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 The nomenclature of the Draft Bill as "Citizens Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011" may be withdrawn and be renamed as "Right to Grievance Redress Bill 2011".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.
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.
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
E-mail- odishasochanaadhikar@gmail.com
Date-23.11.2011
No comments:
Post a Comment