ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

MODULE 3
The Growth of Administrative Adjudication

1. Expansion of the Role of the State (From Laissez-faire to Welfare State)

In earlier times, the government’s role was limited to maintaining law and order. However,
with the rise of the welfare state model, the government began to actively engage in
providing social security, public health, education, environmental protection, labor welfare,
etc.
This massive increase in responsibilities created numerous legal relationships between the
State and individuals, giving rise to more disputes. Courts alone could not handle these
efficiently, thus necessitating administrative tribunals to ensure justice is accessible and
quick.
Example: Disputes over government subsidies, pension benefits, or housing schemes
often go to administrative bodies like the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).
2. Growing Complexity of Modern Laws and Society
Today’s world operates with highly complex laws in areas like finance, environment,
telecom, cyber law, taxation, etc. These require specialized adjudication mechanisms.
Regular judges may not possess the technical or scientific knowledge necessary to resolve
such issues efficiently.
Example: The Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT) handles disputes involving securities
law, which requires an understanding of financial instruments and markets.
3. Need for Speedy and Effective Justice
Courts are bound by procedural formalities, resulting in long delays. Administrative
adjudication, however, focuses on faster disposal of cases through simplified processes and
reduced legal formalities.
Speedy resolution is vital in matters like service disputes, environmental clearances, and
consumer complaints.
Example: The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions provide relatively faster redressal
for consumer grievances than regular civil courts.
4. Burden on Judiciary
The traditional judicial system in India is heavily overburdened. With lakhs of pending cases,
it becomes difficult for courts to dispose of matters within reasonable time. Administrative
tribunals have emerged as parallel mechanisms to share this load and expedite the process of
justice delivery.
Example: The creation of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) helps in handling
environmental litigation, thereby reducing the burden on High Courts and the Supreme Court.
5. Need for Technical Expertise
Many legal matters today involve specialized knowledge, which generalist judges may lack.
Administrative adjudication allows the inclusion of technical experts (engineers, economists,
doctors, etc.) as members of tribunals, enabling more informed and practical decisions.
Example: The Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) deals
with disputes in the telecom sector requiring technical and technological expertise.
6. Cost-effective Mechanism
Court proceedings often require significant financial resources for legal fees, court costs, and
documentation. Administrative tribunals offer a cheaper alternative with less formality and
fewer expenses, thus making justice more accessible to common citizens.
Example: Tribunals like the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal allow
workers to contest EPF-related disputes at lower costs than through regular courts.
7. Flexibility in Procedure
Unlike courts that are strictly governed by the Code of Civil Procedure or the Evidence Act,
administrative bodies are allowed to frame their own procedures. This procedural flexibility
helps them adapt to different kinds of disputes and resolve them efficiently.
Example: The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is not strictly bound by civil
court procedures and can take more flexible approaches to corporate disputes.
8. Decentralization and Accessibility
Administrative adjudication helps bring justice closer to the people by creating specialized
forums across different regions, thus improving access to justice, especially in remote areas.
Example: Lok Adalats and State-level Consumer Forums are decentralized mechanisms
that allow people to get their disputes resolved locally.
9. Improved Implementation of Government Policies
Many government welfare schemes (like MGNREGA, public health missions, education
reforms, etc.) lead to administrative actions that may affect citizens’ rights. Adjudicatory
mechanisms within the administration help ensure fair and proper implementation by
resolving grievances promptly.
Example: Service tribunals resolve disputes related to promotions, transfers, and
pensions of government employees, ensuring that administrative actions align with policy
objectives.
10. Democratic Accountability and Checks on Administration
Administrative adjudication acts as a check on the excessive use of discretionary power by
the executive. It provides a forum where citizens can challenge administrative actions and
hold authorities accountable.
Example: The Right to Information (RTI) Act allows appeals before the Central and State
Information Commissions, which act as adjudicating authorities ensuring transparency and
accountability in governance.
11. Global Influence and Comparative Models
Many countries (like the USA, UK, France) have well-developed systems of administrative
adjudication. India has drawn inspiration from such models, leading to the expansion of
tribunals and quasi-judicial bodies.
Example: The concept of administrative tribunals in India was strengthened after
recommendations by the Swaran Singh Committee and the 42nd Amendment, introducing
Article 323A and 323B to the Constitution.
 Differentiation between Courts And Tribunals

