Centre shouldn't force states to follow its schemes: BJP

A day after the cabinet approved the Bill to ensure time bound delivery of essential government services, the civil society said the purpose of the Bill would be defeated if the state governments are not mandated to formulate grievance redress commissions on the lines of the Central government.

The provision for state grievance redress commissions was approved by the Parliament standing committee, but many political parties including the BJP have opposed the move saying that the states should not be forced to emulate the schemes delivered by the Centre. “This has been put in the Concurrent List but is an encroachment on state laws,” BJP spokesperson Prakash Javadekar said on Thursday .

Under the Right of Citizens for Time-Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of Grievances Bill, 2011, citizens are entitled to a time bound delivery of many crucial government services such as passport, ration card, birth and death and certificates.

As per the Bill, every public authority/ government office will have a grievance redress officer for receiving and disposing of complaints in a specified time frame. The defaulting officer can be penalized Rs 250 per day penalty for maximum of Rs 50,000.

National Advisory Council member and social activist Aruna Roy said, “Thousands of people run from pillar to post for problems which can be tackled only at the state level. The Bill has to reach right up to the block level so that complainant can easily take their grievances to the department. There is no use in creating a mechanism which is limited only to the Centre.”

The Bill says that every department should come up with its citizen charter- a list of services which it will provide and the timeframe for the same. Anjali Bhardrwaj, founder of Satark Nagrik Sangathan, a Delhi-based citizens’ group working for transparency and accountability in governance, said that the citizen charter must be developed in a participatory and consultative manner. “Rather than the government office or departments randomly selecting services, citizens should be consulted in this process. And the citizen charter must be periodically updated to reflect changes, if any.”

Another demand of the civil society is that the legislation must provide for specific and mandatory time lines for redress of grievances and appeals. “there should be specific time limits in the law, for both- disposal of grievances by the grievance redress officer and head of the department and isposal of appeals by the designated authority at the district level and the state or central grievance redressal commissions,” said Nikhil Dey, convener, National Campaign for People’s Right to Information.

Dey added that the highest authority for disposal of cases under the legislation should be an independent body at the district level. “In case the grievance redress officer and head of the department at the district level do not redress the grievance of a complainant satisfactorily and the complainant appeals to the district designated authority, then the designated authority at the district level should be able to initiate the process of inquiry, impose penalty (including on the HOD) and award compensation in a time frame,” he said.

The Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha in December 2011. It was referred to the Standing Committee in January last year.

The Committee submitted its report in August.

“The canvas of the Bill is bigger than many existing welfare programmes including MNREGA and RTI as it touches upon almost every existing scheme as far as grievance redress is concerned,” said Ashish Ranjan of Jan Jaagran Shakti Sangathan, a Bihar passed NGO.