The Citizens' Right to Grievance Redress Bill, 2011, published by the Union Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances for ascertaining the comments of the public, is a truly salutary step taken by the Centre.

It will be hard to find a single citizen in the whole country who is not seething with resentment and bitterness at the callous and heartless attitude of the governing class and bureaucracy to their long pent-up grievances on one score or another.

The Bill, if and when put on the statute book, will be a great boon to the public. It might turn out to be even more useful and effective than the Right to Information (RTI) Act. For, while the RTI Act only fulfils the criterion of transparency by making the information available to the person asking for it, the proposed Bill explicitly vests in him the power to force public servants to redress his grievance within the prescribed limit and thereby imparts accountability to the system.

In the current context of the public being driven from pillar to post to get even acknowledgments to its letters to officials, leave alone being able to meet them on an one-on-one basis to demand discharge of their minimum essential duties, accountability acquires far greater weight and importance.

The Bill makes it mandatory for every public authority to publish, within six months of the commencement of the Act, a Citizens Charter specifying the category of goods supplied and services rendered by it, the time within which such goods shall be supplied or services rendered, and the official(s) who will be held accountable for any lapse in this respect.

PENAL ACTION

In fact, as required by a decade or more old order of the Central and State Governments, all departments had indeed drawn up Citizens Charters laying down specific time limits for providing the services enumerated in them or removing the complaints.

It is good that the Bill squarely places on the Heads of the Departments the responsibility for updating the Citizens Charters and undertaking an annual verification of the accuracy of their contents.

As per the terms of the Bill, there will be a Grievance Redress Officer (GRO) appointed for each department on whom is cast the duty, as soon as he receives a complaint, to ensure that an acknowledgment is given within a day and the grievance is remedied within 15 days of the receipt of the complaint, and recommend penal action where he is convinced of wilful delay, default, negligence or malfeasance on the part of the official responsible for the delivery of the goods and services, or where he has found evidence of corrupt activities. He is to be “easily accessible and available” at all times to whoever seeks his help and intervention.

DANGER

The Bill also gives the complainant the right to obtain a report of the action taken on his complaint. It makes it obligatory for every public authority to publish on its Web site, by the 15th of every month or at shorter intervals, particulars regarding the receipt and disposal of the complaints.

The objectives of the Bill are, however, in danger of being set at naught by the cumbersome appeal structures and processes it has envisaged. The complainant, if not satisfied with the GRO's manner of dealing with his case, can go on appeal to the Head of the Department concerned. This is unexceptionable.

But the Bill goes beyond this and sets up elaborate superstructures of State and Central Grievance Redress Commissions which will have the powers of the civil court. Although they will be at liberty to go by the principles of natural justice and regulate their own procedure, they will negate the very purpose of the enactment. The appeal process should stop with the Head of the Department or, at the most, his own ultimate head, if the remedy is to be quick.

Also, the penalty mentioned is recovery of a lump-sum as a fine of sorts. The Bill should provide for major penalties such as withholding of increment, barring of promotion, and dismissal.

comment COMMENT NOW