Dear Mr Pradahan,
I once did some research on the same. I am copy pasting my findings below, from the various Rajya Sabha Reports.
=====================================================
This may be another path breaking mechanism, just like the RTI Act.
Feel, the main blockage is the Law Ministry who are forcing P&T to abandon it.
And the Synopsis
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The 25th Report
29.2 It could gather that Government is the major litigant in Courts of law, resulting in vast expenditure of public money, Governmental resources and time. It is of the view that the essence of good governance is defeated in the absence of efficient and timely redressal of grievances. If the grievances are redressed timely at the level at which they arise, the aggrieved will not approach Courts of Law. This will save resources and time, of both the aggrieved and the Government.
29.3 The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government should make a study as to the nature of cases pending in Courts mainly because of non-application of in built Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism and make the erring office accountable and punished. This will reduce the number of cases in Courts which arise due to non-application of mind and soul into the dispute.
29.4 The Committee is of the view that public service delivery system is inefficient unless it caters to the needs and issues of the common man. In order to assuage the concerns of the people regarding the efficiency of the public services, it is pertinent that their grievances are redressed promptly.
29.5 The Committee strongly feels that enacting a statute for PGRM will go a long way in ensuring participatory governance and the Ministry should seriously examine this issue and the Committee be apprised of the outcome therefrom.
>>>>>>>>>
The 29th Report
2. … Some countries such as Japan and Sweden have adopted Consumer Policy Statements, and the concept of Citizen's Charter has gained wide acceptance in many countries, particularly in the UK.
3.5. ….. The Secretary had also apprised the Committee about the Citizen Charter and Benchmark Excellence Scheme of UK and USA.
3.50 The Committee further feels that a wrong notion has entered into the mind of the public that the Right to Information Act is an instrument to solve their grievances by giving/providing them information written/oral required by them. The Committee feels that this wrong notion needs to be changed because information seeking is altogether different from the redressal of grievances and need to be looked in a different manner. The Committee, therefore, recommends that Government should immediately take some urgent steps like taking the help of NGOs working in the field of Right to Information, print and electronic media, organising nukkad natak in the rural and urban area on the subject to educate people about their rights etc. The Committee also recommends that in order to solve the problems of the people, the Government must give statutory backing to the Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism on same line that of the Right to Information Act, the both will work parallel to each other and help in solving the grievances.
3.51 The Committee, further recommends that the Public Grievance Redressal Mechanism should be envisaged in a statutory form on the line of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which would make it mandatory on all State Governments /UTs /Ministries/ Departments/ Organisations to pursue the grievance till their final disposal. The Committee also recommends that like Right to Information Act in the PGRM system there should be a time limit of 30 days and provision of FINE on DELAY should be there.
3.52 The Committee feels that each Department/PSU/Bank Trust etc. is having their internal system for redressal of grievances of its personnel but it is not working satisfactorily and that is the reason that non settlement of grievances result in filing of petitions in the courts on petty issues. Our judicial system which is already overburdened by over 3 crore cases pending in various courts of the country contains a large segment of cases on small and petty issues which could have been settled by the parent Department/organizations had their been a good and mature internal grievance redressal system there. The Committee, therefore, recommends that internal grievance redressal methods available in various Ministries/Departments and the organisations should be strengthened or restructured in a way like both the representative of the organisation and the aggrieved party must be present before the designated authority and the grievance is settled then and there.
4.4 In support of its foregoing recommendations/observations, The Committee, strongly recommends that the Public Grievance Redressal Mechanism should be envisaged in a statutory form on the line of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which would make it mandatory on all State Governments/UTs/Ministries/Departments/Organisations to pursue the grievance till their final disposal. The Committee also reiterates that like Right to Information Act in the PGRM system there should be a time limit of 30 days and provision of fine on delay should be there.
>>>>>>>>>
The 31st report
7.5 In the light of the recommendation of the Committee the Ministry of Law and Justice has been requested to conduct a study as to the nature of cases pending in Courts simply because of non-application of in-built Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism and make the erring office accountable and punished.
7.9 The Committee also welcomes the view of the DARPG that timely redressal at the level where complaint arises will reduce the burden of the Courts and thereby, save the resources of the Government as well as those of the aggrieved person. TheCommittee, however, awaits the details of the study undertaken by the Ministry of Law and Justice as to the nature of cases pending in the Courts because of non-application of inbuilt PGRM and making the erring office accountable and punished. The Committee desires that the details may be made available by the Ministry in their ATN.
