CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH BIHAR

SUBJECT – ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

TOPIC – LOKPAL AND LOKAYUKTA

SUBMITTED TO:

Dr. PAWAN KUMAR MISHRA

FACULTY OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SUBMITTED BY:

ZAINUL ABEDEEN

B.A.LL.B.(H), 6th Sem

Enrolment- CUSB1613125054
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement……………………………………………………..………..2
Aim, Objective and Research Methodology………………………….………....4
1. Introduction……………………………….…………………..………………5
2. Historical Background………………………………………….…………… 6
3. Silent Features of the Lokpal………………………………………………….7
4. Criticism………………………………………………………………………..11
5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………..13
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………15

Aim and Objectives

 To study about the Lokpal and Lokayukta

 To analyse their functions, powers and jurisdiction

Research Methodology

The researcher has adopted secondary data sources mainly from electronic and library books.

Objectives:
1. To achieve the specific goals of victim needs.
2. To study victims in their social context.
3. To study crimes committed against victims.
4. To study various victims who are silent sufferers of society.
5. To explore the availability of resources for betterment of the victims.
6. To facilitate rehabilitation for the victims.
7. To empower the victim so that they can get integrated in the society once again.
8. To analyze the requirement of changes in the government policy decision.
9. To create awareness regarding victims though social services.
DEFINITION OF VICTIM

The connotations of term ‘victim’ vary in different legal, social, psychological or

criminological contexts. The penal codes of the erstwhile USSR describe the victim
as follows.

Those who have as a direct result of a crime suffered moral physical or material
damage;

1. Those who have suffered physical, moral, or material damage throw and
attempted offence;
2. Those whose material damage caused by the crime was made good after the
crime, either by the criminal himself or with the help of Militia or of an
individual action;
3. Close relation of person who died as a result of a crime.

In wider perspective defined by Roy Lambron (1983-84)-

“___________ a person who has suffered physical or mental injury or harm, mental
loss or damage or other social disadvantage as result of conduct.

In violation of national penal laws, or

1. deemed a crime under international laws; or

2. constructing a violation of internationally recognized human rights, norms,
protecting life, liberty and personal security; or

which otherwise amounts to “an abuse of power” by persons, who, by reason of their
position of power by authority derived from political, economic or social power,
whether they are public officials, agents or employees of the state or corporate
entities, are beyond the reach of the loss which;
VICTIMOLOGY

Victimology: The term Victimology was first used by Benjamin Mendelsohn in 1937 in His
writings. Victimology is the study of victimization, including the relationships between victims
and offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system that is,
the police and courts, and corrections officials and the connections between victims and other
social groups and institutions, such as the media, businesses, and social movements. Victimology
is however not restricted to the study of victims of crime alone but may include other forms of
human rights violations. Victimology is the scientific study of the physical, emotional, and
financial harm people suffer because of illegal activities. Victimologists first and foremost
investigate the victims’ plight: the impact of the injuries and losses inflicted by offenders on the
people they target. In addition, Victimologists carry out research into the public’s political,
social, and economic reactions to the plight of victims. Victimologists also study how victims are
handled by officials and agencies within the criminal justice system, especially interactions with
police officers, detectives, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, probation officers, and
members of parole boards. Victimology is the Study of victims in their own social context.

Currently ‘victim’ means any living entity that experiences injury, loss or hardship due to any act
as follows:
 By criminal act
 By religious sacrifice
 By oppression, tyranny or war
 By voluntary undertaking
 By tricking or fraud
 By any supernatural calamity
An important aspect of investigating a violent crime is an understanding of the
victim and the relation that their lifestyle or personality characteristics may have
contributed to the offender choosing them as a victim. Please do not misunderstand
the previous statement. In no way are victims being blamed for becoming a victim
of a violent crime. Even high risk victims (to be described shortly) have the right to
live how they wish without becoming a victim of the type of offenses described on
this site. Yet the fact remains, that to understand the offender, one must first
understand the victim.

