Unit 4 Administrative Law

1. Doctrine of proportionality
Introduction and meaning
If any action taken by any authority is contrary to law, improper, unreasonable or
irrational court of law can interfere with such actions by exercising judicial review. One of
such modes of exercising power is called as doctrine of proportionality. The theory of
proportionality is applicable in cases where human freedoms are violated by
administrative action. In such a case, the courts scrutinize administrative conduct
specifically and go to the courts Issue about the accuracy of the authority’s choices.
Adverse effects on the right would therefore be weighed by the courts and the purpose
sought to be accomplished. Courts follow the idea that while the quantity of punishment
is beyond the regulatory authority’s control, it is important to prevent arbitrariness.
Irrationality as a ground and legitimate expectation to challenge of any decision was
developed by the Court in Associated Provincial Picture House v. Wednesbury, later
came to be known as “Wednesbury test” to determine ‘irrationality’ of
an administrative action decision of the Administrative authority shall be deemed to be
irrational

 if it is beyond the authority of law,

 if it is not based on evidence,
 if it is based on irrelevant consideration,
 if it is so absurd in its violation of logic or established moral standards that no
reasonable person may make such a decision on the facts and circumstances in
question.
 In other words, it is so ridiculous that no reasonable person would ever believe
that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the government. In practical sense it is the use
of the doctrine.

When evaluating an administrative action on the grounds of proportionality Courts

typically consider two issues, namely:
1. Whether the relative merits of specific objectives or interests have been properly
weighed and equally balanced?
2. Whether the action under review was, in the circumstances, excessively restrictive
or inflicted an unnecessary burden?

Application of doctrine in India

The Indian Supreme Court consciously considered the application of the concept of
proportionality for the first time in the case of Union of India Vs. G. Ganayutham, .
In that case the Supreme Court after extensively reviewing the law relating to
Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality prevailing in England held that
the 'Wednesbury' unreasonableness will be the guiding principle in India, so long as
fundamental rights are not involved.
However the Court refrained from deciding whether the doctrine of proportionality
is to be applied with respect to those cases involving infringement of fundamental
rights. Subsequently came the historic decision of the Supreme Court in Omkumar
Vs. Union of India.
It was in this case that the Supreme Court accepted the application of proportionality
doctrine in India. However, strangely enough the Supreme Court in this case
suddenly discovered that Indian courts had ever since 1950 regularly applied the
doctrine of proportionality while dealing with the validity of legislative actions in
relation to legislations infringing the fundamental freedom enumerated in Article 19
(1) of the Constitution of India.

Coimbatore district Central Coop Bank v. Employees Assn. Certain employees went
on illegal strike they also prevented others from discharging their duty it was held
that the acts amounted to serious misconduct punishment imposed on the
employees for stoppage of increments could not be said to be disproportionate to
the charges against them.

State of U.P. v. Sheo Shanker Lal Srivastava the court held that in the present
context, doctrine of proportionality is gaining ground at the cost of Wednesby's
unreasonableness to make scrutiny of administrative action more exacting and
intrusive.

Doctrine of legitimate expectation

Meaning and history

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation was created to hold governmental action
accountable. It is quite difficult to claim reliefs from governmental policies and
statutes; hence, this doctrine was intended to give relief to people from
governmental actions even when they cannot claim a right under strict
understanding of law. It provides a central space between ‘right’ and ‘no right’,
wherein a pubic authority can be made accountable on grounds of an expectation,
which is, legitimate. It helps maintain and honour policy statements without unfair
discrimination to persons similarly situated.

