Role of the Ombudsman in Controlling Corruption

in Public Administration

Introduction

Corruption has become a global phenomenon that undermines governance, democracy, and
development. It corrodes institutions, weakens the rule of law, and creates inequality by benefiting a
few at the cost of many. In the context of public administration, corruption directly impacts
efficiency, service delivery, and the trust between the government and citizens. Administrative law
provides several mechanisms to fight against corruption, and one of the most prominent and
effective mechanisms is the institution of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman acts as a watchdog of
public administration and provides citizens with a direct forum to voice grievances against
maladministration, arbitrary action, and abuse of power. This assignment undertakes a detailed
study of the Ombudsman’s role in controlling corruption in public administration. It covers the
historical background, conceptual framework, powers and functions, legal basis, practical
challenges, judicial support, comparative perspectives, case laws, recommendations, and
concludes with the overall significance of this institution in administrative law.
Historical Background of Ombudsman

The Ombudsman is a Scandinavian innovation, first established in Sweden in 1809 through its
Constitution. The term “Ombudsman” literally means “representative” or “agent of the people.” The
Swedish Ombudsman was created to act as a parliamentary commissioner who could investigate
complaints of corruption and maladministration by government officials. The model gained
international recognition due to its impartiality, independence, and effectiveness in curbing abuses
of power. Over time, the concept spread across Europe, Commonwealth nations, and later to Asia,
Africa, and Latin America. Today, almost every democratic country has some form of Ombudsman.
In India, this model was adopted through the concept of Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas
at the state level. Committees such as the First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966) and
several subsequent reports emphasized the need for such an institution in India to strengthen
democratic accountability.
Meaning and Concept of Corruption in Public Administration

Corruption in public administration refers to the abuse of entrusted authority for private benefit. It is
not limited to bribery alone but encompasses a wide range of practices such as embezzlement,
fraud, nepotism, favoritism, cronyism, undue influence, and misuse of discretionary powers. Public
administration is particularly vulnerable to corruption due to the exercise of power, discretion, and
control over resources. The consequences of corruption include: - Poor governance and
inefficiency in administration. - Loss of public trust in institutions. - Unequal distribution of
resources, widening social and economic inequality. - Hindrance to economic growth and
development. - Weakening of democratic values and erosion of constitutional principles.
Administrative law, through the Ombudsman, aims to provide remedies to citizens and prevent
misuse of power, thereby reducing corruption.
Objectives of the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman has multiple objectives aimed at ensuring transparency, accountability, and
fairness in governance. Its primary objectives include: 1. To protect the common man against
arbitrary and unjust administrative action. 2. To ensure public servants remain accountable for their
decisions. 3. To inquire into complaints of corruption, maladministration, and inefficiency. 4. To
provide an inexpensive, quick, and informal remedy to aggrieved citizens. 5. To strengthen faith in
public administration and uphold the principles of democracy. 6. To act as a preventive body
against corruption by plugging loopholes and recommending reforms.
Powers and Functions of the Ombudsman

The Ombudsman performs a variety of functions which make it a unique institution. These include: -
Investigating complaints filed by citizens against corrupt or unfair practices of public servants. -
Conducting suo motu investigations in cases of public interest. - Reviewing administrative
procedures and identifying areas prone to corruption. - Making recommendations for disciplinary
action against guilty officials. - Advising the government on policy reforms to improve transparency
and accountability. - Acting as a mediator between citizens and administration to resolve
grievances fairly. Unlike courts, the Ombudsman provides speedy and inexpensive justice without
the complexities of litigation. Although in many jurisdictions its recommendations are advisory in
nature, the moral authority carried by such recommendations is significant.
Role of Ombudsman in Controlling Corruption

The Ombudsman acts as an effective anti-corruption mechanism through its independence,

accessibility, and credibility. Its role in controlling corruption can be analyzed as follows: -
**Investigative Role:** By investigating complaints of corruption and maladministration, the
Ombudsman ensures accountability of officials. - **Deterrent Effect:** The possibility of
investigation discourages officials from engaging in corrupt activities. - **Systemic Reforms:**
Recommendations often lead to changes in administrative practices and procedures, closing
avenues for corruption. - **Public Trust:** Citizens gain confidence knowing that there is an
independent body they can approach against misuse of power. - **Promoting Ethical Governance:**
By setting standards of integrity and transparency, the Ombudsman promotes a culture of ethical
governance.
Ombudsman in India – Lokpal and Lokayuktas

