ADVERTISEMENTS:
Here is an essay on ‘Citizen and Administration’ for class 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short essays on the ‘Citizen and Administration’ especially written for school and college students.
Essay on Citizen and Administration
Essay Contents:
- Essay on Good Governance
- Essay on the Role of Civil Society
- Essay on People’s Participation
- Essay on the Right to Information
- Essay on the Redressal of Citizens’ Grievances
Essay # 1. Good Governance:
The term Public Administration was till recently used to refer to the management of Public affairs or government. It was government in action and its scope was wide.
It had exclusive jurisdiction over governance and exercised sovereign functions and had a shine around itself. But in course of time the term administration lost its glamour and another term ‘management’ came into vogue and public administration became ‘Public Management’.
During 1980s and 1990s the word ‘management’ was on everybody’s lip. Management techniques of private sector were sought to be applied in the administration of public affairs. In 1990’s, ‘management’ also lost its shine and another word ‘governance’ came to be used.
It was said that the words like administration or management concentrated on processual functioning whereas governance was the substantial part of state functioning. Governance is administration-cum-management plus, and hence more inclusive, more expansive, more citizen oriented and more qualitative.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The ‘Webster & Encyclopedia defines governance as a method or system of government or management. It is thus a qualitative expression, a normative concept and is different from government. The term ‘Governance’ is a qualitative concept whereas government is a physical entity.
The difference between the two words becomes clear by the observation that India should have less of ‘government’, but more of ‘governance’.
Features of Good Governance:
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Good governance as said above is ‘value oriented’ whereas ‘governance’ denotes a ‘value free denomination. The adjective ‘Good’ added before the word ‘governance’ makes good governance normative in ‘character and qualitative in nature.
In that case good governance refers to efficiency, justice, democracy purposiveness, development orientation, improvement and other values like legitimacy and credibility of the system. In other words, good governance should have the attributes of an effective, credible and legitimate administrative system, citizen friendly, value caring and people-sharing.
The concept of ‘good governance’ derives its relevance in the context of mis-governance. In most of the developing countries, the democratic form of government has proved to be inefficient, ineffective, corrupt and led by political and bureaucratic aggrandizement.
There is a close nexus between criminals, politicians and bureaucrats, all of whom are concerned with serving their own interest rather than public interests. Mis-governance is found all round.
The concept of good governance is a remedy against the above mentioned evils and is identified with basic values of society and their pursuance. The main criteria of good governance are “political accountability, availability of freedom, law abidingness, bureaucratic accountability, transparency effectiveness and efficiency, and co-operation between the government and society”.
To be brief the following features of good governance may be summarized:
(i) Enhancing effective and efficient administration.
(ii) Improving the quality of life of citizens.
(iii) Establishing legitimacy and credibility of institutions.
(iv) Making administration responsive and responsible, citizen friendly and citizen-caring.
(v) Ensuring accountability.
(vi) Securing freedom of information and expression.
(vii) Guaranteeing the right to information.
(vii) Reducing cost of governance.
(ix) Improving quality of public services.
(x) Improving productivity of employees.
(xi) Eradication of corruption.
(xii) Removal of arbitrariness in exercise of authority.
(xiii) Use of IT based services to de-mystify procedures and improve citizen government interface.
(xiv) Decentralization of authority.
(xv) Absence of discrimination on the basis of caste, colour, faith, religion, language and race.
(xvi) Respect for human rights and Rule of Law.
It may be noted that good governance depends on several factors-administrative capacity, the country’s stage of development, the external conditions that it is faced with, illiteracy of the people and lack of interest and enthusiasm among the people to participate in governance.
The search for good governance is an endless one. It has been an eternal challenge to the rulers and the political leaders. The Government of India is fully conscious of the need for responsive, accountable, transparent, decentralized and people friendly administration at all levels and ensuring thereby good governance to the people.
Essay # 2. Role of Civil Society:
The word ‘society’ used in sociological vocabilary means ‘a web of social relationships’. In public administration the word ‘civil’ is prefixed to it and ‘civil society’ acquires a special meaning with several cannotations. In its structural sense, civil society is composed of community groups, institutions and associations organized volutarily and devoted to the cause of collective good, independent of state.
In normative terms, the civil society is widely seen as empowering the people, mobilising them for participation in administration and helping in the supply of public goods and social services. It embodies two ideas-the idea of democracy and of autonomy from the state.
Definitions of Civil Society:
Some of the definitions of civil society are:
(i) Civil society is a social dwelling place that is neither a capital building nor a shopping mall. It shares with the private sector the gift of liberty it is voluntary and is constituted by freely associated individuals and groups’.
(ii) “Civil society covers all forms of voluntary associations and social interaction not controlled by the state.”
(iii) “Civil society refers to the set of institutions. Organisations and behaviour situated between the state, the business world and the family. Specifically this includes voluntary and non-profit organisations of many kind-philanthropic institutions, social and political movements, other forms of social participation and engagement and the values and cultural patterns associated with them”.
