Redress still wrapped up in red tape

The capital’s experience with its Right to Services Act could serve as a cautionary tale — when a law that is neither comprehensive nor tough enough gets little publicity and less supervision, the result is that very little changes.
In September 2011, the Sheila Dikshitled Delhi government passed the Right of Citizens to Time Bound Delivery of Services Act, which directed departments to state the time-frame within which basic services must be delivered to citizens, and laid down that citizens would be entitled to seek compensation if they did not receive the service in time.This list of services has now been expanded to 116 across the MCD, NDMC, Delhi Police, and various state government departments.
This list is unambitious and nowhere close to meeting the needs of people, say activists. “Take ration, the number one cause of complaint in most bastis,” says Anjali Bhardwaj, director of the Delhi-based Satark Nagarik Sangathan that works on accountability and governance. “There is no mechanism for complaining about not getting your ration or not getting it in time,” Bhardwaj points out.
This is an experience echoed by other grassroots workers. Last year, Joint Operation for Social Help (JOSH) conducted a “grievance redressal camp” in Trilokpuri slum in East Delhi. “We received over 1,400 applications from people,” says Thomas Anthony, director (programmes) at JOSH. “Close to half were about the PDS, another 360 or so about the poor functioning of schools, many about delayed pensions, others about not having received water bills,” says Anthony. None of these are covered under the Act. Another big problem that people face is that there is no single-window system for grievances. The Delhi government has made little effort to publicise who the competent authority is, he adds.
Even leaving aside the inadequacy of the Act, a closer look at its implementation for the services it does offer inspires little confidence . On a recent morning, residents from slums around Sheikh Sarai in Delhi have taken autos, buses or walked to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s office in Mehrauli.
Her eyes red with a raging fever, Parveen Begum has come with an application for an income certificate that her husband Dilshad Hussain filed on December 14, 2012. Officially , the process is supposed to take 21 days, leaving the Hussains enough time to get admission for their daughter in the EWS category for the next academic year. After hearing nothing for two months, Dilshad filed a complaint under the Act on February 13. According to the law, he must get Rs 10 in compensation for each day of delay up to a maximum of Rs 200. Parveen waited unsuccessfully until 1 pm for the SDM, the officially designated competent authority for their case, to show up and then went home to her children, with neither certificate nor compensation.
“The compensation amount is too low to be a real deterrent,” says Bhardwaj. Moreover, citizens like 60-year-old Ram Bharose who was there for his granddaughter’s caste certificate, say that they are scared to demand compensation fearing it might anger officials.
Vikas Kumar from Jagdamba Camp applied for a caste certificate in January 2012 and later an RTI application seeking its status . “I am the first person in my family to go to college, but I won’t be granted my degree until I submit my caste certificate,” he said, close to angry tears.
Rajendra Kumar, secretary, Information Technology, neither returned calls nor texts from TOI seeking information.
SERVICES INCLUDED IN THE ACT
Applications for documents like driving licences, birth certificates, income certificates, caste certificates, Above Poverty Line ration cards and marriage certificates, application for new water connection
Tale of Two Acts
Saurabh Sharma
It’s been four months since the Rajasthan Guaranteed Delivery of Public Services Act, 2011, was introduced to improve administrative efficiency, but most people are still unaware of the Act.
One of them was Shushma Parikh, who had queued up at the Jaipur Muncipal Corporation for a birth certificate for her child. “I don’t know anything about such an Act,” she said. The act covers 153 services in 22 departments, including things like birth, death and disability services
However, the government claims efficiency has improved because of the Act. “There is a fear among employees now. If the job is not done in the given time, they will be fined,” said a senior official. So far, four officers have been fined with the maximum penalty and notices have been issued to several others. Fines range between Rs 500 and Rs 5,000. Chandra Mohan Meena, additional chief secretary, department of administrative reforms, says, “There is constant monitoring and efforts are being made to make the Act more people-friendly .”
To strengthen the system, the government has decided to create a separate department for the guaranteed delivery of public services. A director has been appointed and new posts for public service officers created in all the districts. “Transparency and accountability are key words of effective governance. We are trying to include more services in the Act. The system will be online soon and the time limit shortened,” said Meena.
Rajasthan was also the first state to implement the Right to Hearing Act in August 2012. However, only Rajsamand district has implemented it. The district has held many public hearing camps and taken complaints about Rajiv Gandhi Vidyutikaran Yojna, wheat at Rs 2 per kg for BPL families scheme, and water supply.
A rozgar saheyak takes complaints. “He will not have any objection in taking any complaints as he does not belong to any department,” says Rajsamand district collector Preetam B Yashwant. The moment a complaint is filed, the person is given a receipt and his hearing is done the following Friday by block level officers.
With inputs from Anindo Dey
Knock, Knock
Suchandana Gupta
Sapna Pandagere of Pusli, a village in Betul district, is physically disabled, and this has been authenticated by a government certificate. Late last year, this certificate expired and had to be renewed at the Government Medical Board at the Betul district hospital.
When the 22-year-old reached the board office in January the babu on duty refused to accept the application. He said the department no longer accepted applications directly and that they had to be routed through the Public Service Guarantee Act.
”I went to the local Lok Seva Kendra (Public Service Centre) that accepts appeals under this Act,’’ she says. “The queue was long and I waited for three hours for my turn. When I handed over the application , I was told that appeals under the Public Service Guarantee Act were accepted for only new certificates and not for revalidation . So I went back to the same medical board office. Then it took another week of pleading and follow up to finally get that revalidation done.”
This story comes from a state that was decorated last June by the UN for pioneering the implementation of the Public Service Guarantee Act. The Shivraj Singh Chouhan government brought 52 services of 16 departments under the ambit of the Act which came into effect in September 2010. The state claimed that it was the first to enforce an act that not only ensures timebound public service to citizens but also punishes government employees who cause delays with a fine that is then offered as compensation to the complainant.
But after more than two years of the implementation, it is still common for citizens to run into a wall of bureaucratic apathy. Rights activists in the state argue that the main flaw is that there is no independent authority to monitor implementation . “The original draft of the Act in Madhya Pradesh had the provision for the constitution of a committee which could ask government departments for action taken reports against erring officials. But under bureaucratic pressure, this idea was dropped. In Punjab, they made provisions for such a committee which is why it is a more transparent system,’’ says Ajay Dubey, convener of the NGO, Prayatna.
Dubey claimed that in MP, the Act is still mired in red tape because any appeal against bureaucratic delay is filed with a senior officer of the same department. “Government employees do not take action against each other,’’ he says. However, the department maintains the constitution of an independent committee would complicate matters. Says Manohar Dubey, additional secretary, “No commission can help. It is the responsibility of the government to get that work done. And if the needful is not done, one can go for an appeal. Even with a commission, the citizen would need to go for an appeal.’’