1. Source of Origin
Courts are established under the Constitution of India. For example, the Supreme Court is
constituted under Article 124, and High Courts under Article 214. These courts are
constitutional bodies.
In contrast, tribunals are created by specific statutes passed by Parliament or State
Legislatures. They derive their existence from legislation such as the Administrative
Tribunals Act, 1985 or the Companies Act, 2013. Hence, tribunals are statutory bodies, not
constitutional ones.
2. Jurisdiction
Courts have general jurisdiction. They can hear a wide variety of cases, including civil,
criminal, constitutional, and administrative matters. Their jurisdiction is broad and extends to
almost every kind of legal dispute.
On the other hand, tribunals have limited or specific jurisdiction. They are established to
deal with particular areas of law such as tax, service matters, environment, or company law.
They cannot entertain matters beyond the scope of the statute that created them.
3. Composition and Expertise
Courts are composed of judges who are legally trained and come through the judicial service
system or are appointed by the President or Governor after a thorough process.
In contrast, tribunals often include both judicial members and technical experts. For
example, the National Company Law Tribunal may include members with expertise in
company affairs or accountancy, allowing them to deal with complex commercial issues
more effectively.
4. Procedure Followed
Courts follow strict procedures laid down under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Code of
Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act. These procedures ensure
consistency but often lead to delay.
Tribunals, however, follow less formal and flexible procedures. They are not bound by CPC
or the Evidence Act and are allowed to frame their own procedural rules, which helps in
faster disposal of cases.
5. Nature of Decisions
The decisions of courts are binding under constitutional authority and are enforced through
well-established mechanisms. Their judgments carry a higher precedent value.
Decisions of tribunals, though binding within their domain, are subject to judicial review.
They can be challenged before constitutional courts, especially under Article 226 (High
Court) and Article 136 (Supreme Court).
6. Appeals and Review
Courts generally have a clear hierarchy. Appeals from subordinate courts go to the High
Courts and then to the Supreme Court.
In the case of tribunals, appellate mechanisms depend on the enabling statute. Some
tribunals have in-built appellate tribunals (e.g., ITAT has a higher bench), while others are
subject to appeals directly before High Courts or the Supreme Court.
7. Independence and Protection
Judges of courts enjoy constitutional protection, including fixed tenure, salary protection,
and immunity from arbitrary removal. This ensures independence and impartiality.
Tribunal members may not enjoy the same level of protection. Their appointment and
service conditions are governed by executive rules, which may compromise their
independence to some extent.
8. Objective and Purpose
The main objective of courts is to deliver justice in accordance with the law and the
Constitution. They act as guardians of fundamental rights and interpreters of constitutional
provisions.
Tribunals, however, are created with the purpose of specialized, speedy, and cost-effective
adjudication in technical or administrative matters. Their creation also helps to reduce the
burden on regular courts.
9. Accessibility and Cost
Litigation in courts can be time-consuming and expensive due to formalities and legal fees.
Tribunals offer a more accessible and affordable forum, especially for common citizens,
government employees, and business entities dealing with sector-specific disputes.
Administrative Adjudication and Tribunals
Administrative Adjudication
Meaning:
Administrative adjudication is the process by which administrative or executive bodies
exercise judicial or quasi-judicial powers to resolve disputes and make legally binding
decisions. It is a non-judicial method of settling disputes, wherein administrative agencies
perform functions similar to that of courts. This system allows for faster, specialized, and
more accessible justice, especially in technical or high-volume areas where courts might be
overburdened or lack expertise.
Origin and Need:
The emergence of the welfare state and increasing government intervention in social,
economic, and industrial matters led to a growing number of regulations and legal
relationships between the state and individuals. Traditional courts, limited by rigid
procedures and delays, were unable to handle the growing caseload efficiently. To fill this
gap, administrative adjudication evolved as a mechanism to relieve the burden on the
judiciary, offer speedy and inexpensive remedies, and address specialized disputes that
require technical knowledge.
Key Features:
1. Quasi-judicial in nature – Combines features of both administration and
adjudication.
2. Flexibility of procedure – Not strictly bound by CPC or Evidence Act.
3. Specialization – Decisions are made by bodies or officers with domain
expertise.
4. Government involvement – Often initiated and decided by state authorities.
5. Limited to specific subject matters – Like tax, service law, environment, etc.