Features of Civil Society:
The following are the features of civil society:
(i) It refers to non-state organisations.
(ii) It refers to all citizens outside the government.
(iii) It covers a large space in society.
(iv) It is in pursuit of common public good.
(v) It opposes authoritarisation.
(vi) It is an important pre-requisite of a vital democracy.
(vii) It advocates pluralism to reduce the domination of the state.
(viii) It facilitates people’s participation in public administration.
The attributes of civil society may be enumerated as follows:
(i) Self-governing or voluntary institutions where the people themselves take over the functions of the state.
(ii) Empowerment of people, i.e. power lies with the people.
(iii) Assertive role of the community organizations.
(iv) Small governments equipped with competence, authority and credibility.
(v) Mission minded organizations in place of rule driven bureaucracy.
(vii) Community based development initiatives.
(viii) Village assembly (Gram Sabha) to become the ultimate repository of power over development, decision-making, management of natural resources and the local bureaucracy.
The important components of civil society are community based organizations, Non-government organisations (NGOs), youth organization, religious associations, professional associations, co-operatives, Trade Unions and farmers organisations.
Essentials of Civil Society:
In order to create a civil society, we need the following:
(i) Civil Competence:
The first and foremost requirement of civil society is civil competency i.e. the competence of the people to organize and manage. The people should have the culture of democracy i.e. belief in the values of equality, open mindedness and freedom of expression.
(ii) Good Government:
Good Government means that the community will exercise power and use it for common good. Communities can run the social institutions better than the government. The privately managed educational institutions provide better education while privately run, hospitals provide better health care and medical facilities. In other words, the people should be empowered at all levels.
(iii) Competitive Government:
The government should compete with private organizations in the delivery of services. It should not possess monopoly of public services and delivery of goods.
(iv) Replacement of Rule driven Bureaucracy with Mission Guided Organizations:
The voluntary organizations are filled up with the mission of public service and common good. They have no vested interests and selfish motives. Even while working for the welfare of a particular community, their mission is public welfare including the welfare of their community. The promotion of interests of a group is not anti-democratic as democracy stands for welfare of all the citizens.
(v) Role of Non-Government Organizations:
NGOs constitute the most important component of civil society. They play a wide role in taking specific neglected problems particularly of marginalized groups in society. The general perception is that the state is incapable of solving problems of the deprived and vulnerable groups of society and this role can be better performed by voluntary action groups.
In modern public administration, voluntary action groups have emerged an alternative to over centralized state systems. It is argued that state action is oppressive, bureaucratized and dehumanized whereas the voluntary action will make society humane and harmonious.
The Indian society is marked by diversity and as such there are a large number of voluntary groups organized for welfare of different groups which work in unison without any sharp conflict. Though here and there minor conflicts between different groups might take place, but that has not destroyed national unity of India.
To conclude, the concept of civil society highlights the role of citizens, their action groups and mission driven community organizations. It has become the most widely discussed theme in contemporary administrative theory.
Essay # 3. People’s Participation:
Shri Jawaharlal Nehru once said, “Public administration, apart from the normal features that it should have, should be intimately concerned with public co-operation. The idea of a public servant sitting in a world apart and doling out impartial justice is completely out of place in a democratic society and much more so in a dynamic democratic society which is moving forward because the very pace of moving forward depends not on the public servant but on the people and if there is no intimate connection between the people and the public servant there may be efficiency but there is no moving forward”.
The preamble to the Constitution of India envisages the creation of a new social and economic order through democratic process in which both the civil servant and the people have to play an active part to translate into action the developmental goals. India has embarked upon planning for development and any planning to be successful must ensure people’s participation in the implementation of development plans. Although after 1947, the Britishers withdrew, yet the machine of administration remained not only as a manual of office procedures, physical buildings and human bodies but also established habits, prejudices, interests and class barriers.
There was hardly any departure from the past, and innovations were few. Bureaucracy nurtured on colonial traditions continues to exhibit the traits of impersonality, compulsive professionalism and procedural rigidity.
Today, in India the people’s grievances against civil servants are increasing day-by-day which exhibit themselves through frequent bundhs and agitations, even sometimes leading to violence and ‘gheraos’. The upsophisticated and illiterate as most of them are, they generally face injustice, harassment and persecution. Hence, the people, in general, have got alienated from the administration.
They have little faith in the integrity and impartiality of the administrative officials. Instead of assisting the administration, the people keep themselves aloof and away from it. In a democratic system of government, the citizens and the public servants are not two separate entities. Much of the success of public administration depends on its capacity to enlist public participation in the administrative process. Many of our developmental programmes like family planning, community development and social welfare have failed due to the lack of citizens’ participation in them.
