The Hindu: New Delhi: Sunday, March 17, 2013.
Year after
the UPA came to power in 2004, it brought the Right to Information Act,
ushering in a revolution: citizens, for the first time, could access
information under the control of public authorities, whether that related to
legal entitlements such as food for work, wage employment, basic education and
health care, or land records, public works, the PDS or, indeed, how a major
government decision was taken. Understandably, there was resistance from the
bureaucracy, where knowledge had been power all these years.
The system
put in place may not have been perfect, but the new law that opened government
to public scrutiny inexorably compelled its departments to become,
incrementally, more transparent, accountable and, in the process, the everyday
corruption that affected the aam aadmi began to come down.
Now,
seven-and-a-half years later, the government intends to bring The Right of
Citizens for Time-Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their
Grievances Bill, 2011, to Parliament in an attempt to complete the RTI’s
unfinished agenda — as well as relieving it of some of its burden.
Indeed, civil
society groups like the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information
(NCPRI) that played a seminal role in ushering in the RTI are describing the
Grievances Bill as RTI-Two.
The
Grievances Bill seeks to create a mechanism to ensure the timely delivery of
goods and services to citizens: all public authorities will have to publish a
Citizens’ Charter detailing the goods and services they provide, along with
timelines for delivery. It will permit citizens to file a complaint regarding
any grievance related to the charter; the functioning of a public authority; or
the violation of a law, policy or scheme.
All public
authorities will have to establish information and facilitation centres and
appoint officers right down to the municipality and panchayat level — to
redress grievances within 15 days, giving the complainant a written reply on
how the grievance is being redressed, as well as an action-taken report.
If a
grievance is not redressed within the mandated period, an explanation will have
to be sent to the head of department, to whom the aggrieved person, too, can
write if a complaint is not addressed satisfactorily within 15 days. The
non-redress of grievances can be deemed to be a corrupt practice if prima facie
the complaint falls under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A Central
Public Grievance Redressal Commission, as well as State Public Grievance
Redressal Commissions will be appointed, and grievance redressal officers will
assist citizens filing complaints. Judicial proceedings before the commissions
will be under the Indian Penal Code. A penalty at the rate specified from time
to time may be levied upon defaulting officers. Disciplinary action, too, will
be taken against those found guilty of a mala fide action.
Some
provisions in the bill, however, may be challenged by the State governments on
the grounds that they violate the federal spirit.
NCPRI
co-convener Nikhil Dey said recently that there was a need to tweak the version
cleared by the Union Cabinet to prevent the Centre from treading on the States’
toes: the draft bill says every order passed by the proposed Central Public
Grievance Redressal Commission must be enforced by the State Commissions, and
any citizen aggrieved by a State Commission’s decision may within 30 days
appeal to the Central Commission.
The two
commissions should be independent, Mr. Dey said, and if anyone had a grievance
against a State commission’s decision, she could go to the High Court, and then
if a fresh appeal was needed, to the Supreme Court.
He stressed
that this was how the State Information Commissions and the Central Information
Commission were working. The existing State bills need not be repealed — the
new bill will be an additional law.
Anjali
Bhardwaj, Mr. Dey’s co-convener on the NCPRI, pointed out that the Act would
reduce the burden on the RTI machinery.
.JPG)
.JPG)