Examples:
• Income Tax Officers assessing tax liabilities.
• Transport authorities deciding license suspensions.
• Pension or service matters decided by departmental heads.

Tribunals

Meaning:
Tribunals are quasi-judicial institutions established by statutes to adjudicate disputes in
specialized areas. They are the formalized bodies through which administrative adjudication
is most commonly carried out. They aim to provide speedy, expert, and cost-effective
resolution of disputes, especially in areas requiring technical knowledge or where there is a
high volume of litigation.
Constitutional Provision:
Tribunals were granted constitutional status under the 42nd Amendment Act, 1976, which
introduced Articles 323A and 323B into the Constitution of India:
• Article 323A: Provides for tribunals dealing with service matters of public
servants.
• Article 323B: Allows the establishment of tribunals for other matters like
taxation, foreign exchange, industry, labour, elections, land reforms, etc.
Examples of Tribunals in India:
• Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) – For service disputes of central
government employees.
• Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) – For appeals against tax
assessments.
• National Green Tribunal (NGT) – For environmental disputes.
 • National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) – For insolvency, mergers, and
corporate law cases.
• Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) – For disputes related to armed forces
personnel.

Composition:
Tribunals typically consist of judicial members (often retired judges) and technical or expert
members, such as economists, engineers, chartered accountants, or scientists, depending on
the subject matter.

Advantages of Administrative Adjudication and Tribunals:

1. Speedy Justice – Tribunals resolve disputes faster than traditional courts due
to simplified procedures.
2. Expertise – The presence of technical members ensures informed decision-
making in specialized fields.
3. Reduced Burden on Courts – By handling specific types of disputes,
tribunals help reduce the workload of High Courts and the Supreme Court.
4. Cost-effective – Lower costs make tribunals more accessible to common
citizens.
5. Flexibility in Procedure – Tribunals are not bound by strict procedural and
evidentiary rules.
Limitations and Criticisms:
1. Lack of Constitutional Protection – Tribunal members do not enjoy the
same level of independence as judges.
2. Executive Influence – In many cases, tribunal appointments and functioning
are under the control of the executive, leading to questions about impartiality.
3. Limited Judicial Review – Earlier, some tribunal decisions were not open to
High Court review, which was struck down in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997),
restoring judicial oversight.
4. Inconsistency – Procedures and quality of decisions vary from one tribunal to
another.
5. Appeal Mechanism – Sometimes unclear or overly complex, leading to
further litigation.

Relationship Between Administrative Adjudication and Tribunals:

Administrative adjudication is the process, whereas tribunals are the institutional mechanisms
through which that process is implemented. While administrative adjudication can also be
done by individual officers (like a licensing authority or a tax officer), tribunals represent the
structured and statutory form of administrative adjudication. Most formal and large-scale
administrative decision-making today occurs through tribunals.
In short:
• Administrative adjudication refers to the act of settling disputes by
administrative bodies.
• Tribunals are the bodies created to conduct such adjudication efficiently and
in accordance with law.
Advantages of Tribunal
Tribunals offer several advantages over traditional courts, making them integral to the legal
framework:
1. Specialized Expertise: Tribunals are often composed of members with
specific expertise in the relevant field, such as tax law, environmental regulations, or labor
relations. This specialized knowledge enables more informed and precise adjudication of
complex issues.
2. Efficiency and Speed: With simplified procedures and a focus on specific
areas, tribunals can resolve disputes more quickly than traditional courts, reducing the
backlog of cases and providing timely justice.
3. Cost-Effectiveness: The streamlined processes and reduced formalities in
tribunals often lead to lower litigation costs for both the parties involved and the government,
making justice more accessible.
4. Flexibility in Procedure: Tribunals are not strictly bound by the procedural
norms of traditional courts, allowing for more adaptable and less formal proceedings tailored
to the nature of the disputes they handle.
5. Reduced Burden on Judiciary: By handling specialized disputes, tribunals
alleviate the caseload of regular courts, enabling the judiciary to focus on more general and
complex cases.
6. Accessibility: Tribunals often have a more informal setting and procedures,
making them more approachable for individuals who might find traditional court systems
intimidating or cumbersome.

