Right to Public Services Provided by the State Government: A Comparative Study of State Laws and Need for a Parliamentary Enactment

Initiatives to Improve Public Service Delivery

Reports of various multilateral institutions and administrative reform commissions have pointed the necessity to rejuvenate ‘the steel frame of India’, which has been rusted with corruption, inefficiency, opaqueness and insensitivity with the passage of time. Initiatives like RTI, E-governance, the Citizens’ Charter and grievance redressal mechanism have been taken towards administrative reforms to make service delivery more citizen-centric.

The Right to Information Act was passed in 2005, to end the secrecy in the public institutions’ functioning and making their administration more open, transparent and accountable. Various cases of malpractices have been highlighted because of RTIs. RTI also made service delivery equitable as the influential lost power to avail better services through back channels.

Similarly, to make public services more responsive, faster, cost-effective and transparent, e-governance has been introduced. The National e-Governance Plan (NeGP) was launched in 2006, which gave a new boost to service delivery. For instance, after the computerisation of land records in Karnataka, farmers can obtain a copy of their Records of Rights, Tenancy and Crops (RTC) within 30 minutes, as against 30 days that it used to take earlier. Moreover, a printed copy of the RTC at a kiosk costs ₹15 only, as against heavy bribes that one had to pay earlier. Digital India and ‘ekranti’ or NeGP 2.O are other steps in the direction of digitisation of public service.

Similarly, provisions for grievance redressal have been introduced. The Directorate of Public Grievances came up on 1 April 1988 for looking into individual complaints lodged with four central government organisations, which is now expanded to sixteen Central Government Organisations. It acted as the appellate body investigating grievances where the complainant failed to get redressed by the internal hierarchy of the organisation. The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) acted as the nodal agency formulating and implementing the schemes to re-engineer and improvise the service delivery process in public organisation. In June 2007, it introduced Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS), a 24 × 7 online portal that linked eighty-nine ministries/departments/organisations to streamline and integrate the entire system through ICT. The CPGRAMS helps in the filing, transferring, tracking and monitoring of complaints from both sides—the citizen and the department in-charge—from any place and at any time. Not only does it help in standardising and classifying complaints, but it is also prompt and flexible as it is capable of generating automated acknowledgments with a registration number and online status checking of an application.

Another major step towards citizen-centric administration was the Citizens’ Charter. According to Lewis and Booms (1983), service quality is a measure of how well a delivered service matches the customers’ expectations. It can only be possible when there exists an agreement between the service provider and the receiver about the quality, quantity and time frame for service delivery. It has been fulfilled by the Citizens’ Charter. The Citizens’ Charter was introduced in the UK in the early 1990s as the extension of New Public Management and its motto was ‘Putting the people first’. The emphasis of the Citizens’ Charter is on citizens as customers of public services. It is an instrument which seeks to make an organisation transparent, accountable and citizen-friendly. The Citizens’ Charter is basically a set of commitments made by an organisation regarding the standards of service that it delivers. The aim was to ensure that public services are made responsive to the citizens they serve. This influenced several countries such as Belgium, France, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Spain, Portugal, India, etc., to adopt similar measures.

In India, the idea emerged in the National Debate for Responsive Administration 1996 commenced by the government. A major suggestion which emerged was bringing out the Citizens’ Charter for all public service organisations. The idea received strong support at the Chief Ministers’ Conference in May 1997; one of the key decisions of the Conference was to formulate and operationalise the Citizens’ Charter at the Union and State government levels in sectors that have large public interfaces, such as Railways, Telecom, Post & Public Distribution Systems, Hospitals and the Revenue & Electricity Departments. The Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances (DARPG) provided momentum with formulating guidelines for structuring a model charter as well as a list of do’s and don’ts to enable various government departments to bring out focussed and effective charters. In 2002, a website was launched by the DARPG towards consolidating the writeup on the signs of progress and improvements resulted out of the Citizens’ Charter. The instances of implementation of charters by the Regional Transport Office, Hyderabad, the Jan Seva Kendras in Ahmedabad and Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewage Board are noteworthy during 1997–2004. In 2005, the service excellence model ‘Sevottam’ was initiated to give a new thrust to the implementation of the Citizens’ Charter, both at the central and state levels.