LIFE STYLE THEORY

What people do, how they behave, places them at more or less risk of criminal victimization. Stated so directly this seems like little
more than common sense. In much the same way, routine behavior "explains" how people avoid or suffer many other misfortunes.
Careful drivers are at less risk of auto accidents, careless smokers stand a greater chance of setting fire to the house, coal miners suffer
disproportionately from pulmonary disease, and mariners are more likely to drown than, say, mountain clim

Theories:

Life style theory: The lifestyle/exposure theory is a model of Victimology that posits that the
likelihood an individual will suffer a personal victimization depends heavily upon the concept of
life style. Developed by Michael J. Hindelang, Michael R. Gottfredson and James Garofalo in
1978, Lifestyle theory posits that certain behavioral patterns create an opportunistic structure for
criminals. For example, people who frequently goes to bars and consume alcohol are available at
these locations at night. People who choose to engage in any or all of these activities increase
their risk for victimization. After looking at problems of victimization, the authors drew the
following 8 conclusions about the nature patterning victimization:

1. The more time an individual spends in public places the more the chance of them being
victimized.
2. Following certain lifestyles makes individuals frequent in public places.
3. The interactions that individuals maintain are limited to persons who share their lifestyles.
4. The Probability of an individual becoming a victim if victim and offenders belong to same
lifestyle category.
5. The proportion of time which an individual spends with Non-family members varies according
to their lifestyle.
6. The chance of an individual being the victims of crime depends upon the time they spend
among Non-family members
7. Difference Differences in lifestyles relate to the ability of individuals to isolate themselves
from those with offender characteristics.
8. Variations in lifestyles influence the convenience, desirability, and ease of victimizing
individuals.
Analysis: Lifestyle theory suggests that patterning our lives to the point of creating regular
routines can place us at risk for victimization. Furthermore, according to the study of the
developers it is held that regular consumption of alcohol increase our chance for victimization.
Given that the majority of victimizations are carried out by non-family members, these
conclusions suggest that the more we are in large public and in contact with non-family members
the grater our risk for victimization.

Criticism: Firstly, the theory puts too much emphasis on a particular life pattern and totally rules
out the victimization of those who are not regular to a particular lifestyle and has more than one
lifestyle.

Secondly, Again it puts too much emphasis on alcohol consuming and disregards societies were
no person consumes alcohol and from this perspective the theory is not global.

Thirdly, The theory suggests that hat the majority of victimizations are carried out by non-family
members, these conclusions suggest that the more we are in large public and in contact with non-
family members the grater our risk for victimization again ruling out crimes by family members.

Fourthly, It doesn't explain why patterns of victimization differ from men to women.

Routine Activity Approach: Developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979), posits
that three elements must be present in order for a criminal event to occur (i) a motivated
offender, (ii) a suitable target And (iii) lack of capable guardian. If one or more of these elements
are missing a crime will not occur. While the theory does say that the offender must be
motivated to offend but specific motivation is not important. The theory requires only that
motivation be present. Offenders cannot offend without a suitable target such as location or a
potential victim. Another aspect of the theory is absence of capable guardianship, protection
from a guardian can take several forms like dogs, security cameras Etc.

In this theory, it is assumed that people must engage in a process called target hardening to
protect against victimization like education about how offenders operate or taking protective
measures against Victimization. The expectation of target hardening and the perception of the
victim and the offender as being active and rational participants in the criminal event place the
onus for the victimization on both parties and focuses that the victim can lessen the offenders
motivation by being less of a suitable target.

Theories of Victimization

A number of theories have been advanced to explain some of the findings indicated
above. Life-style theory, for example, argues that certain life-styles increases one's
exposure to criminal offenses and increases risk of victimization, while other life-
styles might reduce risk. For example, increased risk would be likely if a person is
single, associating with other young men (who are at greater risk for criminal
activity), living in urban areas, and going to public places late at night. Reduced
risk would be associated with staying home at night, living in a rural area, being
married and staying at home, and earning more money. According to this
explanation, the probability of crime depends partially on the activities of the
victim. Crime is more likely when victims place themselves in jeopardy.

This explanation would account for some of the findings with respect to
victimization. For example, although the elderly are more fearful of crime (perhaps
because they are more vulnerable), they go out less and take more precautions
when they do. Women also tend to take more precautions, and are more likely to be
accompanied be accompanied by a male or a group, rather than alone. Living in an
urban area should increase risk, because crime is more common in urban areas and
the likelihood of detection is lower.