The citizens of the nation vest this power to the Government, thereby making it the
duty of said government of exercise such power after careful scrutiny. Multiple
principles and doctrines have evolved relating to discharge of proper administrative
functions. One such doctrine would be that of Legitimate Expectation.
Originally formulated by lord Denning in 1969, legitimate expectation has been
defined as the expectation which shall be protected (must be “legitimate”) but may
not amount to a right in the conventional sense. Administrative authorities come out
with certain policies, statutes and actions that create a legal (Legitimate) expectation,
which when changed or altered deprives the individual (or group of individuals) of
said expectation and liberty.
 It means to say that where a person has no legally enforceable right or interest, he
might have some legitimate expectation, which would be unfair to deprive him
without hearing what he has to say or not fulfilling said expectation.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation was developed in the Indian Judicial system
after the Schmidt case. It found its way into the constitution particularly through
Article 14. The doctrine is recent and its first reference was made in the State of
Kerala Vs K.G. Madhavan Pillai case.
The court in the case held that the stay on the sanction order to open new schools
and upgrade new ones violated the legitimate expectation created to the
respondents thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The doctrine of
legitimate expectation of fair hearing may arise through a promise or an established
practice.

The Navjyoti Co-operative Group Housing Society Vs UOI took a similar decision,
wherein the Apex Court held that changing the criteria requirement for allotment of
land to co-operative societies was violating them of their legitimate expectation,
their benefit ascertained to them hence adversely affecting them, and are therefore
entitled to a fair hearing.

The case of Punjab Communications Vs UOI and Ors, states when a legitimate
expectation may arise-
 If there is an express promise held out or representation made by a public authority,
or
 The existence of past practice which the claimant can reasonably expect to continue,
and
 Wherein the promise or representation is clear and unambiguous
 Wherein the representation in question can be made either to an individual or to a
class or person.

The doctrine of legitimate expectation is analogous to the principles of natural

justice. It ensures fairness, reliance and trust in the government and equality in the
administrative and legal system. The doctrine of legitimate expectation ensures that
government authorities are held responsible for their action, which ensures
regulation and control of power and authority. However, there are many who argue
against the same. They state that policy-making exercise should not be unduly
fettered.

Liberty to make policy is inherently a constitutional duty of the government. This

schema is derived from the authorities, and it is intended to represent a step
towards a determinate set of rules that is designed to strike a balance between the
general public interest and interests of individuals led by public authorities believing
that they would act in a particular way that would benefit them.

While this does make a valid claim, it is creates a leeway for government authorities
to abuse authority and avoid liability for the same. This doctrine in a way creates a
 safety net against misuse of power by government authority making it an important
mechanism to smoothly run the country.

2. Features of certiorari and Quo warranto

Introduction
A writ is a formal written order by the court to an individual, organization, or the
state. They command the constitutional remedies against the violation of people’s
fundamental rights. Articles 32 and 226 of our Indian Constitution enable Indian
citizens to move to the high courts or the Supreme Court in case of violation of their
fundamental rights. The article also gives power to the Supreme court to issue writs
for enforcement of the fundamental rights of people. The State High Courts can also
issue writs under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution.

Grounds for Certiorari and Persons against whom Certiorari can be constituted

Certiorari is basically a tool for judicial control and restraint. As mentioned above, it
is issued by the Supreme Court or the High Court to quash an order passed by an
inferior court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial authority, whenever the authority has acted
in excess of its power, or without requisite jurisdiction, or has violated the principles
of natural justice. It is corrective in nature and is aimed at preventing overstepping by
the judicial authorities.
Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi was the first case in India leading
the decision on certiorari.

Textbook
Error apparent on the face of the record
Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan & Ors.
It was held that the High Court did exceed its jurisdiction by issuing the writ of
certiorari in the present case. It was observed that this writ is issued to correct
instances where a court has exceeded its jurisdiction. Under the powers granted by
the writ, the court cannot act as a court of appeal or check an error of fact. It can be
employed in cases where there is an error of law, or when it can be shown that there
has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. But not on the basis of an
error of fact solely. However, whether there has been such an error or not is a matter
of the court’s discretion.

Quo warranto
The maxim quo warranto means “by what authority” and this writ is issued to
prevent a ‘usurper’ from wrongfully occupying a substantive public office, enjoying
certain privileges and franchise from that public office, when he does not have the
authority to do so. The person being appointed to the public office must show by
what authority he occupies it, in order for it to be considered a valid appointment.

Conditions

 Such office must be public nature

  It must be a substantive character
 It must be statutory
 The holder must be in actual occupation of the office
.