One of the main reasons for the failure of municipal administration to provide adequate civic amenities to the people is its failure to enlist people’s cooperation. The fifth plan, having recognised the need for the people’s participation in planning, states, “The involvement of the people and their elected representatives is a pre-requisite for effective planning.
A plan which does not take into account the people’s aspirations and preferences can have no operational validity, especially since its successful implementation can be ensured only if the majority of citizens, functioning as entrepreneur decisionmakers in relation to consumption, savings, investments etc. endorse the envisaged policies and programmes by their whole hearted participation”.
Thus, both democratic administration and development administration call forth people’s participation in order to successfully achieve the goals of democratic socialism enshrined in the Constitution of India. It may be pointed out that democratic political system does not necessarily ensure democratic administration.
After independence, we adopted a democratic system of government by bestowing the right of adult franchise and enabling the citizens to elect the legislators and making the government responsible to the elected representatives of the people. But the administration still retains its colonial authoritarian legacies in character and style of functioning which has generated hostile alienation among the people.
Meaning of People’s Participation:
Participation, according to a UNESCO document is “collective sustained activity for the purpose of achieving some common objectives, especially a more equitable distribution of the benefits of development. The term ‘participation’ varies in meaning and content from context to context.
Its interpretation may range from taking passive interest in national affairs such as by reading newspapers, listening of radio, viewing TV and discussing matters with others to taking part in national activities like attending meetings, conferences etc. and taking part in demonstrations and processions! It may even include protest actions like strikes, dharnas, etc.
Broadly speaking, the term ‘people’s participation’ refers to the role of members of general public, as distinguished from that of appointed officials, including civil servants, in influencing the activities of government or in providing directly for community needs. It can be at various levels and by different sets of people on different issues in each case drawing different segments of community.
It may occur from the village to the country level. It may manifest itself in different forms. It may only be advisory, as in the case of an advisory committee to a minister or district officer; it may involve decision-making as in the case of local self-governing bodies; and it may extend to actual implementation as occurs when villagers/town dwellers decide to carry out a community self-help project.
The participation may be direct, as in the community projects and in the work of private welfare organisations, or it may be indirect, through elected representatives or officials.
The Report of the team for the Study of Community Projects and National Extension Service, 1957 states; “People’s participation is not merely their providing a certain proportion of the cost of a particular work in cash, kind or manual labour.
It is their full realization that all aspects of the community are their concern and the government’s participation is only to assist them where such assistance is necessary. It is the gradual development of their faith in the efficacy of their own cooperative action in solving their local problems.
To sum up, people’s participation in administration refers to all those activities which show the people’s involvement in the processes of administration that is participation in policy formulation and programme planning, implementation and evaluation of policies and programmes meant for development of particular target groups.
Generally speaking, people’s participation is mobilized through institutional structures which is called institutional participation.
Problems of People’s Participation:
The degree and extent of people’s participation in public administration in India is greatly conditioned by the basic nature and operational peculiarities of Indian administration, and the socio-economic ethos of the country. Extensive empirical studies on the nature and degree of citizens’ participation in India have revealed that the colonial legacy, social diversity, poverty and illiteracy and the peculiarity of the political process combine to greatly restrict popular participation in the public administration in India.
The reasons for indifferent, disinterested, apathetic and even disgusted public attitude towards administration are the following:
1. Colonial Legacy:
The public administration in India even after independence retains colonial elements. A new class – administrative elite has come into existence which has monopolized decision-making on all major issues of public policy.
The bureaucracy acts in an autocratic manner, under-rates the intelligence and capability of the people to offer any suggestions for improvement of administration, gives priority to the maintenance of law and order and does not even extend the normal courtesies to the people.
The officers consider themselves embodiment of law and forget that they are public servants. There is no adequate machinery for redress of people’s grievances and give them expeditious justice. The people get disenchanted with the administration.
A research study in Eldesveld, Jagannadhan and Barnabas has revealed that large proportions (60 per cent urban, 32 per cent rural) hold that their dealings with officials are unsatisfactory, and the majority sense that their probabilities of gaining access to officials and being successful in processing their complaints with them are low.
Over 50 per cent feel that officials in certain agencies are not fair, that a citizen can do little by himself, and from 60 per cent to 75 percent feel that political pull is important in getting administrative action. Consequently, the administrators have failed to solicit extensive public participation.
2. Administrative Corruption:
The widespread corruption in public services has caused loss of faith and trust of the people in administration.
The common people have to experience a lot of inconvenience, disappointment and frustration when they have to get their ordinary and just matters cleared and are made to run from pillar to post to get their legitimate grievances inquired into and removed by the competent authorities and to realize in the ultimate analysis that they cannot get justice without bribing the officials.
They learn to their shock that it is only the few well-to-do, influential and elite sections of society who are favoured with better quality of service. Corruption in public life is rampant and our political masters are so helpless to minimize it, nothing to speak of rooting it out, that people have stopped agitating against it and accepted it as a normal part of administration.