Limitations of the Citizens’ Charter

Years of experience have shown that such initiatives which envisaged making Indian administration transparent, accountable, open and responsive acted as the ‘toothless tiger’. There are multiple reasons for it, such as improper budget allocation, poor organisation culture, training and lack of incentives. But the most prominent one is the lack of legal backing. A review done by a 2008 study of the Citizens’ Charter conducted by the Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, found out that many charters were nonexistent or outdated, lacked precision on standards, commitments and mechanisms. The study, after careful assessment of the charters, concluded that there was a lack of organisational clarity and information, and the mechanism for processing of the suggestions and systematic review was missing from 98 per cent of the charters. It further pointed out that charter-making got frozen in time as a one-time exercise since there was no monitoring, reviewing or upgradation after its formulation. In addition to this, most of the charters did not indicate any timeframe for the redressal of public grievances and remedies, in case services are not delivered as per applicant expectations. Such loopholes in the existing system diluted the entire purpose of establishing a citizen-centric administration.

To overcome such weaknesses, the report of the Administrative Reforms Commission on Citizen-centric Governance in 2009 recommended for making the Citizens’ Charter effective through implementing charter for each unit with redress mechanisms and periodic evaluation of charters. It recommended the holding of officers accountable for results. In view of the above circumstances, the Government of India and state governments felt it necessary to legislate upon such a contingency. The central government tabled the Citizen’s Charter and Grievance Redressal Bill 2011 in Lok Sabha, which lapsed; but many states enacted Public Service Guarantee Acts in subsequent years.

Right to Public Service Act

The Public Service Guarantee Act builds on to the idea of the Citizens’ Charter—while the Citizens’ Charter defines the quality of public services, the Public Service Guarantee Acts take it a step further by making a citizens’ rights to a public service within the stipulated time legally binding, failing which the concerned officials can be taken to task. Right to Public Services legislation is meant to increase the accountability and responsiveness of the administration.

Madhya Pradesh was the first Indian state to legislate a Public Service Guarantee Act, named ‘Madhya Pradesh Lok Sewaon Ke Pradan Ki Guarantee Adhiniyam’ on 18 August 2010. Fifty-two services of sixteen government departments have been placed under the ambit of the Act. In case of delay, there are provisions for the penalty to the tune of ₹250 per day, with a maximum of ₹5,000. The fine so received would go to the applicants as compensation. The Right to Service process consists of three stages as the submission of initial application, first appeal and second appeal. Bihar was the second state to enact the Right to Service Act, 2011, making it mandatory for the state government and its agencies to extend services to people within a stipulated time frame with effect from 15 August 2011. Initially, the Act covered thirty services. So far, Bihar has fifty notified services. Later, other states like Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Jammu Kashmir, Jharkhand, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand, Odisha, Assam, Gujarat, West Bengal, Goa and Maharashtra have also enacted laws to recognise public service as a right.

The Right to Service Act contains statutory laws and provisions to ensure time-bound delivery of public services to citizens of India. It also defines the statutory mechanism to punish delinquent public officers if they fail to deliver the requested services within a stipulated time. Some of the common public services which are to be provided within the fixed time frame as a right under the Acts include issuing caste, birth, marriage and domicile certificates, electric connections, voters’ cards, ration cards, copies of land records, etc. The Right to Service Act is considered to be one of the most effective ways to reduce corruption in India, enhance transparency in public sector operations and provide public accountability.

Till date, twenty states have enacted their Public Service Guarantee Acts, though these have different nomenclatures, their vision and framework have some commonalities, such as granting of ‘Right to public service’, which ensures qualitative service to citizens within the stipulated time frame. Applicants also receive a receipt mentioning date and time at the time of their application submission to the designated officer. And this time is considered in determining the time frame within which services are to be delivered. In case of failure in service by the designated officer within the stipulated time, the aggrieved person can approach the first appellate authority and subsequently to second appellate authority in case of dissatisfaction from the orders of the first appellate authority. After hearing the complaint, these appellate authorities can order the public servant to provide the service to the applicant or can impose the penalty on the designated officer for deficiency in service without any reasonable cause, ranging from ₹250 to ₹5,000. There is also a provision of compensation to the applicant from that penalty imposed on the officer concerned.