Explanation textbook

Cases

Amarendra Chandra v. Narendra Kumar Basu, (1951)

In this case, the members of the Managing Committee of a school in Calcutta

were the respondents. The application for quo warranto was prayed for, to
question the authority by which these members occupied their posts. The Court
held that the writ of quo warranto would not be applicable to an office of a
private nature.

Rajesh Awasthi v. Nand Lal Jaiswal, (2013),

it was laid down that quo warranto applies where an appointment is made which
is “contrary to statutory provisions” and came up with a test to determine
whether a person is eligible/qualified to hold office as per the stipulations of law.
The key point is to see if the office holder has the qualifications to hold office as
per law or not, with respect to statutory provisions.

3. Essential aspects of contractual liability of government

Introduction

To carry out various business activities, the contract has become an essential part
because under contracts the rights and obligations of all the parties involved in a
transaction are provided and in case of a breach of contract, the remedy can be
availed from the Courts.

The Government of India both at the Centre as well as at the State level also make
several contracts because Government also runs public companies and carries
out various function. While an ordinary contract is governed by the Indian
Contract Act, 1872 but in case of a Government Contract some additional
provisions have been provided under the Indian Constitution, thus the formation
of Government contract is done in a different manner as compared to an ordinary
contract.

In India, the Contracts can be entered by express as well as an implied agreement

but in cases of Government contracts, the provisions of the Constitution
specifically enumerated in Article 299 has to be followed and the formalities
which are required have to be fulfilled for the formation of such contracts.
 State of West Bengal v. B.K. Mondal the Supreme Court observed that a contract
which does not conform with Article 299(1) was not ‘void’ in the technical sense
that it could not be ratified.

Textbook

4. Conditions and grounds to issue Mandamus with cases (10)

Introduction and conditions textbook
The essential grounds necessary for the issuance of Mandamus have been enlisted
below:

 There exists a legally sanctioned right of the petitioner or the applicant of the writ
and a violation or compromise of this right has been committed.
 The infringement of the rights of an applicant can be done by a public authority in
the following manners:

1. Crossing the limits of the powers and duties vested to their office.
2. Failure or omission to act responsibly according to the conditions laid down by
the law for the exercise of their power.
3. Denial by an official or authority to perform their statutory duties.
4. A complete disregard for or contravention of the principles of natural justice.

 Another ground for the legality of issuing the writ of mandamus is the failure to
act or perform the legal duty despite being demanded by the applicant for the
same. This was also upheld by the Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial
Syndicate v. Union of India.
 The writ should be applied for in good faith, without any ulterior motive or intent
on the part of the applicant.
 Lastly, the writ of mandamus can only be issued when no other recourse,
redressal mechanism or legal alternatives have been left at the disposal of the
applicant.

Case laws

Maganbhai Ishwarbhai Patel v. Union of India, the group of petitioners issued a

writ of anticipatory mandamus in order to restrain the Government of India from
sanctioning certain areas lying in Rann of Kutch to Pakistan as a part of the award.
The Court held that the mandamus shall not be granted merely on the suspicion
of the violation of rights unless some actual damage or infringement has
happened.

5. scope and liability of state in tort (10)

INTRODUCTION
Due to the establishment of welfare State, there has been tremendous increase in the State activities
causing serious danger to the person and property of the individuals. The State is not only
responsible for maintenance of law and order and collection of taxes, but also carries out various activities
which were traditionally considered to be actions of a private individual. In such situations,
the issue of liability of the State or Govt. becomes of much more importance. The
Constitution of India views the Union and the States as juristic persons capable of owning and
acquiring property, making contracts, carrying on trade and commerce, bringing and
defending legal actions, just as private persons, subject to the modifications specified in the
Constitution itself. Therefore also makes provisions relating to liability of states in case of
committing of any tort, or breach of a contract.
MEANING OF TORT
According to
Salmond
,
“Tort means a civil wrong for which the remedy is a common law action for
unliquidated damages and which is not exclusively the breach of a contract or the breach
of a trust or
other merely equitable obligation.”
According to
Section 2(m)
of the Limitation Act, 1963,
tort means a civil wrong which is not exclusively a breach of a contract or breach of trust.
Generally, every person can sue, and the liability to be sued in tort. However, there are
certain variations of this rule.