The Proximity hypothesis suggests that crime is less a function of life-style, but
rather is based on close proximity. Victims and criminals live in the same high
crime areas, characterized by poor, densely populated, highly transient
neighborhoods. The probability of being victimized is more a function of where one
lives than one's lifestyle. Proponents of this argument point out that typically
criminals do not go far from home to commit their crimes, and thus other people in
their own neighborhoods will be more at risk.

A related concept is the equivalent group hypothesis, which points out that
criminals and victims overall share similar characteristics because they are not
entirely separate groups. People who commit crimes are probably at higher risk for
victimization, both because of proximity to other criminals and because of their own
lifestyles, which involve going out at night and associating with other young males
who are involved in crime. In such associations, they place themselves at risk for
becoming the victim of crimes themselves. Some support for this concept comes
from research that indicates that crime victims as a group self-report a high amount
of criminal activity. This hypothesis does not indicate that all victims are criminals,
but that criminals as a group are at higher risk for becoming victims at some point
because of the high-risk nature of their activities and associations.

Routine activities theory argues that victimization is dependent on the routine

activities of people's daily lives. The volume and distribution of predatory crimes
depends on (1) the availability of suitable targets; (2) the absence of capable
guardians; and (3) the presence of motivated offenders. In other words, as people
move about, there must be opportunities (suitable targets), and it must appear that
no one will be present, or that no one will intervene if they do observe the crime.
"Capable guardians" refers to citizens who are watchful and who would take
effective action if the saw criminal activity. Of course, even if there were
opportunities and no one to observe activity, crime would not occur if they were not
motivated to commit a crime.

Routine activities theory accounts for the increase in crime since the 1960s as a
function of changes in activities. For example, the traditional neighborhood in the
city has declined as many people have left for the suburbs, leaving fewer capable
guardians. There are less people at home. Partly this is because more women have
entered the workforce rather than staying home, but perhaps more importantly
more people have automobiles and more places available for them to go, and simply
stay home less. The volume of wealth that can be easily transported has increased.
Such changes have meant that there are more opportunities for crime as a function
of people's daily routines. Most of Western Europe, Australia, Canada, and the
United States have all experienced increases in crime in the latter part of the 20th
century, and many of these changes have occurred in these countries.
Victim Services

The development of new programs and legislation has resulted from the
study of victims. Such programs have included:

• Victim compensation programs, in which the state pays some of the financial
costs of the victim, particularly with respect to violent crime

• Court services, which provide information and assistance to victims

• Crisis intervention and counseling programs for victims, particularly in the

case of rape

• Self-protection programs that teach people how to avoid victimization (target

hardening) and how to mobilize as a community to prevent victimization (such as
neighborhood watch)

There has also been an ongoing debate about victim's rights, and what those rights
ought to be. Should relatives of victims be allowed to speak and discuss the impact
of the crime at parole hearings or at death penalty hearings? (many states now
provide for this measure). Should citizens be warned when an ex-felon moves into
their neighborhood? Some people believe that they should have the right to know
and protect themselves. Others believe that the felon has completed his
punishment and should be allowed the opportunity to rehabilitate himself without
potential harassment from others.

This issue has been particularly debated with respect to "Meghan's Law," a law
proposed by the parents of a child murdered by a child molester. The perpetrator
had a prior history of molestation, and lived in Meghan's neighborhood. The
parents maintained that had they known of his past, they would have taken more
precautions. The proposed law, which has been passed in some states, allows
neighborhood residents to be informed when a sex offender moves into their
neighborhood. There has been controversy because some former offenders have
been driven from neighborhoods, and have difficulty finding a place to live--and who
have served their sentences. These issues are far from resolution.
CONCLUSION

The victim is essentially an inseparable part of crime. Therefore the phenomenon of

crime cannot be comprehensively explained without incorporating the victim of a
crime. Crime victim, despite being an integral part of crime and a key factor in
criminal justice system, remained a forgotten entity as his status got reduced only
to report crime and appear in the court as witness and he routinely faces
postponements, delays, rescheduling, and other frustrations. All their means loss of
earnings, waste of time, payment of transportation and other expenses,
discouragement, and the painful realization that the system does not live up to its
ideals and does not serve its constituency, but instead serves only itself. Many
believe that the victim is the most disregarded participant in criminal justice
proceedings.

It is, therefore, the Indian Higher Courts have started to award the compensation
through their writ jurisdiction in appropriate cases.