KEY RECOMMENDATIONS ON DRAFT CITIZEN'S GRIEVANCE REDRESS BILL, 2011
1. The Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi conducted a brainstorming session on 18th November 2011 on the Draft Citizen's Grievance Redress Bill, 2011 [hereinafter referred to as "the Bill"]. The session was attended by serving and retired officials from the Government, members of civil society, consumer organisation representatives, media persons and scholars.
2. The brainstorming session addressed the key features of the Bill and the issues around effective delivery of public goods and services and an efficient grievance redressal system. The discussants raised several issues with respect to the framework of the bill and shared some helpful insights. Many of these insights are drawn from past experience with public grievance redressal mechanisms, citizens charters, legislations enacted by different states and the movement for the right to information. Some of the salient points discussed and recommendations emanating there from are enumerated below:
3. Defining "Grievances"
3.1 It was pointed out that the current Bill does not expressly define the term "grievances" and therefore a definition clause has to be expressly drafted to this effect to clearly define the scope of the term.
3.2 It was felt that "grievances" can arise out of a multiplicity of factors. Such grievances could be of different kinds and can also arise when government officials implement laws on an arbitrary "pick-and-choose" basis. Further grievances could arise if the redressal process is delayed and citizens are harassed.
3.3 in this regard, there is need for a developing an effective architecture of rights and entitlements that took into consideration every kind of grievance.
3.4 Alternatively, it was also pointed out that an effective solution to this problem could be the codification of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act [hereinafter referred to as "the RTI Act"] which mandates proactive disclosure of information. Accordingly, every department should be expected to put out what its mandate is (in terms of entitlements, funds, functionaries and functions) in order to enlarge the scope of grievances as widely as possible, according to the disclosure obligations under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
4. Independent Grievance Redressal Officers
4.1 Past experiences with the functioning of the Delhi Public Grievances Commission have shown that the independence of the members hearing grievances from any department ensures speedy and effective justice. It is in this context, very relevant to define "independent" grievance redressal officers. This is important given the fact that the redressal officers from the respective departments have been found to be inadequate in the efficacy and speed of the disposal of the cases. In this context, it is necessary to lay down certain guidelines vis-a-vis independent officers:
a) They should preferably be outside the framework of the government machinery.
b) They should have adequate experience in the arena of public affairs and drawn from all sections of the society e.g. lawyers, private sector officials, academics, activists, judiciary etc.
c) A fixed tenure should be ensured for all the grievance redressal officials.
d) All the decisions should be placed on a public website for future reference and in order to create a standardized basis on which all future decisions can be undertaken.
4.2 Further, an overburdened and overloaded State Commission would not be able to hear a majority of the grievances which come from citizens at the district and sub-district levels. Hence, to ensure that the grievances of the citizens are actually heard in a time bound manner without any harassment, the issue of decentralisation must be addressed more directly. To this effect, it was suggested that an independent district level authority be created to address grievances that arise at the district and sub-district levels.
5. Information and Facilitation Centres
4.1 With respect to information and facilitation it was suggested that facilitation counters should also be decentralised and organised in a manner that would facilitate the grievance redressal for citizens (especially poor and illiterate complainants) without charging any fee.
4.2 The purpose of such centres should be facilitative and helpful to individuals who might not be able to adhere to complicated or strict procedures regarding complaint/document formats, etc.
4.3 Further, the bill needs to look at capacity building issues of concerned officials. The personnel should be trained to reduce oral complaints to written complaints and other forms of grievances into prescribed formats. However it was emphatically pointed out that such personnel should be independent of the departments where the grievances arose.
6. Penalties and Compensation
Another point of view that emerged during the discussion was that the Bill does not have an effective deterrent effect on public officials who might abdicate their duties. It was felt that disciplinary proceedings of most government departments were complicated and long-drawn (especially for major complaints) and hence, a departmental enquiry did not pose a strong threat to public officials.
