Ombudsman-Making a complaint to an ombudsman is usually free of charge.

Ombudsman/WHY ARE WE AFRAID OF A STRONG LOKPAL OR JANLOKPAL BILL.A SEPRATE BODY OR LAWS ARE GOING TO BE MADE FINALLY.IF WE NEED TO ERADICATE IT FROM ROOTS,WE NEED A STRONG LAW AND ITS FORMAT...AND IT WILL HAPPEN NOW AND NEVER,SO THAT WE DON'T NEED TO DO AMENDMENTS FOR IT FREQUENTLY.MANY TIMES THIS BILL COULDN'T GET PASSED...THIS TIME IT SHOULD BE.AFTER ALL WHY IS SO THAT WE ALL NEED TO BE ON STREET TO GET OUR LAWS MADE AND DEMANDS FULFILL....?? EVEN TO AAM JANTA,IF THEY LISTEN TO ME...WE ALL TAKE A PLEDGE THAT WE'LL NEVER GIVE OR TAKE BRIBE,NEVER BE A PART OF CORRUPTION,SCAMS...AND WILL BE A WHISTLEBLOWER WHENEVER ITS NEEDED...VT)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



An ombudsman (conventional English plural: ombudsmen) is a person who acts as a trusted intermediary between an organization and some internal or external constituency while representing not only but mostly the broad scope of constituent interests. An indigenous Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish term, Ombudsman is etymologically rooted in the Old Norse word umboðsmaðr, essentially meaning "representative". An ombudsman is an official, usually appointed by the government or by parliament, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens.

Usually appointed by the organization, but sometimes elected by the constituency, the ombudsman may, for example, investigate constituent complaints relating to the organization and attempt to resolve them, usually through recommendations (binding or not) or mediation. Ombudsmen sometimes identify organizational roadblocks running counter to constituent interests.

In some jurisdictions an ombudsman charged with the handling of concerns about national government is more formally referred to as the "Parliamentary Commissioner" (e.g., the United Kingdom Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and the Western Australian state Ombudsman). In many countries where the ombudsman's remit extends beyond dealing with alleged maladministration to promoting and protecting human rights, the ombudsman is recognized as the national human rights institution. The word ombudsman and its specific meaning have been adopted in various languages, including Spanish, Dutch and Czech. The post of ombudsman has been instituted by other governments and organizations such as the European Union.

An ombudsman may not be appointed by a legislature, but may instead be appointed by, or even work for, a corporation such as a utility supplier or a newspaper, for an NGO, for a professional regulatory body, or for local or municipal government.

In some countries an Inspector General may have duties similar to or overlapping with an ombudsman appointed by the legislature.

Making a complaint to an ombudsman is usually free of charge.

Origins and etymology

The origin of the word is found in Old Norse umbuðsmann (accusative) and the word umbuds man, meaning representative (with the word umbud/ombud meaning proxy, that is someone who is authorized to act for someone else, a meaning it still has in the Scandinavian languages). The first preserved use is in Swedish[citation needed]. In the Danish Law of Jutland from 1241 the term is umbozman and means a royal civil servant in a hundred. From 1552, it is also used in the other Scandinavian languages such as the both Icelandic and Faroese umboðsmaður, the Norwegian ombudsmann and the Danish ombudsmand.

The modern use of the term began in Sweden, with the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman instituted by the Instrument of Government of 1809, to safeguard the rights of citizens by establishing a supervisory agency independent of the executive branch.

A prototype of ombudsmen may have flourished in China during the Qin Dynasty (221 BC), and in Korea during the Joseon Dynasty.[citation needed] The Roman Tribune had some similar roles, with power to veto acts that infringed upon the Plebians.

The predecessor of the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman was the Office of Supreme Ombudsman ("Högste Ombudsmannen"), which was established by the Swedish King, Charles XII, in 1713. Charles XII was in exile in Turkey and needed a representative in Sweden to ensure that judges and civil servants acted in accordance with the laws and with their duties. If they did not do so, the Supreme Ombudsman had the right to prosecute them for negligence. In 1719 the Swedish Office of Supreme Ombudsman became the Chancellor of Justice.[1] One inspiration to the Supreme Ombudsman may have been the Turkish Diwan-al-Mazalim which appears to go back to the second Caliph, Umar (634-644) and the concept of Qadi al-Qadat.[2] However, the current predecessor of ombudsman institutions, the Swedish Parliamentary Ombudsman, is based on the concept of separation of powers as developed by Montesquieu,[1] which has a western origin[3] and roots in the Enlightenment. The Parliamentary Ombudsman was established in 1809 by the Swedish Riksdag, as a parallel institution to the still-present Chancellor of Justice. The Parliamentary Ombudsman is the institution that the Scandinavian countries subsequently molded into its contemporary form, and which subsequently has been adopted in many other parts of the world.
[edit] Ombudsman in politics

In general, an ombudsman is a state official appointed to provide a check on government activity in the interests of the citizen, and to oversee the investigation of complaints of improper government activity against the citizen. If the ombudsman finds a complaint to be substantiated, the problem may get rectified, or an ombudsman report is published making recommendations for change. Further redress depends on the laws of the country concerned, but this normally involves financial compensation. Ombudsmen in most countries do not have the power to initiate legal proceedings or prosecution on the grounds of a complaint. This role is sometimes referred to as a "tribunitian" role, and has been traditionally fulfilled by elected representatives – the term refers to the ancient Roman "tribunes of the plebians" (tribuni plebis), whose role was to intercede in the political process on behalf of common citizens.

