A strong and effective grievance redressal system (GRS) is an essential part of public administration. It is referred to as the heart of governance’. People’s trust in administration hinges on to the extent that it is able to address public grievances quickly. Besides, a strong and effective GRS is a tool to measure the effectiveness of its service delivery function.
After all, is it not a tax payers’ right to demand a hassle-free GRS? But there is not a single system to address public grievances. It is not that the Central and state governments are not aware of the importance of GRS. But it is sheer lack of will on the part of the lawmakers and bureaucrats towards citizens’ welfare.
Successive governments both at the Centre and the states have tried with multiple public grievance redressal systems [PGRS] with catchy names. The Central government launched ‘Sevottam’ scheme which is in theory, an excellent PGRS. It has three components— publication of citizens’ charters, setting up of a GRS and staff training, improving infrastructure within the organisation. Sevottam was introduced in a few Central government departments. But soon they went into oblivion.
In Karnataka, several attempts have been made to address public grievances. A few years ago, 'Janaspandana’ was launched which was a traditional GRS with too many loopholes. There was no accountability, transparency or feedback facility. Citizens felt that Janaspandana was doing a post office job. After incorporating information technology with Janaspandana, it was modified as e-spandana. Yet things have not improved. There are umpteen numbers of Helpdesks and Sahayavanis. However, these are restricted to providing information and nothing to do with grievances.
Public grievances are closely related to public service delivery. Hence, any effort to reduce grievances should aim at an efficient and quick public delivery system. Karnataka launched ‘Sakala’ in 2011. For the first time, it provided for accountability, transparency and citizen participation - the three components of good governance. Under Sakala, besides getting services in a time-bound manner, citizens get compensation for delay in services. The compensation amount is to be borne by the erring official. In the initial years, Sakala was a hit among the citizens and it was a role model for the country. However, over the years, Sakala has lost its sheen and it is alleged that officials are scuttling Sakala.
The state has set up Bengaluru One, Common Service Centers, Karnataka One, Atalji Jana Snehi Kendra, Bapuji Kendras, Gram One, Janasevaka, Janahitha etc. While these are efforts to deliver public services, they also aim at reducing grievances. All these have been brought under one portal— Seva Sindhu— under a separate directorate.
Educating citizens
Despite these efforts, citizens are unable to get their grievances redressed. The reasons are obvious. Most of the PGRS are unknown to the common citizens. These systems have been launched without taking citizens into confidence. The departments/authorities concerned have not made sufficient efforts to inform and educate citizens about the PGRS. Besides, a lack of infrastructure and manpower has made the PGRS irrelevant. The PGRSs are not embedded with the latest information technology tools.
It is heartening to note that the e-governance department has proposed to introduce an integrated PGRS [iPGRS]. The objective is to have a one-stop solution for all types of citizen grievances in the state. The iPGRS is said to cover over 40 departments and over 7,000 complaints/grievances. The scheme of iPGRS looks impressive. Citizens can henceforth register any grievance related to state government departments in a single portal. The grievance automatically reaches the department/authority concerned. Citizens can also keep track of their complaints.
The scheme promises timely resolution of grievances. It is not clear whether the timelines prescribed under Sakala will be adhered to. In case the grievance is not resolved within the prescribed time limits, the grievance gets escalated to the next higher officer. The iPGRS has a provision for receiving feedback from citizens. But how this feedback will be used for systemic changes is a moot question.
The proposed iPGRS raises certain questions. It is not clear whether privacy of the citizen/complainant is protected. Most of the public grievances relate to delay in the delivery of services, which is again related to the demand for bribery. Whether such complaints will be entertained is not clear. Third, the iPGRS appears to have no legal backing. What happens if a service is delayed beyond the time limit fixed by the department? Unlike Sakala, will the citizens get compensated? It is not clear if Sakala will continue.
Fourth, the iPGRS should listen to social media. Hundreds of complaints are posted on Facebook and Twitter. The iPGRS should be able to collect these complaints through dedicated social media executives. Fifth, lodging complaints should be an easy and hassle-free experience. The usual difficulties like the requirement to press multiple clicks, time run out etc, needs to be minimised. Finally, a massive public awareness campaign should be undertaken to make the iPGRS successful.
(The writer is Founder, Consumer Rights Education and Awareness Trust)