In a recent development, the Lokpal of India has dismissed a complaint filed against the Vice Chancellor of Sathyabama University, Chennai, observing that the matter falls outside its statutory jurisdiction under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.
The complaint, lodged on October 4, 2025, alleged that the Vice Chancellor enforced gender segregation in classrooms, preventing male and female students from sitting together. According to the complainant, this policy constituted gender discrimination, causing mental distress among students who opposed the segregation. The complaint further alleged that the university allegedly intimidated students and parents, pressuring them to withdraw complaints and threatening academic consequences, including being barred from examinations.
The matter was considered by a Bench comprising Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Justice Sanjay Yadav, Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, and Shri Pankaj Kumar, Members of the Lokpal. The Lokpal Registry had also noted procedural deficiencies in the complaint, which included incomplete documentation and lack of clarity on specific allegations.
While acknowledging these procedural defects, the Lokpal observed that even if they were rectified, the complaint would remain outside the scope of its jurisdiction. The Bench emphasised that the allegations pertained to public servants working under the control of the State of Tamil Nadu, and therefore do not fall within Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, which covers only Central Government public servants.
The order stated explicitly:
“As the public servants are working under the control of the State or for the State, they do not come within the ambit of Section 14 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.”
Consequently, the Lokpal disposed of the complaint as being beyond its jurisdiction, while granting the complainant the liberty to pursue remedies before the appropriate state forum.
Understanding the Jurisdictional Divide
This ruling highlights the clear demarcation between central and state public servants under Indian anti-corruption laws. While the Lokpal has jurisdiction over Central Government officials, complaints involving state controlled public servants must be addressed under the Lokayukta framework or other state-level administrative mechanisms. Experts note that this distinction is critical in ensuring that complaints are filed before the
appropriate authority, thereby avoiding unnecessary delays and procedural complications.
Implications for Educational Institutions and Students
The case also underscores the importance of legal and administrative accountability in educational institutions. While the Lokpal cannot intervene in this instance, students and parents retain the right to approach state authorities or courts to challenge policies that may amount to discrimination or harassment. Institutions, in turn, are reminded of their duty to ensure fair treatment of students, maintain transparent complaint mechanisms, and avoid coercive practices.
Procedural Lessons for Complainants
Legal practitioners highlight that procedural compliance is critical when filing complaints with the Lokpal or similar bodies. Complaints must be comprehensive, well-documented, and clearly framed to meet the requirements of the relevant statute. In addition, an understanding of the scope of jurisdiction is essential to prevent complaints from being dismissed on technical or jurisdictional grounds. This decision thus serves as a reminder for both complainants and institutions: while the Lokpal provides a robust mechanism for accountability at the central level, state-specific matters must be routed through the appropriate state mechanisms, ensuring both legal compliance and administrative efficacy.