To counter this point, it was suggested that compensation has to be paid to citizens who have suffered as a result of non-performing officials and this would act as a Damocles' sword on the head of the public officials.
Furthermore, it was also suggested that penalties be imposed on the Grievance Redressal Officer and Head of Departments/Appellate Authorities in case they delayed the hearing of grievances without sufficient cause or reason.
7. Make Citizen Charters process Participatory
The discussants felt that citizen charters must be formulated after due consultations between head of departments and the citizens themselves. It was pointed out that past experiences and studies had shown that citizen charters have been merely symbolic and do not ensure the guarantee of public services to citizens. Hence, there is a need to include people in the process of formulating charters so that citizens can raise their issues, concerns and expectations so that the law can be made "service oriented" rather than just "grievance oriented". Therefore, local institutional mechanisms should be in place to ensure that citizens are heard adequately.
8. Addressing Practical Difficulties faced by Public Officials
It was emphatically pointed out by some participants including serving senior government officials that the governments/departments at various levels would face number of roadblocks in implementing this Act. Some of these difficulties include large demand of manpower, bureaucratic hurdles, immense workload, force majeure conditions, so on and so forth. In such circumstances the provision of goods and services and grievance redressal is bound to be hampered. Hence, there was a strong view that the bill should take into consideration such practical difficulties faced by the authorities and government officials at the apex level should also be made accountable. Therefore, the bill should create architecture and institutional mechanisms that can ensure availability of required resources.
9. Drafting Issues
With regard to the drafting of the Bill, there was a unanimity among participants that the bill has been poorly drafted with leaving many areas (texts) too wide and `uncertain". It was suggested that terms such as "acceptable level of standards", "action taken report", "public services" were appropriately defined to avoid any vagueness along with proper stipulations, formats, etc. Further, there is a need to define subsidiary services which may left out of the scope of the current Bill.
The discussion also pondered upon the need to train officials in the delivery of goods and services, grievance redressal mechanisms and provide them with financial incentives to ensure that they fulfilled their responsibilities with accountability and transparency. To this effect, it was also suggested that an organic link should be drawn between the Bill and the Electronic Service Delivery Bill to facilitate the electronic mode of delivery of services by the grievance redressal authorities.
10. Social Audits
Drawing from the successful social audits under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in Andhra Pradesh, another aspect that emerged during the discussion was the possibility of conducting social audits in each department through transparency officers that would ensure that public authorities are made accountable to the beneficiaries of policies/schemes/programmes directly.
11. Miscellaneous
Further, issues were raised with respect to the concurrent jurisdiction of the State and Central Commissions with respect to appeals, the lack of clarity on search committees that would select the candidates for post of Commissioners in the State/Central Commissions and the need to synchronise the Bill, the Lokpal Bill and the Right to Information Act.
(The participants at the brainstorming session included Mr. Nikhil Dey, Co-convener, NCRPI, Mrs. Shailaja Chandra, Former Chief Secretary, Delhi and former Chairperson, Delhi Public Grievances Commission, Mr. Mahendra Kumawat, Former Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Prof. Dolly Arora, Indian Institute of Public Administration, Ms. Pallavi Bedi, PRS Legislative Research. Mr. Surendra Singh, Former Cabinet Secretary and Honorary Advisor, ORF chaired the brainstorming session. Among important participants in the brainstorming, Mr. Chetan Sanghi, IAS, Mr. Dhirendra Krishna, IA&As (Retd.), Mr. Arvind Kaul, IAS (Retd.), Prof. Sriram Khanna, Faculty of law, Delhi University, Mr. Manoj Kumar, Hammurabi & Solomon Consultancy, Mr. Rohit Bansal, noted columnist made valuable contribution. Dr Niranjan Sahoo, Sr. Fellow, ORF, Mr. Arjun Kapoor and Mr. Samya Chatterjee, Research Scholars, ORF helped in organising and compiling the recommendations).
No comments:
Post a Comment