Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao of DR MCR HRD IAP
(Member of Sub Group of the Core Group of Government of India)
IK Gujral
The statement adopted at the Conference mentioned the specific areas, which would be addressed under each of the above three themes. It was also decided to set up a Committee under the Cabinet Secretary including some of the Chief Secretaries representing different regions of the country as well as some senior officials of the Government of India. The committee was required to draw up a time bound agenda for legal and regulatory reforms in priority areas and consider steps to secure widespread acceptance and feedback from different sections of the public and elicit cooperation of people for responsive administration. The work of the Committee continued and various steps to implement the action plan adopted at the Chief Ministers’ Conference were taken. The Government (NDA) of India constituted a Core Group to evaluate the steps on Administration Reforms in November 2001 with Additional Secretary, Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances and Secretaries of Maharashtra, UP, MP, AP, Assam and Rajasthan. Director Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA) was the convenor.
The Core Group was assigned the responsibility of taking stock of the important administrative reform measures undertaken at the Central and State Government levels; evaluating the status of administrative reforms in Government; and to suggest measures for promotion of Good Governance in Central and State Governments. The Core Group in its first meeting held on November 21, 2002 while observing that the Central and State Governments initiated number of measures to promote good governance, decided to constitute a Sub Group to compile, analyses and evaluate responses from state governments.
The Sub Group after a preliminary study observed that the central government, state governments and Union Territory Administration initiated action in pursuance of recommendation of the Chief Minister’s Conference. Citizens Charters were formulated by 17 Ministries and Departments of the Central Government and 21 States and Union Territories. The mechanism of redress of public grievances was in place at the central as well as almost all the States and Union Territories. Similarly, several State Governments initiated action for review of laws, rules, regulations, procedures etc. It was also observed that information regarding improvement brought about in administration as a result of the measures taken in the above mentioned areas in quantitative as well as qualitative terms was not available. There were several data gaps in respect of which information was required to be obtained for a more comprehensive analysis of the action taken in the area of good governance.
Later a questionnaire prepared by the sub group was circulated by the Department of AR and PG, Government of India, to various state governments. Fifteen States and two Union Territories responded to the questionnaire by middle of March 2002 when this report was written. The Core Group which met on February 11, 2002 asked the sub group to finalise the report. Accordingly the Sub Group met in Mussoorie in March 2002 and wrote this report.
With reference to Accountable and Citizen Friendly Government and Citizens’ Charter Chief Ministers' conference resolved, that, the Central and State Governments would formulate citizens' charters for ‘departments’ and ‘offices’, starting with those which have a large public interface. It was also agreed, that, the citizens' charters would be formulated based on a ‘consultation process’ involving different stakeholders. After their formulation these charters would be prominently made available to the public concerned for making use of them. The Central and State Governments are also expected to draw a strategy and notify an Action Plan within a specific time limit. A provision of independent scrutiny with the involvement of citizen and consumer group was also envisaged. These charters were to be made operational within three months from the date of the conference.
The questionnaire touched the aspects of number of departments framed them; the type of; awareness levels of staff of the concerned departments regarding their commitment; steps generated to create public awareness; implementation and monitoring mechanisms; the way they were displayed for public knowledge; and accountability mechanisms.
On analysing and evaluating the responses, it is observed, that, while Andhra Pradesh, Delhi, Goa, Karnataka, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Maharashtra, Nagaland, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh specified the number of charters prepared by various departments, the remaining namely, Andaman-Nicobar, Assam, Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal were either non committal or did not specify the numbers. By and large all those states who brought out charters, and to the extent they could formulate, was based on some sort of a consultation process either by involving concerned Secretaries and Heads of Departments or by taking support from Administrative Training Institutions or consulting NGO representatives or by following Government of India guidelines or by having vertical meetings among the officers concerned within a department that preceded the drafting of the charters in some cases
States’ response with regard to creation of awareness generation mechanism seeking commitment of all the concerned staff within the department and organisation has been by and large positive.