7.10 The Committee notes that its suggestion regarding enacting a statute for PGRM in the lines of the Right to Information Act is being considered by the Department in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Committee eagerly awaits the details of the Concept Paper alongwith the comments of the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Committee further urges the DARPG to pursue the matter vigorously with that Ministry.
7.11 The Committee takes note of the communication dated 4th November, 2008 received from the Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, in which it was stated that there could not be single authority/Act to deal with all the issues that are raised through public grievances pertaining to different Ministries/Departments.
7.12 In this regard, the Committee is of the strong view that enactment of a law for Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism will ensure accountability and lend enforceability to the inherent right of a citizen as a consumer of the services rendered by the Government. The Committee would like to emphasize that the recommendation of the Committee was for an inbuilt Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism for "customer satisfaction", rather than an external mechanism. TheCommittee recommends that the Government should examine the recommendation in right earnest.
>>>>>>>
The 35th Report
Status as per the statement made by the Minister in the House
(e) The Commission is of the view that when it comes to public grievances some principles of the RTI initiative may be adopted. However, public grievances cover a wide range of issues and problems ranging from simple complaints regarding red-tapism, corruption and delays to major demands for provision of physical and social infrastructure. Grievances could thus be categorized into three broad groups – (i) grievances arising out of abuse of office and corruption on the part of public functionaries (ii) grievances arising out of systemic deficiencies with in an organization (iii) grievances arising from non-fulfilment of needs/demands. While the first category is amenable to statutory intervention similar to those embodied in the RTI Act the second and third categories may require internal reforms, organization capacity building, and even substantial budgetary allocations. Statutory mechanism already exist to deal with the first category of grievances. Moreover, the Commission has recommended creation of Local Body Ombudsman in its Sixth Report. The Commission is of the view that since budgetary allocations are a legislative process, setting up of an internal mechanism as under the RTI Act, with powers to issue directions on such issues would interfere with the resource allocation process which is approved by the legislature. Moreover, setting up of an external appellate authority with powers to issue directions by means of a law, may lead to proliferation of litigation, convert the grievance redress process in to a legalistic exercise and may create a turf war with the existing judicial and statutory mechanisms. In view of these observations of the Commission the Department does NOT propose to pursue the matter of statutory form for the public grievances redress mechanism in Government of India Ministries/Departments.
Committee's further observation
The Commission has recommended that creation of a Local Body Ombudsmanmay also be useful in this regard. The Committee welcomes such move, if it serves the very objective of ensuring an effective grievances redressal mechanism. The Committee is of the view that whatever may be the modus operandi for redressal of the internal grievances in the Government Department/Ministries/Organizations but sans statutory backup it remains as an arrangement without teeth. However, if the government desires to have other specific statutory body to deal with the grievances in the lines of the recommendations of the second ARC, the Committee has no reservations in this regard. Therefore, the Committee urges the Government to take immediate and pertinent steps in this regard at the earliest as ensuring an effective Public Grievances Redressal Mechanism is the need of the hour.
Another rationale behind the Committee's favor for statutory backup to the PGRM is that it would provide an alternative avenue for the redressal of public grievances that would ultimately lessen the burden of the judiciary. Though, prima facie, it may appear that providing statutory backup to the PGRM for some category of grievances would lead towards some functional overlapping and legalistic complexities. Nevertheless, in the long run, when this mechanism would have become popular, it would certainly provide a speedy alternative to the redressal of the public grievances and would lessen the overburdened Judiciary as the cases, in which the government is a party, are cause of large bulk of litigation in the Courts. The Law Commission's 100th and 230th Reports Litigations by and against the Government: Some Recommendations for Reform; and Reforms in Judiciary: Some Suggestions, respectively, are the indicative of this fact. The Committee therefore impresses upon the Government to come out with a solution taking into account the observations of this Committee in a time bound manner.
From: Pradip Pradhan <pradippradhan63@gmail.com>
To: social-watch-group <social-watch-group@googlegroups.com>; samukhya <samukhya@yahoogroups.com>; focusorissa <focusorissa@yahoogroups.com>; odishasoochanaadhikarabhiyan <odishasoochanaadhikarabhiyan@googlegroups.com>; national-rti-forum <national-rti-forum@googlegroups.com>; humjanenge <humjanenge@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 23 November 2011 10:19 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Suggestions for making Draft "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" more Citizen-friendly
Dear friends
Please find below the suggestions on "Draft Citizens Grievance Redress Bill-2011" given to the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, Govt. of India.