The major advantage of an ombudsman is that he or she examines complaints from outside the offending state institution, thus avoiding the conflicts of interest inherent in self-policing. However, the ombudsman system relies heavily on the selection of an appropriate individual for the office, and on the cooperation of at least some effective official from within the apparatus of the state. Perhaps for this reason, outside Scandinavia, the introduction of ombudsmen has tended to yield mixed results.

Industry and organizational ombudsman
Organizational ombudsman

Many private companies, universities, non-profit organizations and government agencies also have an ombudsman (or an ombuds office) to serve internal employees, and managers and/or other constituencies. These ombudsman roles are structured to function independently, by reporting to the CEO or board of directors, and according to International Ombudsman Association (IOA) Standards of Practice do not serve any other role in the organization. They are beginning to appear around the world within organizations, sometimes as an alternative to anonymous hot-lines in countries where these are considered inappropriate or are illegal, and in addition to hot lines because ombuds offices typically receive many more calls than do hot lines.(See Charles L. Howard, The Organizational Ombudsman: Origins, Roles and Operations, a Legal Guide, ABA, 2010).

Since the 1960s, the profession has grown in the United States, and Canada, particularly in corporations, universities and government agencies. This current model, sometimes referred to as an organizational ombudsman, works as a designated neutral party, one who is high-ranking in an organization, but who is not considered part of executive management in the sense of being able to make management decisions. Using an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) sensibility, or perhaps more apt, an appropriate dispute resolution sensibility, an organizational ombudsman can provide options to whistleblowers or employees and managers with ethics concerns; provide coaching, shuttle diplomacy, generic solutions (meaning a solution which protects the identity of one individual by applying to a class of people, rather than just for the one individual) and mediation for conflicts; track problem areas; and make recommendations for changes to policies or procedures in support of orderly systems change.

(It may be of interest that the term appropriate, as in appropriate dispute resolution, is something of a term of art. ADR is usually thought to be alternative dispute resolution, as in an alternative to formal, rights-based processes, including formal grievance procedures and the courts. It usually is thought to include mediation and arbitration. However, the word "appropriate" in this context includes rights- or rights- and power based dispute resolution. For example, appropriate dispute resolution of a work-place assault might be a formal grievance procedure or an appeal to security officers. Appropriate resolution might also include simple forgiveness. Appropriate dispute resolution thus refers to a much wider set of processes than are usually thought to be part of alternative dispute resolution.)

One particularly important function is to monitor and pick up "new things" – that is, issues new to the organization. This is particularly important if the issue is "disruptive" in the sense of requiring the organization to review and possibly improve its policies, procedures and/or structures. (See for example:Identifying and Communicating the Usefulness of Organizational Ombuds With Ideas about OO Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness ©2010, Mary Rowe, JIOA vol 3, no 1, p7 and passim.) In recent years there have been many articles about organizational ombuds and about how they coordinate with internal conflict management systems. (See for example: http://ombuds-blog.blogspot.com/ and http://www.ombudsassociation.org/ (including the IOA publications section) and http://web.mit.edu/ombud/publications/ for many references).

An organizational ombudsman who is practising to IOA "standards of practice" is neutral and visibly outside ordinary line and staff structures. An organizational ombudsman will practice informally (with no management decision-making power, and without accepting "notice" for the organization). An organizational ombudsman typically keeps no case records for an employer and keeps near absolute confidentiality. The only exception is where there appears to be an imminent risk of serious harm, and an ombudsman can see no responsible option other than breaking confidence—but organizational ombuds programs report that they can almost always find "other responsible options", such as helping a visitor to make an anonymous report about whatever appears to be the problem.

India

The Government of India has designated several ombudsmen (sometimes called Chief Vigilance Officer or CVO) for the redressal of grievances and complaints from individuals in the banking, insurance and other sectors being serviced by both private and public bodies and corporations.[15] The CVC (Central Vigilance Commission) was setup on the recommendations of Santhanam Committee (1962–64).

In India, Ombudsman is called as Lokpal or Lokayukta. An Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) was set up on 5 January 1966 under the Chairmanship of Shri Morarji Desai. It recommended a two-tier machinery: Lokpal at the Centre (Parliamentary commissioner as in New Zealand) and one Lokayukta each at the State level for redressal of people's grievances. However, the jurisdiction of the Lokpal is not extended for judiciary like in New Zealand. The central Government introduced the first Lokpal Bill, Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill in 1968 and lastly in 2005, which has so far not been enacted.

Lokayukta institution has come into existence in different years, in different States in India. Orissa is the first state to present a bill on establishment of Lokayukta in 1970, however, Maharashtra is the first state to have established the institution in 1972. There after, this institution was established in different States in different years namely: Maharashtra (1972), Bihar (1974), Uttar Pradesh (1977), Madhya Pradesh (1981), Andhra Pradesh (1983), Himachal Pradesh (1983), Karnataka (1984), Assam (1986), Gujarat (1988), Delhi (1995), Punjab (1996), Kerala (1998), Chhattishgarh (2002), Uttaranchal (2002) and West Bengal (2003) and Haryana (2004). The structure of the Lokayukta is not uniform across all the states. Some states have UpaLokayukta under Lokayukta and in some states, the Lokayukta doesn't have suo moto powers of instigating an enquiry.

Kerala State has an Ombudsman for Local Self Government institutions like Panchayats, Municipalities and Corporations [6]. He or she can enquire/investigate into allegations of action, inaction, corruption and mal administration. A Retd. Judge of the High Court is appointed by the Governor for a term of 3 years. The appointment is made under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

In the State of Rajasthan, the Lokayukta institution was established in the year 1973 after the Rajasthan Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1973 was passed by the State Legislature and received assent of the President on 26.3.1973.