In India, the Ombudsman is represented through the Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas at
the state level. After decades of debate, the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 was enacted. The
Act was the result of growing demands for anti-corruption mechanisms, particularly after the
nationwide movement led by Anna Hazare in 2011. Key features of the Lokpal: - Jurisdiction over
the Prime Minister, Ministers, Members of Parliament, and government officials. - Authority to
investigate allegations of corruption and recommend prosecution. - Composed of a Chairperson
and up to eight members, with representation of judicial and non-judicial members. - Independent of
government interference, with powers of inquiry, investigation, and prosecution. Lokayuktas
perform similar functions at the state level. States like Karnataka and Maharashtra have been
pioneers in establishing strong Lokayukta institutions, which have exposed several high-profile
corruption cases.
Effectiveness and Challenges

The effectiveness of the Ombudsman depends on its independence, resources, and powers. While
it has had success in many countries, several challenges remain: - Lack of binding powers in some
jurisdictions where recommendations can be ignored by the government. - Political interference in
appointments and functioning. - Insufficient manpower and resources to handle increasing
complaints. - Lack of awareness among the public about their right to approach the Ombudsman. -
Overlapping jurisdiction with other anti-corruption agencies such as CBI, CVC, etc. In India,
although the Lokpal Act has been enacted, the institution has faced delays in appointments, lack of
full-time staff, and inadequate empowerment in practice.
Judicial Recognition and Case Laws

The Indian judiciary has consistently supported the need for strong independent bodies to fight
corruption. Some important pronouncements include: - **Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997):**
The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of independent investigative bodies to curb
corruption and directed reforms in the functioning of CBI and CVC. - **Common Cause v. Union of
India (2014):** The Court reiterated the importance of an independent Lokpal under the 2013 Act. -
**Prakash Singh v. Union of India (2006):** Though dealing with police reforms, the Court stressed
the need for independent oversight institutions to prevent misuse of power. These judicial
pronouncements show the constitutional recognition of Ombudsman-like institutions to ensure
accountability.
Comparative Perspective

The Ombudsman has been highly effective in many countries: - **Sweden:** The pioneer model
where the Ombudsman is empowered to prosecute corrupt officials. - **New Zealand and
Australia:** Their Ombudsman institutions have significantly improved administrative fairness. -
**UK:** The Parliamentary Commissioner investigates complaints of maladministration and has
been instrumental in promoting administrative justice. - **South Africa:** The Public Protector plays
a strong role in holding the government accountable, with powers to investigate corruption at the
highest levels. India can learn from these models to strengthen the functioning of Lokpal and
Lokayuktas by providing them greater autonomy and binding powers.
Recommendations for Strengthening Ombudsman in India

To make the Ombudsman more effective in controlling corruption, the following steps are essential:
1. Ensure complete independence in appointments by reducing political influence. 2. Provide
binding effect to recommendations and reports. 3. Increase financial and administrative autonomy.
4. Enhance manpower, infrastructure, and resources for investigation. 5. Conduct awareness
campaigns to educate citizens about the institution. 6. Establish coordination with other
anti-corruption agencies to avoid overlapping jurisdiction. 7. Periodically review and update the
Lokpal Act in line with global best practices.
Conclusion

The Ombudsman represents the voice of citizens in the fight against corruption. As an independent
authority, it acts as a bridge between the government and the governed, ensuring that power is
exercised responsibly. In the Indian context, while the Lokpal and Lokayuktas are a step in the right
direction, much remains to be done to make them fully effective. Strengthening these institutions
will not only reduce corruption but will also restore public faith in governance. In administrative law,
the Ombudsman is one of the most important tools of accountability and transparency.
Bibliography

1. I.P. Massey, Administrative Law. 2. M.P. Jain, Administrative Law of India. 3. The Lokpal and
Lokayuktas Act, 2013. 4. Vineet Narain v. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889. 5. Common Cause v.
Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 552. 6. Prakash Singh v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 1. 7. Reports
of the First Administrative Reforms Commission (1966). 8. Justice J.S. Verma Committee Report,
2011. 9. Official websites: lawcommissionofindia.nic.in, prsindia.org, ombudsman.gov.au.