Obviously, people have lost faith in the integrity of public services and do not heed their appeals for public cooperation. Any such appeal from corrupt officials and politicians is just considered a hoax.
3. Social Structure:
The Indian social structure is characterized by numerous cleavages along religious, ethnic, linguistic and caste lines. The Indian people move within their narrow community groups. They do not intermix socially. There is no loyalty to the nation.
The citizens, in general, exhibit an attitude of aloofness, even hostility at times which is a peculiar personality trait reared by the social and communal groups. The minorities and scheduled castes/tribes have been provided numerous advantages.
These classes in order to reap the benefits of the special concessions provided to them do not want to join the mainstream of national life and zealously guard their separate identity.
4. Poverty and Illiteracy:
Widespread poverty and illiteracy in the country have facilitated the dominance of powerful socio-economic groups in society who monopolies the fruits of development and progress.
The people are not aware and conscious about their rights and obligations and the role they are expected to play in the administration of the country, nor does the government make any serious efforts to create such an awareness among the people.
It does not involve the people in decision-making in respect of the plans, projects or schemes. Indian planning is highly centralized and the planning commission has assumed the role of super cabinet.
Though District Planning Councils and State Planning Boards have been set up, they do not play an effective role in the finalization of the District Plan or State Plan. The Planning Commission is the final authority to determine the size of a state plan and its targets. The people are thus denied the opportunities for participation in the plan proposals which are going to affect their lives.
On account of appalling poverty, people are busy day and night to make the two ends meet. They have neither the time nor the incentive to participate in the task of national reconstruction. Good citizenship and people’s participation cannot be expected to emerge from bad living conditions.
5. Slow Pace of Development:
The government has no doubt established a wide network of developmental activities in both rural and urban areas, but apparently these have not made deep impact on the lift of citizens whose enthusiasm and cooperation are not forthcoming.
Citizens would have been more involved in the planning, modernization and development processes, if they had felt their demands and expectations are in the process of realization. On the other hand, there is wide gap between the rich and the poor; the rich having easy access to administration and the general tendency of officials to avoid the poor and underplay their needs and interests.
There is inordinate delay in getting the wheels of the administrative machinery in motion. The Community development programmes have failed to generate the necessary enthusiasm and rural initiative, and donations in cash and kind were not as forthcoming as were required to make the movement a success.
It turned out to be more of a ‘government’s programme” instead of ‘people’s programme’. Planning has not eradicated widespread poverty, inequality and unemployment.
The fruits of development have not reached the target groups (the rural and urban poor, landless farmers, small artisans and backward classes), these have been cornered by a few feudal nobles and political leaders. In the existing milieu of slow pace of development and failure of rising expectations, it is small wonder that the people were turning increasingly hostile, critical and cynical.
6. Failure of Panchayati Raj:
The Panchayati Raj institutions were established as institutions of grass root democracy and of democratic development with the objective to operationalize the concept of democratic decentralization and devolution of real power and responsibility to the local mass for the development of their areas. In the recent past, the system has lost its old moorings, its ethos and objectives.
The Panchayati Raj bodies have made the existing caste and caste division in rural society more acute. As told earlier, the Panchayati Raj institutions have become hotbeds of deep political rivalries and another appendage of criminalized politics and political criminalization.
They are in no sense representative institutions of rural self-government. Consequently, they have failed to involve the rural people in the socio-economic development of the country.
7. Poor Image of Leadership:
Citizens become what their leaders make them to be. In the ultimate analysis the quantity and quality of people’s involvement in the socio-economic development in India is set by the political and administrative leadership. The present-day crisis in India is the crisis of finding administrative leaders who can give new dimensions to administration in line with our concepts of democracy, secularism, planning and socialism.
The administrative leadership is marked by authoritarian attitude and bureaucratic style. The work culture is poor. The concept of participative management is missing. About political leaders the least said the better.
The legislators once elected do not bother about the electorates. They seldom visit their constituencies and try to create awareness among their voters about the need of their active participation in administration. People are considered as only vote banks by them. The legislators of today are mediocre some of them illiterate, semi-educated and devoid of the spirit of dedication and service.
Their violent behaviour on the floor of the House is disgusting. The country can hardly expect enlightened leadership from a clan of leaders who do not hesitate to indulge in the worst kind of political manipulation and sordid corruption to keep themselves into power. The common man in India is fed up with the vicious role of political leaders in the administration of the country.
A close nexus has developed between the politician, the bureaucrat and the capitalist. Citizen participation demands certain preconditions. Of these, the most important are enlightened political leaders, conscientious civil servants and an informed public; all the three of which are conspicuous by their absence in the Indian scenario.
If the above reasons are analyzed, it would become clear as to why the people do not come forward to help the police in investigation, as to why they are apathetic to the civic problems of insanitation and pollution and as to why they do not actively participate in the tasks of social upliflment and economic development.