The respondents have put the monitoring and review mechanism for implementation of the charters in place. Quarterly review procedure, monthly inspections by senior officers to ensure effective implementation, organizing periodical camps and tours to obtain feedback from public, conducting impact assessment studies, involving private agencies to obtain feedback from public by means of a survey and even involving the Chief Secretary in some states in the review process speaks about the seriousness in implementing these charters effectively. Response from the states with reference to the charters being displayed at all prominent places was a positive indication. In some states, they have gone to the extent of setting up Information and Public Facilitation Centres for displaying the charters.
When such steps are being taken, it is expected to increase the accountability of administration. It is observed that some states propose to conduct exit polls in selected departments to assess this. Others respondents have said, that, it would take some time for changing the mind set of the public servant. Some respondents have suggested that, reward and punishment methodology would ensure accountability. The publication of the charter itself serves as a constant reminder for improving accountability as communicated.
Emphasising the importance of consultation process with a view that “Customer is at the centre of all activities”; attitudinal change in the mindset of concerned officials; generating and evaluating effective public awareness mechanisms; and framing process indicators for the monitoring and review process were some of the suggestions made by sub group for taking forward the citizens’ charters concept further.
Chief Ministers' conference, agreed, that, the existing system of grievance redress would be reviewed, institutional measures streamlined and independent systems of monitoring fall in place within a period of six months from the date of conference. On this aspect also, the response from the state governments and Union Territories was elicited.
The respondents did not furnish direct replies. However, some sort of explanatory mode of responses brought out the issues well. States like Andhra Pradesh responded that all the developmental programmes like "Janma Bhoomi" programme were linked to the rural village committees set up with a direct redress system of public grievances. The Assam government set up Public Facilitation Centres. Chhattisgarh addressed the issue through organizing camps at panchayats and block levels. Delhi set up a Public Grievances Commission. In some states, District Collectors and HOD s are personally monitoring. In Maharashtra, Chief Minister and Chief Secretary hear the grievances personally, which are reported as successful. All the respondents have a system in some form or other for redress of public grievances but majority of them were non specific on the evaluation mechanism.
Simplification of rules, regulation, repealing of obsolete laws, reforms of laws operating against the weaker sections and steps to reduce the time and cost of litigation and the entire process of administrative approvals and sanctions etc. were kept as a priority item in the Conference to be implemented within one year from the date of conference.
The steps taken as reported by most of the respondents were by and large positive and concrete. In one case, department of Governance, Public Management and Administrative Reforms were entrusted with the task. In many cases committees or Commissions were set up to carry forward the process The Union Territories responded by saying that central legislation is applicable to them. Regarding the number of obsolete or redundant laws repealed, amended, simplified and consolidated, the response was not encouraging. States like Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka and West Bengal gave information about numbers, while Andhra Pradesh mentioned that, laws, regulations and procedures were being updated and reviewed by constituting departmental committees. Uttar Pradesh did it by reviewing from time to time while West Bengal made the law department responsible for it. In Andhra Pradesh, the exercise was part of a strategy paper on governance and public management monitored by the Chief Minister. With regard to the impact of this exercise, the general response was, "it is yet to be studied and assessed".
The Chief Ministers' conference had adopted, that, immediate steps be initiated by different state governments to strengthen people's participation in Governance which is consistent with the spirit of the 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution.
No respondent except Rajasthan, reported to have done any comparative analysis. The State Administrative Reforms Committee of Rajasthan has done a comparative analysis regarding the devolution of powers with that of Karnataka, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and West Bengal. Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Goa, Lakshadweep did not respond to any of the questions in this category. Many respondents were non-committal. Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and West Bengal mentioned that as per the 11th Schedule, the functions have been devolved and powers have been entrusted to the local bodies. In AP, it is in 17 subjects, in Andaman-Nicobar in 5 subjects while in Karnataka in all the 29 subjects were covered under devolution of powers to the local bodies. In Nagaland, Village Development Boards have been established as a pioneer in devolution of powers. In Tripura, elected bodies of Panchayatiraj Raj Institution have been made responsible for development schemes.