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is a comprehensive legislation that establishes
administrative tribunals for adjudicating disputes related to public service employment.
Below is an overview of its key provisions, organized by relevant sections:
1. Establishment of Tribunals:
• Section 4: Mandates the Central Government to establish the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) for central government employees. It also allows for the
creation of State Administrative Tribunals (SATs) upon a state’s request and permits the
formation of Joint Administrative Tribunals (JATs) for two or more states.
2. Composition and Appointment:
• Section 5: Details the composition of the tribunals, specifying the inclusion of
a Chairman and other Members.
• Section 6: Outlines the qualifications required for appointment as Chairman
and Members, emphasizing the need for judicial and administrative expertise.

3. Jurisdiction and Powers:

• Section 14: Confers jurisdiction to the CAT over service matters of central
government employees.
• Section 15: Grants jurisdiction to SATs concerning service matters of
respective state government employees.
• Section 16: Provides JATs with jurisdiction over service matters pertaining to
the states involved.
• Section 17: Empowers tribunals to exercise the same jurisdiction and
authority as a High Court in matters of contempt.
4. Procedure and Evidence:
• Section 22: States that tribunals are not bound by the Code of Civil Procedure
but should adhere to principles of natural justice, allowing them to regulate their own
procedures.
• Section 23: Specifies that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not apply to
tribunal proceedings, granting flexibility in admitting evidence.
5. Appeals and Judicial Review:
• Section 28: Limits the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters within the purview
of tribunals, directing that appeals should be made to the Supreme Court.