Comparative Analysis of the Right to Public Service Act of States

It is state legislation, and states have complete discretion to adopt, implement and limit the Act in whatever manner they deem fit. Currently, there are twenty states that implement this Act and represent the duty of the state towards the citizens by providing them standard, quality, transparent and timely delivery of public services, in addition to an enforceable grievance redressal mechanism. Each Act varies significantly in the number of notified services, in the provisions for compensation, monitoring mechanism and in the use of technological tools in the process of implementation. The individual Acts too differ slightly in setting up the hierarchy of officials entrusted or designated to deliver services, in hearing appeals, for revision and for receiving of orders. The provision for fixing the quantum of penalty imposed on delay or default in delivering services and in deciding appeals, within the stipulated time limit, shows little differences.

Among the state Acts, the Karnataka Act covers 151 services from eleven departments; Rajasthan spreads over 124 services from fifteen departments, including power, police, health and revenue and Bihar covers as many as fifty services in ten departments, up to the lowest of fifteen services in Uttar Pradesh. In Jammu and Kashmir, it covers forty-five services from six departments and, in Jharkhand, fifty-four services from twenty departments. In Madhya Pradesh and Delhi, each includes fifty-two services from sixteen and eighteen departments, respectively. The Government of Kerala has proposed to notify thirteen public services and nine services excluding the police department.

Similarly, the penalties charged in different states are different. For instance, in Jammu and Kashmir, for delays in service, the penalty range is between ₹250 per day or ₹5,000, whichever is lesser. While in the case of Chhattisgarh, the amount is ₹100 per day up to a maximum of ₹1,000. Similarly, Karnataka imposes penalties at ₹20 per day up to ₹500 per application on the competent officer. Unlike many other states, Karnataka and Goa have fixed compensation amount to the aggrieved person, irrespective of the amount of penalty, that is, up to 60 per cent of the amount of penalty or up to ₹1,000. Such costs are recoverable from the erring officers’ salary.

One of the core components of the Public Services Guarantees Act is the robust grievance redressal mechanism. Therefore, every state has included it as part of their legislation. However, there is variation in the structures and functions of the grievance redressal mechanism of different states. For instance, in states like Uttarakhand, Punjab and Haryana, above the two appellate levels, there is a commission. Punjab has five commissioners in the commission, whereas Uttarakhand has three.

Sound implementation of the law is not possible without effective monitoring. Therefore, state governments have provided for nodal departments for the supervision and monitoring of the implementation of the right to public services within states. The only state that has a department for that is Madhya Pradesh, where the Department of Public Services Management (DOPSM), controls and coordinates the public service delivery mechanism. The States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Delhi, respectively, have revenue, general administration, administrative reforms and information technology departments as nodal departments. Delhi and Karnataka have gone a step further by using e-governance for a better monitoring mechanism. The State of Delhi has implemented it through e-state level agreement software, Adhikar, in the monitoring and tracking of the application system. In Karnataka, the e-governance scheme Sakala has come into operation since April 2012. The online tracking and monitoring system has been in full application in the states of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar as well. However, in the other states, the complete utilisation of ICT tools has yet to be made.

In the hierarchy of officials notified as designated officers (DOs), first appellate officer, second appellate authority and nominated officers by the state government for revision, the legislation varies considerably. There occurs uniformity as to the DO, who is required to provide the ‘service’ to the applicant. In Karnataka, Chhattisgarh and Delhi, there is a nominated officer competent to impose costs on the DO, for default or delay in the delivery of service. The public servant, as well as the citizen, has the right to go in appeal to a single appellate authority against the order of a competent officer. In Bihar, the DO is called the designated public servant. The other state Acts provide for the DO and in an appeal to the first and second appellate authorities.

The authorities entrusted with the power of revision are either an officer nominated by the state government or by a commission constituted by the state government. The nominated officer exists in all states other than for states of Punjab and Uttarakhand, where the right to service commissions is constituted for exercising the power of revision. In Uttarakhand, an officer nominated shall suffice. A special tribunal is entrusted with the revision power in Jammu and Kashmir. There is no provision for revision in the States of Karnataka, Delhi and Chhattisgarh, where the competent officer fixes the liability on the erring official. The decision of the appellate authority shall be final in these states. The state of Bihar has a revising authority for modifying the orders of the appellate authority, and to impose penalties upon the appellate authority, if it is of the opinion that the authority has failed to decide the appeal within the stipulated time limit. The receiving authority shall also hear appeals from the decisions of the appellate authority or on an appeal filed by the applicant directly upon non-compliance of the order by the DO.