TORTUOUS LIABILITY OF THE STATE

State may be held liable for the tortuous acts of its servants in certain cases. This liability
is known astortuous liability of State. Since State is not a natural person who can himself
perform any act, andcan only act through its agencies,
liability of State is based on the principle of vicarious liability
‘Tortuous liability of States’ makes the State liable for the acts and omissions of the
servants,
voluntary or involuntary, and brings it before the Court of Law in a claim for non liquidated
damagesfor such acts

POSITION IN INDIA

Under the Constitution of India two Articles viz. Article 294 and Article 300 contain explicit
and implicit provisions regarding the tortuous liability of the State and suit against it.

State’s Right to Sue

So far as the right to sue is concerned, the Government of India may sue by the name of
‘Union of India while the State may sue by the name
of that State e.g. ‘State of Maharashtra. The Governments can sue not only a private person
but also another Government. For example, the Union may bring a claim against one or more
States; while a State may bring a claim against another State orthe Union. [Article 131]

State’s Liability to be Sued

In regard to the State’s liability to be sued, a distinction is to be made between contractual

liability
and tortuous liability. Contractual liability of the State is provided under
Article 299
of the Constitution. About the tortuous liability of the State
, in the absence of any legislation, Courts in India have no alternative than to follow the
existing case law which is founded on the old English theory of immunity of State, founded
on the maxim,
‘King can do no wrong’.

CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH STATE INCURS TORTUOUS LIABILITY

The State may ordinarily be held liable in tort for performance of non-sovereign functions.
However, in certain situations it has been held that state may be liable for torts even for
sovereign functions.
Since the Constitution of India does not specify the circumstances in which the State may be
sued, and provides that the position before Independence shall be continued, we need to
look into
the provisions of the Govt. of India Act, 1935. This Act also recognized the continuance of po
sition prevailing earlier. Even the Govt. of India Act, 1915 did the same. Eventually we
need to analyse the
provisions of the Govt. of India Act, 1858.
S. 65 of the Govt. of India Act, 1858
provided that the Secretary of State may be sued in India as well as in England and that
all persons may take such legal action against the Secretary of State as they could have taken
against the East India Company .For this purpose we have to now analyse the case of
P & O. Steam Navigation Cov.Secretary of State
In this case, a servant of P & O Co. was travelling from Garden Reach to Calcutta in a carriage
driven by horses and was passing by the Government Kiddepur Dockyard. Some workmen of
Dockyard werecarrying a heavy piece of iron for the purpose of repairing a steamer. While walking in the
very centreof the road, on seeing the coach quite near, they suddenly dropped the iron. The
iron fell with greatnoise which frightened the horses, they rushed forward against the iron
and as a result one of thehorses got injured. The Company filed a suit against the Secretary
of State-in Council for damages forinjury caused to its horse by the negligence of
the workmen employed in the Government Dockyard.The Court drew a distinction between
acts done in exercise of sovereign functions and acts done in theexercise of non-sovereign
functions. The Court held that, liability could only arise in case of non-sovereign functions.
Maintenance of dockyard was considered to be a non-sovereign function, andtherefore the
Secretary of State was held liable.
State of Rajasthanv.Vidyawati
After independence, the question of tortuous liability of the Government came to be
reconsidered by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati
in which a jeep was owned and maintained bythe State of Rajasthan for official use of the
Collector of the district. Once the driver of the jeep wastaking it back from the workshop
after repairs, by his rash and negligent driving of the jeep a pedestrian was knocked down
and fatally injurer and died. His widow sued the State for damages. The State claimed
immunity on the ground of act state of under sovereign authority. The State claimed that the
jeep was maintained in exercise of sovereign powers and not as a part of commercial activity
of the State. The Court held that the act of public servant committed by him during the
course of his employment was in discharge of duties assigned to him not by virtue of
delegation of any
sovereign powers. It was held that the act of the driver was not in the exercise of a sovereign
function and therefore held that State was vicariously liable for rash and negligent act of the
driver.
In various cases, it has been held that no action lies against the Government for injury
done to an individual in the course of exercise of sovereign functions of the State.
PRINCIPLE OF CONSTITUTIONAL TORTS
After 1980, a new judicial trend has become visible in the area of right to life and personal
liberty under Article 21. Gradually the principle laid down in
Kasturi Lal’s case the list of sovereign functions is being limited. Where along with the
commission of a tort, the State also violates the Fundamental Rights of any person, it is
termed as a ‘Constitutional Tort’.
In the absence of any law made by the Parliament, the Supreme Court has declared that in
cases of constitutional torts the right to compensation is a fundamental right under Article
21.
CONCLUSION
It is rightly observed by the Supreme Court in
N. Nagendra Rao v. State of A.P.
no civilised system can permit an executive to play with the people of a country and claim
sovereign. To place the State above the law is unjust and unfair to the citizen. In the modern
sense, the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign functions does not exist. Thus it
can be seen that in the absence of any legislation, the Courts have limited the scope of the
doctrine of sovereign immunity and have simultaneously evolved the concept of a
constitutional tort, thereby guaranteeing the right to compensation as a fundamental right.