Almost all the respondents except West Bengal and Tripura are yet to conduct any study to assess the impact. In Tripura, the assessment is done regularly at the CM and CS levels and in West Bengal, several studies indicated favourable results. Nagaland obtains continuous feedback from the people on the functioning of Village Development Boards. In Andhra Pradesh, the system of village level Secretariat with the Panchayat Secretary was been introduced. Many states are not clear about the logic behind identification of success or failure of the decentralization process. Nagaland and Tripura have furnished interesting. The success of Village Development Board in Nagaland was attributed to a high level degree of ownership by the people and lack of interference from any quarter and its democratic nature. The success of Panchayatiraj Institutions in Tripura is both due to high level of political consciousness and support of state government to local bodies. No respondent furnished reasons for failure if any.
The Chief Ministers' conference recognized, that, secrecy and lack of openness in transaction was largely responsible for corruption in official dealings and is also contrary to the spirit of an accountable and democratic government. The Government of India was expected to take immediate steps on the report of the working group on Right to Information and introduce a Bill in the Parliament. The Chief Ministers' conference adopted resolution that the Central and State Governments would enact the Right to Information Act and open computerized information and facilitation counters in all their offices with large public interface.
Only six respondents (Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu) mentioned that they enacted a Right to Information Act. Others replied that the act is under active consideration. In Assam, the Right to Information Bill was referred to the select committee. Tripura was in the process of finalizing the Bill. The Uttar Pradesh government committed to enact shortly. Nagaland wanted to bring legislation after the enactment of Central law on the subject. West Bengal felt that framing of such law depends on Government of India's guidelines. (Subsequently Government of India (NDA) passed Freedom of Information Act but did not frame rules and regulations. It was only after UPA Government came to power the RTI Act was passed in 2005.)
Elimination of corruption in public services, strict surveillance and deterrent prosecution were recommended by the conference. It was also resolved that existing rules and legal provisions would be amended in six months to ensure immediate and exemplary prosecution of corrupt officials. Simultaneously it was proposed to have a reward scheme for employees doing good work. It was further suggested that institutional arrangements should be evolved for ensuring objective and transparent decisions on posting, promotion and transfer of officials. A committee under the Cabinet Secretary including some Chief Secretaries representing the different regions was proposed to draw up a time bound agenda for legal and regulatory reforms in priority areas.
The respondents who have taken a comprehensive review of vigilance laws, rules and procedure started the process in some form or the other. In Andhra Pradesh, a survey of public perception was conducted based on a consultation paper in the area of anti corruption vigilance. In Maharashtra, it was proposed to set up a three-member state vigilance commission on par with Central Vigilance Commission. In Tamil Nadu, institutional set up for elimination of corruption and ensuring surveillance was in existence. In Kerala, the recommendations of the State ARC’s Ninth report were under active consideration. In case of several other respondents, the institution of Lokayuktas formed part of this activity. In Karnataka, a high level anti corruption committee was been set up to review the adequacy and effectiveness of the anti corruption laws. The Union Territories responded by saying that the Central Laws are applicable to them and it is beyond the purview of review by their Administration.
Almost all the respondents replied that they had either introduced or formulated detailed plans to introduce a reward scheme to recognize excellence in civil servants. This was done in the form of incentives or awards either on the state formation day or Republic Day or some merit awards or through Kisan Vikas Patra and so on. West Bengal replied that it had a reward scheme for excellent work in the state. To ensure stability of tenure of civil servants, the states either have a ban on transfers for a fixed term or a system of counselling has been put to practice or some approved transparent transfer policy is being followed. Karnataka replied that it would set up a civil service board if Government of India approves guidelines. In Tripura, it was in active consideration. In Nagaland and Uttar Pradesh, Civil Services Boards were set up. In Andhra Pradesh, though there was no Civil Services Board, the Centre for Good Governance was developing a work stream for the purpose of human resource management.
To conclude: As the review of (17 State Governments and Union Territories) states’ administrative reforms reveal, the progress towards achievement of targets set-up in the CMs Conference has been a long but definite one. Reforms in our socio-political and economic context take time to gather momentum, but, once the threshold is reached or crossed, it progresses rapidly. In case of Administrative Reforms too, the sub group felt that the momentum would pickup with more velocity in the near future as reforms in other spheres of governance get deepened.
(Source: LBSNAA, Mussoorie- Status of Administrative Reforms in Government- A Report based on questionnaire based survey of seventeen states and Union Territories of India written by Sundeep K. Nayak and V. Jwala Narasimha Rao)
No comments:
Post a Comment