With around twenty states adopting the Act, it exhibits actual efforts made to curb corruption and foster transparency in government departments, which can help the common man to avail public services without any hassle. However, the question that arises after the adoption of the Right to Public Service Act is how well its implementation has transformed the existing system. The answer is right here!. It is evident that the implementation and political obligation towards the Act vary from state to state. To evaluate the implication of Right to Public Service Act of the different states in the public service delivery, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Good Governance and Policy organised a comparative study to highlight the number of days required to avail a particular service in a particular state. It finds that it takes 7 days in Rajasthan, 15 days in Karnataka and 30 days in Gujarat to get a new water connection. Madhya Pradesh issues domicile certificate in 7 days, Maharashtra in 15 days and Jharkhand in 30 days. Rajasthan issues caste certificate in 5 days, Uttarakhand in 15 days, Himachal Pradesh in 21 days and Bihar in 60 days. Registration of vehicles takes 2 days in Uttarakhand, 7 days in Haryana, twenty-one in Delhi and thirty in Karnataka. The timeframe for other services like issuing income certificates, issuing of the new BPL ration card, issuing of the driving license, issuing of disability certificate, etc., are different for the different states. This study highlighted the efficiency of various Right to Public Service Act frameworks and the difference in the level of their implementations. If the implementation is strong, the legislation can play an instrumental role in curbing corruption and tracking the workflow in each Government Department.

In addition to it, among those states which have been successful in the implementation of the Right to Service Act, it is noteworthy that almost all of them adopted a more pragmatic and gradual approach for implementation. Even before the Act was implemented, significant time and effort were spent by these states in preparing the government system to take the expected load and deliver the desired results. A quick re-engineering of key processes was undertaken in terms of streamlining procedures, standardising the application forms, identifying a precise list of supporting documents, fixing accountability, etc. The citizen interface points for receiving applications and delivering the services were also separated from the back office in most of the states who have implemented the Right to Public Services Act. To strengthen these front-end, citizen-facing counters, certain states have either taken personnel- or performance-based contracts or facilitated innovative fee-based private participation, such as Lokseva Kendras in Madhya Pradesh, Vasudha Kendras in Bihar, Pragya Kendras in Jharkhand, etc. These kendras also helped in bringing the service delivery points closer to the citizens. In addition, field-level officers from the block and district offices were trained on the Act’s importance, the necessity to deliver services on time and implications of delayed or denied services. Most importantly, to create the demand-side pull, mass awareness campaigns via newspapers, TV and radio were undertaken regularly by these states.

Apart from the above, we observe that one of the key reasons for their success in implementation has been the innovative institutional and monitoring arrangement adopted for implementation. While Madhya Pradesh has created a separate department altogether, Public Service Management Department, states like Bihar, Punjab and Karnataka have institutionalised dedicated bodies, namely, Bihar Prashasanik Sudhar Mission Society, the Right to Service Commission in Punjab and Sakala Mission in Karnataka. This, coupled with the use of ICT-based tools for monitoring has allowed greater flexibility focus and timeliness in taking operational decisions.

Among all the above-mentioned credible states, Karnataka has won accolades. The past figures revealed that in a month-long pilot study, 100 thousand applications were filed and out of them, 87,000 have been successfully disposed of. Similarly, Madhya Pradesh’s efforts are recognised at the international arena when it received the UNPSA award in the year 2012.

Robert A Dahl in 1947 said, ‘the comparative aspects of public administration have largely been ignored; and as long as the study of public administration is not comparative, claims for a “science of public administration” sound rather hollow’. In recent years, there is an emphasis on sub-national comparison to evolve better legislative and administrative framework. In the Right to Public Service Act also, though twenty states have implemented it, only a few have performed well. The states of Delhi, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh and Bihar have enacted their right to services Acts, comprehensively designed which covers all public authorities under article 12 of the Constitution. This needs to be replicated in other states also, to expand the scope of qualitative public service within the stipulated time frame.

Such comparative analysis should be cross-national also, best practices from other countries can be considered for designing better legislative frameworks. International initiatives such as Singapore’s PS21 framework to drive excellence in public services, the South African ‘Batho Pele’ or participative framework for governance, or the Open Public Services 2014 framework by the UK government, which offers choice and control to deliver services tailored to individual needs, can be replicated in the Indian context.

