The Lokayukta (also Lok Ayukta) is an anti-corruption ombudsman organization in the Indian states.[1][2]
The Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) headed by Morarji Desai submitted a special interim report on "Problems of Redressal of Citizen's Grievances' in 1966. In this report, the ARC recommended the setting up of two special authorities designated as 'Lokpal' and 'Lokayukta' for the redressal of citizens' grievances.
The LokAyukta helps people bring corruption to the fore mainly amongst the politicians and officers in the government service. It is to be noted that the LokAyukta conducts raids. But surprisingly, it does not have binding powers to punish anyone.[3] Owing to this, many acts of the LokAyukta have not resulted in criminal or other consequences for those charged.[4]
Contents |
An amendment to the Constitution has been proposed to implement the Lokayukta uniformly across Indian States. The proposed changes will make the institution of Lokayukta uniform across the country as a three-member body, headed by a retired Supreme Court judge or high court chief justice and comprising the state vigilance commissioner and a jurist or an eminent administrator as other members.[5]
Nowadays, corruption is internationally recognized as a major problem in society, one capable of endangering the stability and security of societies, threatening social, economic and political development and undermining the values of democracy and morality. International cooperation is indispensable to combat corruption and promote accountability, transparency and the rule of law.
In its widest connotation, corruption includes improper or selfish exercise of power and influence attached to a public office due to the special position one occupies in public life. The developing countries like India face this problem. Throughout the fabric of public life in the developing countries runs the scarlet thread of bribery and corruption.
Corruption hurts the public directly and tragically, particularly as it penalizes the honest and rewards the dishonest among them.
Corruption and mal-administration impose a great strain on democracy and we all know that corruption is the end product of a process of administration and is preceded by mal-administration.
To live in a society which pursues good governance practices is today a basic human right. The quality of an individual citizen's life is materially affected by both the decisions taken by government and the manner in which those decisions are implemented.
A just and civil society requires a system of government which whilst operating within the rule of law provides for a wider recognition of the need for accountability to citizens on whose behalf government undertakes its responsibility. The traditional role of Ombudsman provides an effective accountability mechanism, which is now in place in more than 100 countries. The role of Lokayukta is necessary in providing a mechanism which can balance the fundamental requirement that governments must be able to govern but with appropriate accountability.
Effectiveness of Lokayukta is related to his primary objective: to ensure that the constitutional state is maintained, that public authorities respect citizens' rights and laws and that administrative problems are corrected (eliminate formalities, reduce delays, revise discretionary decision-making processes….). Consequently, this mission is divided in to two parts: monitoring and correcting, if necessary, public authorities' behaviour. This is why the Lokayuktas effectiveness, or his success in getting his recommendations implemented by public authorities, relies on his ability to make public authorities accept and understand his recommendations. His purpose is to resolve conflicts, which he must make public authorities aware of. This is why he ensures that public authorities are aware of his intervention criteria, the general scale according to which he evaluates the government's administrative behaviour. He makes his general intervention policies public, the population, public authorities and media are better able to understand the rationale for any possible recommendations that he could make in a case under his scrutiny, no matter the nature of the investigation.[6]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||