With regards
Pradip Pradhan
To
The Secretary
Dept of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances,
Government of India
New Delhi
Sub- Suggestions for making Draft "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" more Citizen-friendly
Sir,
Greetings from "Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan"
"Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan" is a State level Network of Civil Society Groups and RTI Activists spearheading the campaign for effective implementation of RTI Act in the state of Orissa.
We came across the Draft Bill on "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" hosted on the website of your Department along with an open invitation for seeking suggestions from the public on the said Draft Bill by 23.11.2011.
First of all, we welcome this move of Central Govt. for bringing such a long-awaited bill i.e., "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" for supplying specified goods and rendering services to the people in a time bound manner. The proposed law has its relevance in view of the fact that the common people of the country are greatly harassed by the bureaucracy in their pursuit of accessing their entitlements from the Govt. Even the grievances of public nature are neither attended nor responded to by the officers for months on end. The apathetic and indifferent attitude of the administration in addressing the grievances of the people has left the people frustrated and hopeless.
However, while going through the salient features of the Draft Bill, we came across a lot of anomalies, lacunas and self-contradictory provisions which may defeat the very basic purposes of the proposed law. We feel it a privilege to bring to your kind notice the following shortcomings in the draft bill for your kind consideration in the interest of making it more citizen-friendly.
1. The nomenclature of the Draft Bill as "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" may be withdrawn and be renamed as "Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011". Because, we have seen in Orissa that the State Govt. has misused the word " Citizen" while implementation the RTI Act. As you might know, Orissa RTI Rules-2005 framed by the State Government under Section 27 of the RTI Act has made a provision to compel the applicants for producing proof of Citizenship in the shape of Voter ID card or Passport along with the application for information. As a result, a person below the age of 18 years, who is not entitled to a Voter ID Card or may not possess a passport in the country is not able to apply for information under the Act. Thus Orissa RTI Rules has deprived a vast bulk of young population, who are very much citizens of the country, of their legitimate right to access information under the Act. In view of such a negative experience, the nomenclature or the text of the bill should avoid the sensitive word 'citizen'.
2. Section 11 (3) of the Draft Bill vests certain powers of a civil court to the concerned 'Head of the Department of Public Authority' to enable it to exercise its functions as an
appellate authority. At the same time, Section 11 (4) of the Draft bill says the HoD "shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by
the principles of natural justice". Both these sections are self-contradictory and confusing Then again, Section 11(4) gives power to HOD to frame and allow its own procedure of adjudication, which is not desirable either, because millions of diverse and inchoate procedures will proliferate throughout the country making the situation too confusing and complicated for the ordinary members of the public. Thus, there should be well laid, easy and uniform procedures of adjudication of complaints and appeals as a part of the Bill itself in respect of appeal proceedings at all levels, HoD, State Commission and Central Commission.
appellate authority. At the same time, Section 11 (4) of the Draft bill says the HoD "shall not be bound by the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but shall be guided by
the principles of natural justice". Both these sections are self-contradictory and confusing Then again, Section 11(4) gives power to HOD to frame and allow its own procedure of adjudication, which is not desirable either, because millions of diverse and inchoate procedures will proliferate throughout the country making the situation too confusing and complicated for the ordinary members of the public. Thus, there should be well laid, easy and uniform procedures of adjudication of complaints and appeals as a part of the Bill itself in respect of appeal proceedings at all levels, HoD, State Commission and Central Commission.
3. In the whole Draft, there is no provision for compensation to the complainants, who might have suffered loss or detriment owing to their deprivation of time-bound delivery of good or service applied for. The provision of compensation for the aggrieved complainants is required to be there because he or she might have suffered a lot financially, physically or psychologically in pursuit of availing the entitlement from the concerned Public Authority. Realizing the importance of Compensation, the RTI Act in its Section 19 (8-b) has enjoined upon the Information Commissioners to award compensation to the aggrieved complainants. So the Draft Bill should have a similar provision for compensating the loss or detriment the Complainant might have suffered.