The people dread approaching the administration and prefer to suffer. The administrative system has become so polluted that the average person keeps himself aloof and away from it so long as he can afford. The administration feels demoralized while the citizen feels disgusted.
Measures to Promote People’s Participation in Administration:
Despite the desirability, advisability and rationality for people’s participation in administration, not much planned effort is visible either to involve people in development processes, projects and schemes or even to offer them incentives to find their own solutions for their local problems.
The system of democratic decentralization introduced in India did not really devolve power on the masses. Planning has remained more bureaucratic than democratic.
The dominance of powerful socio-economic and political groups has alienated the common man from the national mainstream. The colonial legacy of law and order administration by an administrative elite stands in the way of the administrator’s soliciting extensive public cooperation. The fifty years of planning has failed to ameliorate the living conditions of the masses to any appreciable extent.
Poverty, unemployment and inequality are still widespread. Most of the citizens feel helpless and frustrated before the mighty power of the administration and have learnt to reconcile to the corrupt political system.
Obviously, the causes responsible for lack of people’s participation in administration have to be removed and various measures need to be initiated to exploit their potential to the maximum.
These may include constant contact of the legislators with their constituents, change in the attitude of bureaucrats, strengthening of Public Relations agencies to inform the people and serve as a bridge between them and the administration, providing adequate mechanism for redressal of citizens’ grievances, competent administrative leadership, constructive role of political parties and revamping of established procedures and restructuring of administration so as to make it more democratic, responsive, transparent and people-friendly.
A word may also be said about the role of voluntary organisations and advisory committees which are useful media to secure people’s participation in administration. The planners have very often expressed their keenness not only to secure the willing assent of the people to a democratic plan but also to seek their active participation in the process of planning and implementation.
In other words, it is no longer a question of associating the people or their agencies through indirect representation with a plan officially framed and administered but of evolving a joint partnership in the entire process of development. It is, in fact, a step towards translating into reality the concepts of participating democracy.
In the long history of social work in India, voluntary organisations have always played a pioneering role. The administrative machinery being impersonal in nature, it cannot lend that “human touch” to administration which a voluntary organisation can provide.
The personal approach is more necessary in development administration. The government should strengthen voluntary organisations and streamline their activities.
They should be freed from bureaucratic rules and procedures and political interference, which unnecessarily hamper their functioning. There should be a healthy relationship between the government and voluntary agencies which is a relationship of ‘partnership’ in a common endeavor to play their respective roles in national development.
People also participate through advisory committees/boards constituted to tender advice to the government. Such committees/boards may be appointed at Central, State and local levels. There may be representative advisory bodies consisting of representatives of different groups and other persons besides official nominees.
There may also be expert committees, consisting of experts in a particular field to advise the government.
The establishment of a rationally organised system of advisory committees would keep “the government appraised of what they (people) expect, what they apprehend, and what they would resist”. It provides an opportunity to the Government to test the efficacy of its policies and actions.
Through a network of advisory committees, the feeling of alienation among the people gets reduced and their feeling of participation gets strengthened.
In conclusion, people’s participation in administration means active cooperation and involvement of the general masses and the targeted public in the various interfaces of decision-making process and implementation and evaluation of development programmes at all levels.
It is “a cumulative and continuous process, which has to be nurtured and gradually developed with the help of the people themselves through close rapport, communication, their organisations, decentralized and integrated approach”.‘ Public participation in the public administration in India must become a mass movement, for, it is not only a means to national development but is in itself a development goal.
Essay # 4. Right to Information:
India after independence adopted democratic form of Government but it failed to bring about democracy in government. The colonial legacy persisted for a long time. Public administration was looked upon with awe and fear. The people did not have easy access to the officials and it was quite difficult for them to get any information on individual and public matters.
The Official Secrets Act, 1923 literaaly made it possible for any member of the public to know what is hapening in government files about any case, whether of personal interest or social concern. Shrouded in secrecy, public administration failed to get people’s participation and many evils like corruption, nepotism and favouritism, wastage of public funds and lack of accountability gradually crept which in course of time assumed large proportions.
In consequence therof, it failed to meet the needs of the changing circumstances – growing awareness of the public about rights, changing social economic milieu, need for fully accountable and responsive administration which led to a demand for transparancy in governmental functioning.
With a view to introduce greater transparency and openness in the functioning of government and public bodies government passed Freedom of Information Bill in 2002. This Bill was lated repealed by the UPA Government bringing about important changes. The new Bill was titled as Right to Information Bill, 2005 which came on the Statute Book as The Right to Information Act, 2005 and came into force on the 12th October, 2005.
Main Provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005:
1. The word ‘information’ under the Act means any material in any form including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force but does not include file noting’s.
2. Any citizen can ask for information.
3. Right to information covers inspection of document, record, take notes, extracts or certified copies of documents and records, take certified samples of material and obtain information in form of printouts, diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes, or in any other mode.