Principles of good governance in administrative law

Administrative law plays a crucial role in ensuring good governance by regulating the
functioning of public authorities. Good governance is guided by principles that promote
accountability, transparency, equity, and efficiency in public administration. These principles
are not just theoretical ideals but have been recognized and enforced by the judiciary through
landmark judgments.
1. Rule of Law
The rule of law is a foundational principle of administrative law and good
governance. It ensures that all actions of the government and its agencies are carried
out within the bounds of the law. It demands that laws be applied uniformly, fairly,
and without arbitrariness, thus protecting individuals from abuse of power.
Case Law – Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973):
In this historic case, the Supreme Court laid down the Basic Structure Doctrine, stating that
certain essential features of the Constitution, including rule of law, cannot be amended. The
judgment emphasized that no authority is above the Constitution, and all administrative
actions must adhere to the legal framework, strengthening the legal boundaries within which
public administration must operate.
2. Transparency
Transparency ensures that the functioning of public bodies is open to scrutiny by the public.
It is essential to building trust in government, reducing corruption, and allowing for informed
public participation in policy-making.
Case Law – S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981):
This case expanded the scope of right to information. The Court ruled that public access to
government documents is essential for democratic functioning and held that secrecy in
administrative matters is antithetical to the idea of accountable governance. This case laid the
groundwork for the Right to Information Act, 2005, which institutionalized transparency in
public administration.
3. Accountability
Accountability implies that administrative authorities must answer for their actions and
decisions. It is a check against arbitrary use of power and promotes ethical governance.
Public servants are expected to perform their duties in the interest of the public and within the
limits of their authority.
Case Law – Common Cause v. Union of India (1996):
In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the illegal allotment of petrol pumps to individuals
close to those in power. The Court criticized the misuse of discretionary power and
emphasized that public offices are held in trust for the people. It asserted that public servants
are accountable for their actions, especially when they involve misuse of state resources.
4. Responsiveness
Responsiveness means that the government and administrative bodies should respond
promptly and adequately to the needs and grievances of citizens. It includes efficient public
service delivery, grievance redressal mechanisms, and the implementation of citizen-centric
policies.
Case Law – T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1996 – ongoing):
This case originated as a forest conservation matter but evolved into broader environmental
governance. The Supreme Court’s directions led to the creation of mechanisms like the
Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to oversee compliance. It showed how judicial
intervention compelled administrative responsiveness to environmental degradation and
ecological concerns.
5. Participation
Participation is a hallmark of democratic governance. It ensures that citizens, especially
marginalized groups, have a voice in decision-making. This enhances the quality and
legitimacy of laws and policies.
Case Law – Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996):
The Court heard a PIL filed by citizens against the pollution caused by tanneries. It
recognized the role of civil society in governance and laid down the Precautionary Principle
and Polluter Pays Principle, which became cornerstones of environmental administrative law.
The case encouraged public participation in policy formulation and environmental protection.
6. Consensus-Oriented
Consensus-oriented governance seeks to balance the differing interests of various
stakeholders in society. It involves negotiation, mediation, and inclusion to reach policies that
are acceptable to all, particularly in pluralistic and diverse societies like India.
Case Law – Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India (2000):
This case involved the construction of the Sardar Sarovar Dam, which posed a conflict
between development goals and the rights of displaced persons. The Court allowed the dam’s
construction but also emphasized the need to rehabilitate affected communities, thus
demonstrating the principle of consensus-oriented governance—balancing economic
development with social justice.
7. Effectiveness and Efficiency
This principle requires that administrative actions achieve desired results with the optimal use
of resources. Governance should not only be lawful but also purposeful and productive,
focusing on achieving socio-economic goals swiftly and with minimal waste.
Case Law – Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985):
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that eviction of pavement dwellers without providing
alternative shelter violated their right to livelihood, which is a part of Article 21. The
judgment emphasized that state actions must be effective in addressing the needs of
vulnerable groups. It also demonstrated the need for planned and humane implementation of
urban development policies.
8. Equity and Inclusiveness
Equity ensures fairness, justice, and inclusion in governance. It requires that policies are
designed to include all citizens, especially marginalized and disadvantaged groups, in the
benefits of development and decision-making processes.
Case Law – Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992):
Also known as the Mandal Commission case, this decision upheld the 27% reservation for
OBCs in government jobs. The Court held that affirmative action is essential for social justice
and inclusive governance. It highlighted the importance of creating opportunities for
historically oppressed communities and emphasized that good governance must be inclusive
and equitable.

Transparency and the Right to Know in Administrative Law

1. Transparency in Administrative Law
Meaning and Significance
Transparency in administrative law refers to the openness and clarity with which public
authorities operate, ensuring that their actions, decisions, and policies are accessible and
understandable to the public. It is a foundational element of good governance, promoting
accountability, reducing corruption, and fostering public trust. Transparent administration
allows citizens to be informed participants in the democratic process, enabling them to
scrutinize governmental actions effectively.
Legal Framework and Mechanisms
In India, several mechanisms have been instituted to promote transparency:
• Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act): This landmark legislation
empowers citizens to request information from public authorities, thereby institutionalizing
transparency. The Act mandates timely responses to citizen requests for information and
requires public bodies to proactively disclose certain categories of information. 
• E-Governance Initiatives: The adoption of digital platforms for government
services has enhanced transparency by making information readily available online, reducing
bureaucratic red tape, and facilitating easier access to public services.
• Citizen Charters: These are public documents that outline the services
provided by government departments, the standards of service delivery, and the avenues for
redressal of grievances, thereby promoting transparency and accountability.
Judicial Pronouncements
The Indian judiciary has consistently upheld the importance of transparency:
• S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): The Supreme Court emphasized that an
open government directly emanates from the right to know, which is implicit in the right to
freedom of speech and expression. The Court observed that disclosure of information
regarding government functioning is essential for participatory democracy.
• Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998): This case highlighted the necessity
of transparency in the functioning of investigative agencies, underscoring that lack of
transparency can lead to the erosion of public confidence.

Challenges to Transparency
Despite the frameworks in place, challenges persist:
• Bureaucratic Resistance: There is often reluctance within the bureaucracy to
share information, stemming from a culture of secrecy.
• Lack of Awareness: Many citizens remain unaware of their rights under laws
like the RTI Act, limiting the effectiveness of such provisions.
• Digital Divide: While e-governance promotes transparency, unequal access to
digital technologies can exclude certain sections of society from its benefits.

