As if involuntarily acting on account of pressures from civil society and various other counters, the Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services Bill, 2011, was introduced in the Lok Sabha on December 20, 2011. It was referred to the parliamentary committee in January 2012. The committee sent its report in August 2012. About a year’s time has elapsed, and still the final version of the Bill, in light of recommendations of the committee, has not been tabled in parliament. This very important piece of legislation, like all other critical bills, may not be enacted in the 15th Lok Sabha. Perhaps, it would require another push from the civil society to impart the sense of urgency at the right quarters.
The states have been proactive in enacting and adopting the Act, facilitating justiciable rights-based claim of public services within a specified time-bound delivery. So far, 17 states have enacted the Act and are in various stages of implementation. Madhya Pradesh was the pioneer which enacted this law in 2010; 2011 saw the Act being adopted by Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Jharkhand, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi; in 2012 four states of Karnataka, Odisha, Kerala and Assam also enacted the Act; whereas Gujarat and Goa have enacted it only very recently in April and May 2013 and thus have not even notified the first phase of government services covered under the Act yet. The remaining 12 states which are still to enact this legislation are Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and the north-eastern states of Sikkim, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Manipur.
In order to find out the ground realities of the implementation of the Act in various states, Public Interest Foundation, an NGO, filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, to all 28 states, asking for basic details of whether this act had been adopted in the particular state, and in case the answer was in affirmative then the rate at which the complaints were being received and processed. An assessment based on notification of specific services for delivery was undertaken to evaluate if the enactment meant any appreciable improvement in the delivery of services and thus bringing about relief at the cutting edge level.
Most of the replies received to the RTI query shared only details of whether the Act had been enacted by the state government or not, and the number of services notified under the Act till date. The number of services covered range from 153 in Rajasthan to 13 in UP. Certification on health, birth, death, SC/ST status; issuance of BPL/APL ration cards; state-aided pension; power department and driving licences are some other services which have popularly been covered by most states for time-bound delivery.
A careful reading of the replies shows that notification of essential services is incomplete in most states. A majority has left out land revenue, land records, police administration, rent control, power supply and administration in decentralised local bodies. Farmers face maximum harassment while seeking justice from the revenue courts. There are ways of manipulating information to suppress records of frequent adjournment and delayed justice. The same is the story of police stations in terms of registration of FIRs, speedy police intervention in cases of atrocities towards SCs and STs. The complaint of wrong billing and erratic power supply is endemic.
Another important feature and conclusion is that the system has not attained critical mass. The citizens are not aware of their rights and there is no hand-holding procedure to cut the red tape. States like Madhya Pradesh in denying information on monitoring practices went on to the extent of stating that under RTI replies it is not possible to furnish such information which is not already present with them in a collated form as a part of their usual record-keeping exercise. But a careful reading of the rules accompanying this Act clearly states the requirement as well as provides the standardised format for record keeping of all complaints registered, time prescribed as well as taken to handle the case, and the final status of the complaint to be maintained on a regular basis separately by designated officer, first appellate authority as well as the second appellate authority. Even the pending central legislation Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievance Bill, 2011, underlining this need for strict monitoring, in its Chapter X on Reporting of Grievance Redressal by Public Authority of the Bill under section 46 (1) clearly states, “Every public authority shall ensure that every Grievance Redressal Officer keeps a record of complaints made to it or appeal therein and the decisions on such complaints and appeals.”
Of the 28 states only four shared monitoring records on the number of cases received and disposed of under the Act. Also, the monitoring data reveals only a sketchy picture with no basis for conclusive analysis. Delhi and Karnataka, despite having provisions for punishing erring officials in case of delays beyond sanctioned time in handling complaints, have 3.6 lakh delayed cases with no penalty imposed on defaulting officer in Delhi; and around 7.4 lakh cases pending beyond the sanctioned time with only six brought to book in Karnataka.
Monitoring of implementation at the ground level forms a vital aspect of the Act, without which there will be no built-in accountability, and thus no way of knowing if this highly acclaimed public welfare-oriented Act is actually bringing about the change in the lives of the common man that was its most important goal and promise.
The central legislation, if passed without any further delay, can provide that reference framework for the states to emulate underlining the importance for incorporation of in-built mechanism for monitoring rights guaranteed under the Act. Moreover, this record regarding the smooth functioning and delivery of the promises made under the Act should be open to public scrutiny. In fact the very important enactment has yet to become part of district administrations, which can be achieved only when e-governance is adopted both at the level of request for services and final delivery. Without this in-built mechanism for monitoring and accountability, there is a pertinent danger of the Act doing nothing more than lip service to welcome change that it had envisioned for the lives of the common citizenry.
(N. Misra is ex-chairman, TRAI and Director, Public Interest Foundation; Email: director@publicinterestfoundation.com)