Also, most of the state Acts are in essence mostly punishment-centric that makes the public servant duty-bound to deliver citizen-related services notified, within the time limit, failing which the erring public servant would be penalised as well. The intention is not to penalise the government servants, but to sensitise the public servants towards their duty, towards the citizens and to enhance and imbibe in them a culture to deliver services promptly. However, such Weberian Approaches of management have inherent flaws as it does not bring the feeling of inclusiveness towards the organisation. The Acts should not be punishment-centric, but motivation-oriented in order to facilitate attitudinal changes and to offer sustained reforms. Therefore, some incentivisation mechanism should also be introduced to encourage hard workers. The national consultation recommended that the penalty provisions of most states’ Acts were harsh and could affect the motivation of service providers, which need to be reviewed. There was also a suggestion that the applicants should not be allowed to file a case if the appellate authority under the Right to Service Act has been approachable, or else there would be a surge of litigation. It was further recommended that the states would explore creating a trust fund (e.g., Torrens Compensation Fund in Australia) to compensate applicants in case of systemic delays.

There is a need for the introduction of the reforms such as the clearly specifying scope of the Acts in terms of services, generating awareness among citizens about the provisions of the Acts and its functioning/application, training and sensitisation of service providers, efficient management information system (MIS), simplifying procedures and better inter-departmental cooperation, etc. In addition to this, the performance of employees under the provisions of the Act should also form the part of their annual performance appraisal. The performance of employees under the Right to Public Service Act should be considered as part of their promotion within the organisation. Such reforms in personnel administration will motivate employees to improve the delivery of services. There is a need to create awareness among citizens as well as strengthen the capacity of service providers to attain transparency, accountability and efficiency in public services.

Need for a Parliamentary Enactment

The above discussion highlights the comparative analysis of Right to Public Service Acts of different states, their strength and weaknesses. However, this is only one dimension of public service delivery in India. As India has a federal framework and state’s Right to Service Act cover subjects that are mentioned under the State List of Schedule 7 of the Constitution. Central government departments, constitutional bodies, statutory authorities, public–private partnerships and NGOs funded by the government are not within its purview. As an additional step in this direction, the UPA Government tabled the Citizens’ Charter and Grievance Redressal Bill 2011 or Right of Citizens for Time-Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, in Lok Sabha in December 2011 on the same lines as the Right of Services Acts in the states. The bill lapsed due to the dissolution of the 15th Lok Sabha. In June 2015, Union Law Minister wrote to the Prime Minister, suggesting a Bill be prepared at the central level to guarantee time-bound delivery of services, called the Right to Services Act, on the lines of the Acts already in place in many States. However, no significant steps have taken place in this direction at the central level so far.

In spite of the above-mentioned government initiatives, the efforts to reduce malpractices have been more or less futile, resulting in a gap between the administration and citizens. The citizen’s liaison with its administration is witness to a variety of detainments, from chronic delays due to cumbersome procedures to standing in lines in expectation of a file to ‘move’ in the department, to lack of awareness and ultimately, illegitimate methods which the citizens would want to resort to, in order to avoid all the inconvenience. To overcome such challenges in public service delivery and move towards citizen-centric administration, there is a need to add legal backing to the Citizens’ Charter at the central level by enacting a Comprehensive Public Service Guarantee Act. This should include following components such as a citizen awareness generation system, real-time monitoring with cutting-edge ICT, simplified and timely grievance redressal mechanism, reward centric rather than punishment centric, capacity building of service provider and comprehensive review with the participation of multiple stakeholders.

To conclude, the reforms in the Public Management System across the world have made India also to recognise the importance of efficient public service delivery in its development and sustainability. In its response right, Public Service Acts have been enacted by many states to bring transparency, responsiveness, accountability and citizen participation. A comparative study of such Acts highlighted the strength and weaknesses of these acts and their level of implementations. As the scope of these legislations does not cover the central departments, there is a need for comprehensive legislation at the central level, formulated after active consultation with the citizens, private sector and civil society organisations.

These Acts are based on the sound legal framework; the robust institutional mechanism for proper implementation of laws and their effective functioning and responsive grievance redressal system. Thus, reflecting clearly a manifestation of the ever-rising demand for better public service delivery in India. It also establishes a milestone in the path of citizen-centric administration as the ‘citizen satisfaction’ forms the primary concern of these Acts and encourages participatory democracy through facilitating the direct involvement of the citizenry in the administration processes.

To conclude with Jawaharlal Nehru:

Administration is meant to achieve something and not to exist in some kind of an ivory tower, following certain rules of procedure, and Narcissus-like looking on itself with complete satisfaction. The test after all is the human beings and their welfare.