2. Right to Know in Administrative Law

Concept and Constitutional Basis
The Right to Know refers to the entitlement of citizens to access information held by public
authorities. In India, this right is derived from Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which
guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court has interpreted this
freedom to include the right to receive information, recognizing that an informed citizenry is
vital for the functioning of a democracy.
Evolution through Judicial Interpretation
The judiciary has played a pivotal role in expanding the scope of the Right to Know:
• State of U.P. v. Raj Narain (1975): The Supreme Court held that the people
of the country have a right to know every public act, reinforcing that transparency is
fundamental to the democratic process.
• Secretary, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting v. Cricket Association
of Bengal (1995): The Court recognized that the right to freedom of speech and expression
includes the right to acquire and disseminate information, emphasizing the role of
information in the democratic process.
Legislative Recognition
The enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provided a statutory framework for the
Right to Know:
• Empowerment of Citizens: The Act empowers citizens to seek information
from public authorities, thereby promoting transparency and accountability.
• Obligations on Public Authorities: It mandates public authorities to maintain
records duly cataloged and indexed, facilitating easy access to information. 
• Time-Bound Responses: The Act stipulates specific time frames within
which information must be provided, ensuring promptness in disclosure.
Impact on Administrative Law
The Right to Know has significantly influenced administrative practices:
• Enhanced Accountability: Administrators are aware that their decisions and
actions are subject to public scrutiny, leading to more responsible governance.
• Reduction in Corruption: Access to information deters corrupt practices, as
the likelihood of exposure increases.
• Informed Citizenry: Citizens equipped with information can participate more
effectively in governance and decision-making processes.
Limitations and Concerns
While the Right to Know is fundamental, it is not absolute:
• Exemptions under RTI Act: Certain categories of information, such as those
pertaining to national security, strategic interests, or personal privacy, are exempted from
disclosure.
• Misuse of Information: There are instances where information obtained is
misused, leading to concerns about privacy and security.
• Administrative Burden: The obligation to provide information can strain the
resources of public authorities, especially when dealing with frivolous or voluminous
requests.
 Ombudsman in Administrative Law
1. Introduction
Administrative law governs the functioning of public authorities and ensures that their actions
are legal, just, and accountable. Within this framework, the Ombudsman plays a crucial role
as a guardian of administrative accountability and transparency. It is an institution designed
to receive and address complaints made by citizens against government agencies or officials.
The idea is to offer an independent, impartial, and cost-effective mechanism for investigating
public grievances outside the traditional court system. The Ombudsman does not replace the
judiciary but supplements it by ensuring that individuals have access to timely and effective
redressal of their grievances regarding maladministration, corruption, or inefficiency.
2. Origin and Evolution of the Ombudsman
The concept of the Ombudsman traces back to Sweden in 1809, where the Swedish
Parliament appointed an officer known as the “Justitieombudsman” to supervise the legality
of government actions. This model became popular and was gradually adopted by many
countries including New Zealand, the UK, Australia, Canada, and India, each adapting it to
their own legal and administrative systems.
The central idea behind the Ombudsman is that citizens should have a voice against
administrative injustice, and the state should be held accountable for its actions. The
institution has evolved into sector-specific roles in many countries—for example, Banking
Ombudsman, Insurance Ombudsman, and Telecom Ombudsman.
3. Meaning and Definition
An Ombudsman is an independent authority, usually appointed by the legislature, who is
tasked with investigating complaints made by citizens against the public administration,
government departments, or public functionaries. The term literally means “representative” or
“agent” of the people. The role of the Ombudsman is not judicial but rather investigative and
recommendatory. They examine complaints and suggest remedial measures or systemic
reforms in cases of administrative abuse.
In India, the institution takes the form of Lokpal at the Union level and Lokayukta at the state
level.
4. Ombudsman in the Indian Context
4.1 Lokpal
The concept of Lokpal was first proposed by the First Administrative Reforms Commission
(1966). After several unsuccessful attempts and increased public pressure during the 2011
anti-corruption movement, the Parliament enacted the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
• Composition: Lokpal consists of a Chairperson and up to 8 members, of which
50% must be judicial members and at least 50% must belong to marginalized communities
(SCs, STs, OBCs, minorities, and women).
• Jurisdiction: It has jurisdiction over the Prime Minister (with limitations),
Ministers, MPs, and officers in Groups A, B, C, and D.
• Powers: Lokpal can conduct inquiries, investigations, and recommend
prosecution through special courts. It can also order disciplinary actions against public
officials.
4.2 Lokayukta
At the state level, the Lokayukta performs a role similar to the Lokpal. It is appointed by the
Governor and investigates complaints against state public servants including the Chief
Minister (in some states), Ministers, and bureaucrats.
However, the structure and effectiveness of the Lokayukta differ significantly across states:
• Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Kerala have had relatively active Lokayuktas.
• Several states have weak or non-functional Lokayukta institutions due to lack
of autonomy, political interference, or limited powers.