4. Every public authority is under obligation to provide information on written request or request by electronic means after payment of prescribed fees. Reasons for seeking information are not required to be given.
5. The information sought will be supplied within 30 days from the date of application. If the information sought is concerned with the life and liberty of a person, it is to be supplied within 5 days.
6. Prohibited information cannot be supplied. Such information includes information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereignty, integrity and security of India, strategic, economic or scientific interests of the state, relations with foreign. State or lead to incitement of an offence. Information expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal will not be supplied.
Besides the above, there are other kinds of information which cannot be supplied.
This includes information leading to breach of privilege of Parliament or State Legislature, information regarding commercial confidence, trade secrets and intellectual property which will harm the interests of a third party, information received in confidence from a foreign government, information given to an investigation agency which would impede the investigation process or arrest or prosecution of offenders, cabinet papers including records of deliberations of council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers, personal information not related to any public activity or which would invade the privacy of an individual.
7. Some agencies like RAW, IB. Economic Intelligence Bureau, Narcotic Control Bureau, BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF, NSG, CID and Directorate of Enforcement are excluded from supplying information unless it is relating to human rights violation and corruption.
8. The public authorities shall designate officers to work as Public Information Officers in all administrative units or offices under control to provide information under the Act.
9. The PIO shall deal with requests from persons, seeking information as expeditiously as possible and in any case within the prescribed period and provide the information sought for. He can reject the request for any of the reasons mentioned in the Act and inform the information seeker of such reasons.
10. If the PIO fails to supply the information sought for, within the prescribed period, he shall be deemed to have refused the request.
11. Appeal against the rejection by PIO can be made to the Appellate Authority.
12. The Act provides for the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commission. The Central Information Commission will be selected by an appointment Committee consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of the opposition in the Lok Sabha and one Union Cabinet Minister nominated by the Prime Minister. The State Information Commission will be constituted by the State Government.
13. The Central Information Commission has a duty to receive complaints from any person.
(a) Who has not been able to submit an information request because a PIO has not been appointed?
(b) Who has been refused information requested for?
(c) Who has received no information or response within the prescribed time limit?
(d) Who thinks the fees charged are not reasonable;
(e) Who thinks that information supplied is incomplete or false or misleading; and
(f) Any other matter relating to information under the law.
14. The Central Information Commission and State Information Commission have been given the powers of a civil court.
15. The CIC have the power to seek compliance of its decisions from the competent Public Authority and seek an annual report on compliance with this law.
16. It can impose penalty on the Public Authority for not supplying the information Penalty can be imposed on the information seeker also for making false statements in his application.
17. The Central Information Commission and State Information Commission will send an annual report to the Central Government on the implementation of the provisions of this law at the end of the year. The report will be placed by the Government on the table of the Parliament.
18. The Central Information Commissioner and other members are appointed for a term of five years.
19. No court can entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under the RTI Act. In other words, the orders of Central Information Commission are final. The Right to Information Act has proved to be of great importance in bringing about openness and transparency in public administration.
It has ensured fairness and integrity in administration and made government functionaries wary of doing wrongful acts or not properly performing their duties and ignoring public interests.
Essay # 5. Redressal of Citizens’ Grievances:
Corruption is not the only malady of public administration in India; harassment by officials, delay in disposal of cases, arbitary decisions and maladministration also constitute its black spots. Accordingly, any democratic government – a government of the people, by the people and for the people, has to remove those spots and promote among its citizens a sense of content and satisfaction towards administartion.
The average citizen is interested more in the devices of redress of his grievances than in the sofisticated manual of organisation and methods of disposal of government business. He wants responsive, sympathetic and courteous administartion an it is one of the hard problems of public administration as how to make public officials fair, sensitive, responsible, responsive and how to protect the citizen against administrative arbitrariness.
The functions of the modern government have increased manifold and the assumption of manifold responsibilities has resulted in the multiplication of processes. Administrative power and discretion are vested at different levels of the executive, all the members of which are not endowed with the same level of understanding and strength of character.
Power means authority and authority is likely to be abused, more so when it is to be exercised in the context of scarcity of goods and services, controls, licences, or permits, and pressures. In the absense of any effective machinery for redress of grievances, the executive arbitrariness grows all the more. The redressal of grievances is not an easy task.
The following steps may help in redressal of their grievances to some extent:
1. Judicial Remedies:
The Constitution of India has guaranteed certain fundamental rights to the people and in case there is a violation of any of these rights, the aggrieved person can move the High Court or Supreme Court for enforcement of his rights.
A citizen can also avail of the judicial remedy against any arbitrary action or violation of law by a public servant. He can also move the court to seek remedy against any wrong done to him by a public servant in the course of discharge of his public duty.
The judicial remedies against the administration may include suits against the government for quashing of its arbitrary, discriminatory and unlawful orders; reinstatement of employees, payment of salary arrears and other damages; prosecution of the offending government servants for illegal acts such as unlawful detention, torture or harassment; writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and High Court which has the effect of quashing administrative orders, prohibiting administration from some act or directing it to do a particular act or not to do it.
