Deccan Herald: Bangalore: Thursday, August 03, 2017.
Do women who
fail to get their 7 kg per head ration every month or those who do not receive
their Rs 500 widow pension have any recourse to timely and assured grievance
redressal close to their homes? Or do they have to run from ration shop to food
office or from post office to tahsildar’s office in endless cycles with no
assurance of a positive result, until they resign themselves to the
non-delivery of a rightful entitlement?
Creating a
legal framework for “Ensuring Responsive Governance” is one of the promises in
the Bengaluru Declaration made by the state government at the end of the
three-day International Conference in commemoration of Dr Ambedkar’s 126th
birth anniversary.
The very same
legal framework encapsulated in a “Draft Accountability Bill” was discussed at
a consultation with NGOs by the National Campaign for People’s Right to
Information (NCPRI) in Bengaluru, a day after the Declaration. The bill is
based on six principles gleaned from discussions with grassroots communities in
Rajasthan: ‘jankari’ (information), ‘sunwai’ (personal hearing), ‘karyawahi’
(time-bound action), ‘bhagidari’ (participation), ‘suraksha’ (protection) and
‘janata ka manch’ (collective platform).
Very often,
the poor are not aware of their entitlements or whom they should contact if
they are denied rightful services. Component 1 of the bill hence calls for
citizens’ charters and job charts of officials, timelines, norms for service
delivery etc.
Though these
are already requirements under suo motu disclosures mandated under Section 4 of
Right to Information (RTI) Act, these are vaguely drafted and not codified. A
recent research reveals that of a total 3,000 RTI applications, 67% pertained
to requests for information that should have been proactively disclosed under
the RTI Act.
When fresh
laws or policies are proposed, there is currently no system of seeking
citizens’ views on the proposals. Hence, Component 2 of the bill suggests a
system for this, which would enable governments to assess citizens’ reactions
and prevent later protests. Such a provision for “pre-legislative consultation”
already exists in a Central Government Order of 2013, which requires citizens’
suggestions to be publicised online along with the reasons for their acceptance
or rejection, before submitting them to the Cabinet.
Even when
citizens’ charters are framed, these are often not shared in a manner
accessible to citizens at the grassroots level. Component 3 of the bill
mandates this. In some panchayats of Rajasthan, for instance, details of
applicants and the list of beneficiaries for subsidised housing are painted on
panchayat walls.
Anganwadi
walls display the number of beneficiary children and the number of days food
was supplied to them. A ‘Digital Dialogue’ is in progress in Rajasthan to
determine content and mode of disclosure of information in the public domain
for several departments.
Information
centres
To avoid
citizens running from pillar to post to get information or grievances
redressed, Information and Facilitation Centres at gram panchayat and block
level are envisaged under Component 4 of the bill, on the lines of Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) Sahayta Kendras, which
make workers aware of entitlements, help them fill and submit job card and
demand applications, file complaints, conduct social audits and public
hearings, determine reasons for wage delay etc.
Any violation
of a law, guideline, citizens’ charter and job chart is defined as a grievance
under Component 5. The grievance redressal protocol calls for a Grievance
Redress Officer in every office, who acknowledges all grievances with a dated
receipt and a written response within 21 days.
Many elected
representatives shy away from responding to grievances in public fora,
preferring citizens to appear individually as supplicants seeking patronage.
Under Component 6 every complainant/petitioner will have the right to a
personal hearing within 15 days of filing his/her complaint at a public
platform at the block level, chaired by the sub-divisional magistrate.
This is
already happening under Rajasthan’s Right to Hearing Act. If the complainant is
unsatisfied with the response, he/she can appeal to an independent District
Grievance Redress Authority, outside government control, and file a second
appeal with the State Public Grievance Redress Commission.
Recognising
that accountability of officials has to shift downwards to the community
rather than vertically to higher officials, Component 6 requires social audits
to be conducted by citizens like in MGNREGA. The Comptroller and Auditor
General has spelt out Social Auditing Standards in a first-ever exercise in the
world which the Supreme Court has ordered to be followed under the National
Food Security Act.
Component 7
of the bill mandates penalties to be recovered from officials found guilty of
non-delivery of services and compensation awarded to citizens. Component 8
requires 1% of the budget of every social sector programme to be put aside for
these citizen-centric mechanisms.
This
Comprehensive Accountability Bill is ‘Right to Information-Part II’. But if the
Karnataka government really had the will to put this legal mechanism in place,
why did it not do so during the last four years? Or can it deliver on this
promise in the last year of its tenure? Or is this only meant to serve as a
manifesto item for the next election?
(The writer
is executive trustee of CIVIC-Bangalore)
.JPG)
.JPG)