Unit 5
Role of Lokayukta in Public Administration
Introduction
The Lokayukta is the Indian Parliamentary Ombudsman, executed into power, through and
for, each of the State Governments of India and as the Lokayukta is an anti-corruption
authority constituted at the state level and it investigates allegations of corruption and mal-
administration in contradiction of public servants and is tasked with speedy redressal of
public grievances.

The origin of the Lokayukta can be drawn to the Ombudsmen in Scandinavian countries. The
Administrative Reforms Commission, (1966-70), had recommended the creation of the
Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayukta in the states and the Centre is yet to get a Lokpal. The
Lokayukta is created as a statutory authority with a fixed tenure to qualify it to discharge its
functions independently and impartially and the person appointed is usually a former High
Court Chief Justice or former Supreme Court judge. Members of the public can directly
approach the Lokayukta with the complaints of corruption, nepotism or any other form of
mal-administration against any government official.

The Lokpal And Lokayuktas Act, 2013

The Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013, often known as the Lokpal Act, aims to establish a
Lokpal for the Union and a Lokayukta for each state to investigate charges of
maladministration or corruption against government officials and the Act covers all of India
and applies to "public servants" both inside and outside the country.
The Lokayukta, along with the Income Tax Department and the Anti-Corruption Bureau, will
function as a watchdog in our democratic structure, assisting citizens in reporting cases of
corruption and there is a appreciable difference in the structure's patterns and the role of
Lokayuktas in different states.
Ombudsman -The origin of Lokayukta can be traced to the Ombudsmen in Scandinavian
countries. An Ombudsman is generally regarded as a person who is appointed to protect
citizens against any method of maladministration. Sweden was the first country to have the
institution of Ombudsman in the year 1809. The Indian government's initiatives in the
direction of making the administrative system free from corruption and malpractices
resulted in the government's creation of two anti-corruption watchdogs, that is, Lokpal and
Lokayukta.
In this context, it is relevant to trace the historical journey through which these institutions
have evolved and the first ARC recommended the setting up of two special authorities
designated as "Lokpal" and "Lokayukta" for the redressal of citizens' grievances.
Power Of Lokayukta
In states like Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat the chief
minister is included within the jurisdiction of Lokayukta while he is discharged from the
purview of Lokayukta in the states of Orissa, Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and
Maharashtra.
Ministers and higher public servants are also included under the ambit of Lokayukta in
nearly all the states.
It has the power to raid the houses and offices of corrupt officials at the state level and it can
call for relevant files and documents from the state government departments.
It also enjoys the power to examine and visit government organisations, which are being
investigated.
Lokayukta may investigate any action taken by the public servant if it is mentioned by the
state government.
It has the authority to suggest punishment against the offender to the administration, but it
is up to the state to either accept the suggestions or modify them.