The judicial remedies do provide an effective check against official excesses or abuse of power, but these remedies have certain limitations.
First, the judicial process is very slow and cumbersome. An aggrieved person cannot wait indefinitely to avail himself of the judicial remedy. Tired of the delay he loses hope and gets reconciled to his fate.
Second, judicial remedy is highly expensive and cannot be taken advantage of by many people. Moreover, the inconveniences involved keep them away from seeking judicial remedy. It may also invite the wrath of the powers that be and the complainant may be subjected to harassment in other subtle ways. In view of the obstacles and risks ahead, people prefer to suffer than to invoke court jurisdiction.
Third, sometimes the remedies offered by the law courts are inadequate and ineffective. The government also deprives the person of the remedy granted to him by amending the law or modifying rules thereof.
To provide speedy and cheap justice to the people against official excesses, administrative tribunals have been setup. Such tribunals operate with a degree of informality. Formal rules of evidence was found in the law courts are not observed and the lawyers are not needed to argue a case.
In India, there are a number of such tribunals, such as Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Railway Rent Tribunals, Labour Tribunals, recently’ established Rent Tribunals at State level, etc.
The Central Administrative Tribunal setup in 1985 hears the cases of the employees belonging to all India services. Central Services and Central Government offices regarding service matters.
Although the administrative tribunals have proved useful to provide cheaper, speedy and adequate justice, yet they can be availed of only by certain sections of the people such as assesses, workmen, government employees, tenants and landlords and the like. For the common man, they do not provide any redressal of his grievances against excessive or dilatory administrative acts.
Consumer courts have been set up at the District levels to protect the people against unfair trade practices and inefficient service by the service departments such as telephone, electricity and housing departments.
Any consumer who has suffered any loss may approach the consumer court to seek redress of his grievance by making a simple application and without the intervention of any advocate. Provision also exists for an appeal from the lower consumer court to the higher one.
2. Parliamentary Procedure:
The principle of ministerial responsibility gives Parliament the right to probe into executive actions. The elected representatives, having been persuaded by their constituents ask questions in Parliament, move adjournment motion, censure motion, call-attention motion to draw the attention of the House to a particular matter.
There is also a parliamentary committee, the Committee on Petitions—to which the citizen may submit petitions to secure redress against an act of injustice.
In the beginning, only those petitions were admitted which related to pending Bills before the legislature but during 1956, the scope of the Committee was enlarged and it was given the power to consider all representations, resolutions, telegrams, etc. which might be addressed either to the speaker or to the secretary of the Lok Sabha.
The committee, if it deems fit, may call upon the concerned department to furnish the facts pertaining to the petition and may also hear the individual and the representative of the department. It may refer the complaint to the concerned department for enquiry. The committee after receipt of the enquiry report considers the report and may ask the department to rectify the cause of complaint or clarify its position.
The parliament may also appoint special committees to investigate any matter of administrative corruption, collusion or negligence. The joint parliamentary committee to probe the Security Scam is an example thereof. However, the parliamentary action is circumscribed by the rules of procedure and speaker’s rulings.
According to the Administrative Reforms Commission, “Parliamentary procedure is more suited for the consideration of matters of public importance than for obtaining redress of individual grievances arising in the course of day-to-day governmental administration”.
3. Complaint Forums:
The government has setup numerous complaint forums at different levels to receive people’s complaints and take further necessary action. These complaint cells have been created in various government organisations for speedy disposal of public complaints.
One may also air one’s grievances before a senior officer against the actions of his subordinates. Complaint officers have been appointed in organisations dealing with the public. Complaint boxes and registers are maintained in many organisations.
The bus conductor carries a complaint book wherein a passenger may write his/her complaint about the conductor’s behaviour or bus service. One can meet ministers; members of the legislature while on tour and convey one’s grievances.
Public/district grievances committees under the chairmanship of a minister/district collector have been setup to hear grievances against a department in the district. These committees meet once every month on fixed days and hold open meeting. Open darbars are also held by a Minister on tour or a local officer to hear complaints from the people and provide redress on the spot.
This remedy also is not much helpful because the complaint officers are reluctant to hold their own colleagues responsible. They are afraid to investigate grievances against a decision taken by an officer senior to them.
Further, there is a tendency among the officers to protect their subordinates against whom complaint is made. It is also difficult to take any action against an employee/officer having political pulls and patronage for his acts of injustice. The Trade Unionism also cautions the investigating officer to tread the path very diligently.
4. Enquiries:
There is a provision for instituting departmental as well as public enquiries under the provisions of Public Servants (Enquiries) Act, against a public servant for his acts of misbehaviour.
Various commissions have been appointed from time to time by the government to investigate the allegations against the civil servants, for instance, the Chagla Commission, Das Commission, Aiyangar Commission, Venkateswara Iyer Commission, Mundholkar Commission, etc.
