabha debate on the subject in 1963 and afterwards.
The coining matters for a reason beyond etymology. It shows that the Commission was not proposing to import an office but to naturalise it, and the naturalisation is why the two-tier design has no exact foreign parallel. Neither Sweden nor Britain divides its ombudsmen by the rank of the person complained against.
A worked example of the two-tier design as intended
Suppose the design of 1966 had been enacted as proposed.
A citizen complains that a Block Development Officer has sat on his application for eleven months. That is a grievance against an official below the level of Secretary. It goes to the Lokayukta of his State.
A citizen complains that a State Minister granted a licence to a relative. That is an allegation against a Minister. It goes to the Lokpal, because the Lokpal's jurisdiction covers Ministers at the Union and the State level alike.
A citizen complains that a Secretary to the Government of India decided a tender on an irrelevant consideration. Secretaries are with the Lokpal.
Notice what the design achieves. One institution deals with the political and administrative summit, where the pressure to protect is greatest and where distance from the State Government is therefore essential. The other deals with the mass of ordinary complaints close to where they arise, where volume matters more than distance.
The First Administrative Reforms Commission and the Lokpal Proposal
And notice what happened instead. The States legislated for Lokayuktas from 1971 onwards, each on its own terms, with jurisdiction over Ministers as well as officials. The Centre passed nothing until 2013, and when it did it created a Lokpal that deals with allegations of corruption and leaves grievances to nobody. The design was never built as designed.
What the Commission got right, and what it missed
Right: that independence has to be built into appointment, tenure and money. Every Indian institution in this book that works has those three, and every one that does not, does not.
Right: that the institution must reach Ministers. The Commission said so in 1966 and it took forty-seven years to legislate, and the resistance was always at that point.
Right: that proceedings should be informal and private. Section 25 of the Lokpal Act's predecessor drafts and the hearing requirements in the modern Acts descend from this.
Missed: the machinery of investigation. The Commission did not confront the problem that an ombudsman in India would need investigators, and that investigators in India belong to the police. Every failure of an Indian Lokayukta since has turned on that, and the Act of 2013 answered it only partly by creating an Inquiry Wing while leaving the actual investigation with agencies it does not control.
Missed: the States. It recommended a Lokayukta for every State and could not compel one. The gap was closed only by section 63 of the Act of 2013, forty-seven years later, and even that requires the State to legislate.
What this proposal was NOT
It was not a Bill. The Commission recommends; Parliament legislates. Chapter 80 is the record of what Parliament did with the recommendation, which for a very long time was nothing.
It was not a proposal for a prosecuting body. The 1966 Lokpal would report and recommend. The prosecution powers in the Act of 2013 are an Indian addition made almost half a century later, under quite different pressure.
And it was not a proposal to bring the judiciary in. The Commission proposed independence from the judiciary, not jurisdiction over it. India has never given an ombudsman jurisdiction over judges, which is why the eighth label of this syllabus needs a wholly separate answer.
Quick revision
Body: the Administrative Reforms Commission, constituted January 1966. Chairman Morarji Desai, later K. Hanumanthaiya.
Report: the Interim Report on Problems of Redressal of Citizens' Grievances, October 1966, its first report.
Proposal: a two-tier institution. Lokpal at the Centre for Ministers and Secretaries; Lokayukta at the Centre and in each State for other officials.
The First Administrative Reforms Commission and the Lokpal Proposal
Features: independence of executive and judiciary; non-partisan appointment after consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition; jurisdiction over allegations and grievances both; informal and private proceedings; annual report to Parliament.
Names: Lokpal, protector of the people; Lokayukta, the people's commissioner. Coined in the Indian debate, not borrowed.
What was missed: the machinery of investigation, and any means of compelling the States to act.
Test yourself
1. What did the Administrative Reforms Commission recommend in 1966, and why did it deal with this subject first? It recommended a two-tier institution, a Lokpal at the Centre for complaints against Ministers and Secretaries and a Lokayukta at the Centre and in every State for complaints against other officials, both independent, non-partisan in appointment, informal and private in procedure and reporting annually to Parliament. It took the subject first because administrative reform is slow and the citizen's grievance is immediate, so a programme that produced nothing usable for years would not carry public confidence.
2. On what basis did the proposal divide work between the Lokpal and the Lokayukta? By the rank of the person complained against, not by subject matter. Ministers, at the Union and in the States, and Secretaries were for the Lokpal; all other officials were for the Lokayukta.
3. Which feature of the 1966 proposal did the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act 2013 abandon, and with what consequence? Jurisdiction over grievances. The 1966 design covered both allegations of corruption and abuse and grievances of injustice or hardship from maladministration. The Act of 2013 covers allegations only, so a citizen complaining of delay or unfairness by a Union department has no ombudsman to go to.
4. Where do the words Lokpal and Lokayukta come from, and why does it matter? They were coined in the Indian debate of the 1960s from lok, the people, with pal, protector, and ayukta, commissioner. It matters because it shows the Commission was naturalising the institution rather than importing it, which is why the two-tier division by rank has no exact parallel in Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand or Britain.
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.