Functions Of Lokayukta
Lokayukta is tasked with immediate redressal of public grievances against politicians and
officers in the government service and it investigates allegations of corruption, abuse of
power, maladministration, or lack of honesty against public functionaries at the state level,
and once proved recommends action.
A consolidated report will be presented by the Lokayukta and Uplokayukta about their
purposes to the Governor of the state and they are responsible to the state legislature.
Its other crucial purpose is to keep a check on the investigation of anti-corruption agencies
and authorities and it carries out fair and impartial investigations, based on facts against the
accused person by enchanting the assistance of a special investigating officer.
Lokayukta may investigate any action taken by the public servant if it is mentioned by the
state government and it is tasked with speedy redressal of public grievances.
The complaint will not be taken up if there is any alternate remedy and the process of
investigation, etc, is the same as that of the Lokpal.
The Lokayukta and Uplokayukta will present a combined report of their functions to the
Governor.
Cases
M.P. Special Police Establishment V. State Of Madhya Pradesh
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Governor may act independently in the matter of
grant of sanction of prosecution against the Chief Minister or any Minister as in the matters
there would be real risk of bias in the opinion rendered by the Council of Ministers and even
in the case of grant of sanction to prosecute an ex-minister when the decision of the Council
of Ministers is shown to be unreasonable and based on non-consideration of relevant facts.

Justice K.P. Mohapatra V. Ram Chandra Nayak

The Supreme Court while dealing with functions of Lokpal under s.7 of Orissa Lokpal and
Lokayukta Act, 1995 has held that the functions of Lokayukta are of utmost importance in
seeking that uncontaminated administration of State is maintained and maladministration
as defined under section 2 (h) of the Act is exposed, so that suitable action against such
maladministration and administrator can be taken and the investigation which Lokpal is
required to carry out is quasi-judicial in nature.

Role of Lokpal and lokayukta in Public Administration

Introduction

Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013 is an anti-corruption authority that represents the public
interest. This concept is taken from Sweden which is also called an Ombudsman. The Lokpal
takes care of and ensures the inquiry and prosecution of the cases where union officials are
charged with corruption cases. Whereas, Lokayukta is a state-level body that is similar to
Lokpal and acts the state-level officials and looks after their corruption charges. The Lokpal
and Lokayukta Act 2013 concerns the issues pertaining to corruption.

The concept of Lokpal and Lokayukta was first introduced by the state of Maharashtra by
the up-Lokayukta Act in 1971. This is an essential segment of Indian Polity.

What is Lokpal

The Lokpal is the first organization and one of its own kind in India. Lokpal was established
under the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013 whose main task was to enquire and investigate
the cases related to corruption with respect to the officials and organizations at the Central
level.

Lokpal of India is purely committed to making clean governance in India and hence it makes
all genuine efforts to serve the public domain. As India is the secretary member of the
United Nations Convention against Corruption therefore the construction of such a body to
punish the act of corruption is an important move.

What is Lokayukta

Lokayukta is the same as the Lokpal as it is also an anti-corruption authority for the states
of India. The Lokayukta keeps an eye on the officials and public organizations and
investigates the allegations of corruption and maladministration.

Lokayukta is created as the statutory authority with fixed terms of office to enable them to
carry out their duties impartially and independently. Generally, the person appointed for
Lokayukta is the one who has served as the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Supreme
Court.

Background of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013

 The word ‘Lokpal’ was first used by a member of parliament, Laxmi Mall Singhvi in
1963 during a debate on grievance redressal mechanisms. Administrative Reforms
Commissions under Morarji Desai submitted a report which recommended the
creation of two special authorities: Lokayukta and Lokpal for the purpose of
redressing citizen grievances.
 Maharashtra was the first state to introduce Lokayukta through The Maharashtra
Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act in 1971. Presently, there are no Lokayuktas in the
states of Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Manipur,
Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tamil Nadu, Tripura.
 The Lokpal Bill was first introduced in the Lok Sabha in 1968. The version enacted in
2013 was from a draft prepared in 2010. The bill is an implementation of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
 The bill was passed following the backdrop of huge anti-corruption protests led by
Anna Hazare that shook the nation.