While these commissions have done useful work, the remedy is not effective to provide redress to the common man against his grievances regarding day-to-day matters. Generally serious matters of maladministration and corruption are the subject-matter of public enquiry.
5. Central Vigilance Commissioner:
A central vigilance commission headed by a vigilance commissioner was setup in 1964 consequent to the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee to investigate corruption charges, complaints of misconduct, lack of integrity or other kinds of malpractices on the part of public servants. In 1966, a Commissioner for Public Grievances was also appointed.
There is also a Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions under the Government of India under the charge of Minister of State. The role of Vigilance Commission is limited because it has only advisory role.
Further, the procedure of investigation is so vexatious that people do not desire to be involved in long and unpleasant proceedings. The role of the Commissioner for Public Grievances is just one of post office who forwards the complaints to the concerned departments for necessary enquiry and action.
Need for Lokpal:
Thus, all the above avenues suffer from limitations and have failed to provide effective redress of individual grievances of a citizen against administrative agencies and political leadership. The Administrative Reforms Commission, setup in 1966, was asked, inter alia, to examine the problem of redressal of citizen’s grievances.
Specifically, it was asked to examine:
(i) The adequacy of existing arrangements for redress of grievances; and
(ii) The need for introduction of any new machinery or special institution for redress of grievances.
The ARC in its interim report on the “Problems of Redress of Citizens’ Grievances” observed; “In the circumstances of today, with the expanding activities of government, the exercise of discretion by administrative authorities howsoever large the field may be, cannot be done away with nor can it be rigidly regulated by instructions, orders or resolutions. The need for ensuring the rectitude of the administrative machinery in this vast discretionary field is not only obvious but paramount. Where the citizen can establish the genuineness of his case, it is plainly the duty of the state to set right the wrong done to him an institution for redress of grievances must be provided within the democratic system of government. It has to be an institution in which the average citizen will have faith and confidence and through which he will be able to secure quick and inexpensive justice”.
On the question of setting up of Ombudsman type of institutions, the ARC observed; “After having carefully evaluated the pros and cons. We are of the view that the special circumstances relating to our country can be fully met by providing for two special institutions for the redress of citizens’ grievances. There should be one authority for dealing with complaints against the administrative acts of ministers or secretaries to government both at the Centre and in the states. There should be another authority in each state and the Centre for dealing with complaints against the administrative acts of other officials. All these authorities should be independent of the executive as well as the legislature and judiciary”. The first authority was to be called the Lokpal and the second one the Lokayukta.’
The commission also held the view that “the setting up of these authorities should not, however, be taken to be a complete answer to the problem of redress of citizens’ grievances.
They only provide the ultimate setup for such redress as has not been available through the normal department or governmental machinery and do not absolve the department from fulfilling its obligations to the citizen for administering its affairs without generating, as far as possible, any legitimate sense of grievance.
Thus, the administration itself must play the major role on reducing the area of grievances and provide remedies, wherever necessary and feasible. For this purpose, there should be established in each ministry or department, as the case may be, suitable machinery for the receipt and investigation of complaints and for setting in motion, where necessary, the administrative process for providing remedies.
A large number of cases which arise at lower levels of administration should in fact adequately be dealt with by this in-built departmental machinery. When the machinery functions effectively, the number of cases which have to go to an authority outside the ministry or the department, should be comparatively small.
In some states and at the Centre, there is now some provision for a governmental authority to hear grievances and attempt to secure remedial action through the administration.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The tendency is to setup such authorities independent and outside the departmental machinery. After the setting up of the authorities we have recommended above, there would be no need for those functionaries. We would in the circumstances strongly advocate that the responsibility of the departments to deal adequately with public grievances must be squarely faced by them.
It may be noted that the proposed institutions of Lokpal and Lokayukta were not to supplant the existing remedies available within the departmental setup or at the levels of judiciary and administrative tribunals. These institutions were to provide remedy only in respect of those matters for which such remedies were not available or where it was not reasonable to expect a citizen to take recourse to legal proceedings.
To sum-up, the institutional devices for redressing citizens grievances in India are many and varied (legislative, administrative, judicial and quasi-judicial). However dissatisfaction with the governmental functioning and misbehaviour of employees is widespread.
The administrative machinery is inertia ridden and corrupt. Under such circumstances, the institutions of Lok Pal and Lok Ayukts could be expected to provide relief, but the said institution of Lok Pal has not so far been established, even the Lok Pal Bill not passed. Lok Ayukta exists in some of the states only.
The ARC itself however, admitted that the setting up of the two institutions is not the complete answer to the problem of redress of citizens’ grievances. In the present Indian environment of falling standards of political morality and high level of bureaucratic corruption the two proposed devices may also fail to ensure good governance to the citizens and provide an effective machinery for redressal of public grievances.