5. Sector-Specific Ombudsmen in India

Apart from Lokpal and Lokayuktas, there are other ombudsman institutions:
• Banking Ombudsman: Appointed by the Reserve Bank of India to resolve
complaints related to banking services.
• Insurance Ombudsman: Resolves grievances of policyholders against
insurance companies.
• Income Tax Ombudsman: Deals with complaints related to tax
administration.
• Electricity and Telecom Ombudsmen: Address sector-specific service
issues.
These institutions provide quick, consumer-friendly alternatives to courts and tribunals,
ensuring access to justice.

6. Legal Significance in Administrative Law

The Ombudsman system provides several benefits within the administrative legal framework:
6.1 Promotes Accountability
By investigating administrative actions, the Ombudsman ensures that public officials are
accountable for their decisions and actions.
6.2 Prevents Abuse of Power
It serves as a check on arbitrariness, corruption, and maladministration, thereby reinforcing
the rule of law.
6.3 Reduces Judicial Burden
Many grievances that would otherwise end up in court are resolved by the Ombudsman,
reducing pressure on the judiciary.
6.4 Encourages Ethical Governance
It promotes transparency, encourages ethical behavior in public officials, and identifies
structural flaws in administration.
7. Case Laws and Judicial Recognition
 S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981)
The Supreme Court held that “open government is the new democratic culture of an open
society.” This judgment recognized the importance of transparency and public scrutiny—core
principles behind the Ombudsman institution.
 M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (1987 onwards)
In a series of cases related to environmental issues, the Court emphasized the need for
independent authorities to monitor administrative performance—similar in role to an
Ombudsman.
 Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998)
The Court stressed the need for independent institutions to ensure accountability and
effectiveness in investigation and prosecution, echoing the role played by Lokpal and
Lokayuktas.
 Common Cause v. Union of India (1999)
The Court underlined the need for independent grievance redressal mechanisms in the fight
against corruption and administrative inefficiency.
8. Challenges Faced by Ombudsman Institutions in India
While the institution of Ombudsman is noble in concept, its implementation has faced
significant hurdles in India:
• Non-binding Recommendations: Lokpal/Lokayukta recommendations are
not always enforced, reducing their practical impact.
• Political Influence: Appointments and actions of the Ombudsman may be
influenced by political considerations.
• Vacancies and Delays: Many posts of Lokpal and Lokayuktas remain vacant
or are filled after long delays.
• Lack of Awareness: Many citizens are unaware of the functioning and
availability of these institutions.
• State-Level Inconsistency: Each state has its own Lokayukta Act, leading to
lack of uniformity and varying degrees of effectiveness.
9. Conclusion
The Ombudsman is a vital part of a democratic system based on constitutionalism and the
rule of law. It serves as a non-judicial check on administrative power and helps foster
transparency, responsiveness, and integrity in governance. The establishment of Lokpal and
Lokayuktas marked a significant step in India’s efforts to fight corruption and promote good
governance. However, for the institution to reach its full potential, there must be greater
independence, enforceability of recommendations, sufficient resources, and strong public
awareness. Strengthening the Ombudsman system is essential for ensuring that citizens’
voices are heard and administrative excesses are addressed effectively.