Powers and Functions of Lokpal and Lokayukta

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 grants certain powers and functions to the Lokpal and
Lokayuktas. Here are some key points about their powers and functions:

o The Lokpal and Lokayuktas have the power to conduct independent investigations
into allegations of corruption against public functionaries.
o Lokpals have jurisdiction over the Prime Minister, Union Ministers, MPs, and Group
A officers of the Central Government. Lokayuktas have jurisdiction over public
functionaries at the state level.
o The Lokpal and Lokayuktas can receive complaints related to corruption from
individuals or through any other source.
o They can conduct preliminary inquiries to ascertain the veracity of the complaint and
gather initial evidence.
o If the preliminary inquiry establishes a prima facie case, the Lokpal or Lokayuktas can
initiate a full-fledged investigation. They have the power to summon witnesses,
examine evidence, and take necessary action.
o If the investigation reveals evidence of corruption, the Lokpal or Lokayuktas can
initiate prosecution against the accused public functionaries.
o They can recommend disciplinary action against public functionaries found guilty of
corruption. This can include removal from office, too.
o The Lokpal and Lokayuktas can recommend measures to improve transparency,
accountability, and integrity in public administration.
o They ensure the protection of whistleblowers who report corruption or misuse of
power. Whistleblowers are safeguarded against any harassment or victimization.
Lokpal and Lokayukta Amendment Act, 2016

o Following the adoption of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act in 2013, Parliament enacted
a bill in July 2016 amending the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act.
o In the absence of a recognised Leader of the Opposition, this change allowed the
leader of the biggest opposition party in the Lok Sabha to become a selection
committee member.
o Section 44 of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act 2013 was also changed by this bill.
o Section 44 of the Act dealt with the need for each public official to provide
information about his or her assets and liabilities within 30 days of joining the
government service.
o This modification replaced the 30-day time restriction. It specified that government
employees must declare their assets and liabilities in the form and manner
prescribed by the government.
o When a non-governmental organisation gets more than Rs. 1 crore in government
grants or more than Rs. 10 lakh in foreign financing, the assets of the trustees and
board members must be revealed to the Lokpal.
o The bill extended the deadline for trustees and board members to report their assets
and those of their spouses.

Powers and producures of lokayukta

Introduction from above

Power of Lokayukta
The power of Lokayukta are discussining below:
In states like Himachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat the
chief minister is included within the jurisdiction of Lokayukta while he is exempted
from the purview of Lokayukta in the states of Orissa, Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh
and Maharashtra.
Ministers and higher public servants are also included under the ambit of Lokayukta
in almost all the states.
It has the power to raid on the houses and offices of corrupt officials at state level.
It can call for relevant files and documents from the state government departments.
It also enjoys the power to inspect and visit government organisations, which are
being investigated.
Lokayukta may investigate any action taken by the public servant if it is referred by
the state government.
It has the authority to suggest punishment against the culprit to the administration,
but it is up to the state to either accept the suggestions or modify them.
Functions of Lokayukta
Lokayukta is tasked with speedy redressal of public grievances against politicians and
officers in the government service.
It investigates allegations of corruption, abuse of power, maladministration or lack of
integrity against public functionaries at state level, and once proved recommends
action.
A consolidated report will be presented by the Lokayukta and Uplokayukta about
their functions to the Governor of the state. Hence, they are responsible to the state
legislature.
Its another crucial function is to keep a check on the investigation of anti-corruption
agencies and authorities.
It carries out fair and impartial investigations, based on facts against the accused
person by taking the assistance of a special investigating officer.
The institution of Lokpal has been a landmark move in the history of the Republic of
India, but at the same time there are certain loopholes that needs to be corrected.
The institution of Lokpal and Lokayukta must be strengthened in respect of
functional autonomy and workforce availability to fight against the long-standing
battle of corruption. There ought to be transparency in the nomination of Lokpal and
Lokayukta as it will increase the possibilities of appointment of the right candidate.