4. Another great shortcoming noticed In the Draft Bill is the absence of any time limit for disposal of the complaints of general nature (not being immediate and urgent in nature) lodged before the State Grievance Redressal Commission and Central Grievance Redressal Commission. Needless to say, the decision of such Commissions arrived at following the disposal of cases is a kind of service that the Commissions provide to the public. As the basic goal of the draft bill is to ensure time bound delivery of service by each public authority, the Commissions, being the public authorities themselves should also provide their services including the decision on a complaint in a time bound manner. In absence of a specified time limit, the complainants will have to wait for an indefinite period for getting justice from the Commissions, and as a result, the basic purpose of the proposed law will no doubt get defeated, and the public will continue to suffer harassment harassed by the negligent and corrupt public servants complained against. In corroboration of this anxiety we like to cite the example of State Information Commission Orissa which takes even three to four years to dispose of a complaint or appeal. Having experienced the inordinately long delay in getting their complaints redressed by the Commission, the RTI users in Orissa are feeling frustrated and losing their faith in RTI Act as a tool for bringing transparency and accountability in the system of governance in the State. So, the time limit for disposal of the complaints and appeals by the State and Central Commissions needs to be specified in the proposed draft law at any rate.
5. Section 50 of the Draft Bill says "the provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force." It needs to be withdrawn, because every Public Authority in order to escape its obligation to render time-bound delivery of service shall take the excuse of several existing laws and bye-laws, where there may not be any provision of time limit at all and/or where there may not be any provision of penalty imposable against the non-compliance of time-bound delivery of service. So we suggest that there should be a provision for overriding effect of the proposed law vis-à-vis any other law or instrumentality of the state, just like Section 22 of of RTI Act.
6. There is no mention in the Draft Bill of the exact amount of penalty to be imposed on the Grievance Redressal Officer proved guilty. As a result, the HoD or Commissions State or Central may in their discretion refrain from imposing any penalty or may impose a penalty of too paltry an amount against a default involving big money. Considering the huge amount of money that would be involved around the goods and services to be delivered under the proposed law, there should be the provision for a hepty amount of monetary penalty against the guilty public servants, at least heavier that the one made in RTI Act 2005.
7.The Sections 23 and 39 of the draft bill vest penal powers to the State and Central Commissions exercisable against any person including an appellant on the perceived grounds of 'intentional
insult or interruption' (Section 228 of IPC) or 'procedure in certain cases of contempt' (Section 345 of CrPC 1973) or treatment of the case as the one based upon a police report (Section 346 of CrPC 1973). These provisions shall frighten away the common man so much that none shall dare to approach the Commissions for seeking justice to their complaints. These Sections should stand deleted completely from the draft bill.
insult or interruption' (Section 228 of IPC) or 'procedure in certain cases of contempt' (Section 345 of CrPC 1973) or treatment of the case as the one based upon a police report (Section 346 of CrPC 1973). These provisions shall frighten away the common man so much that none shall dare to approach the Commissions for seeking justice to their complaints. These Sections should stand deleted completely from the draft bill.
8. The Draft Bill has entrusted the powers to the concerned State and Central Governments for making Rules. The experience of leaving the Rule-making powers to the the State Governments has become very counter-productive. For example, in the name of implementing the RTI Act in the State, the Orissa Govt. framed Orissa RTI Rules-2005, most provisions of which are not only ultra vires the parent Act, but also absurd and anti-people such as compulsory use of Form-A for application, submission of proof of citizenship, imposition of form and fees for making appeal, deficient letter of intimation (Form-B), letter of rejection on arbitrary grounds (Form-C), imposition of difficult modes of payment, and above all collection of cost of information from the BPL persons. So there is every possibility of the State Government diluting and denying the letter and spirit of the proposed law through exercising of Rule-making power, if entrusted to them. It is suggested that like Forest Rights Act 2006, the Central Govt. should frame the Rules for implementing the provisions of the Act, and leave to the State Government the only power to make notification of various authorities required to be installed as per the Act and Rules made by the Centre
We hope the Central Govt. will take our suggestions into account while shaping the final Bill to be tabled in the Parliament.
Thanking you
Yours sincerely
Pradip Pradhan
State Convener
Odisha Soochana Adhikar Abhijan
MIG-316, Sailashree Vihar
C.S.Pur, Bhubaneswar, Orissa
Date-23.11.2011
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.