Governments need to set up grievance redressal system

Governments need to set up effective and independent mechanism for dealing with non-redressal of grievances in their departments to prevent the flooding of courts with petitions by aggrieved residents.

The fact that complaints are not dealt with effectively and petitions are filed alleging inaction has always been in the public domain. It also travels beyond the sphere of doubt that even court directions issued in the matters of public interest and other matter are at times not complied with resulting in the filing of contempt pleas.

Inaction here is not only deliberate but also perpetuated by lack of accountability and non-initiation of action against erring officers. The solution, thus, lies not in directions to the authorities concerned to act on the complaints and representations, but to hold them responsible for inaction before initiating proceedings against them so that the message is clear — act or face action.

The fact that the authorities and others are answerable to people is a reality that is no more in the realm of uncertainty. The Punjab and Haryana High Court only recently made the elected representatives and authorities associated with the local bodies accountable. A Division Bench headed by Justice Rajiv Sharma ruled that every citizen has a legitimate expectation and the right to sue the elected representatives, officers and officials of the municipal corporations, municipalities and panchayati raj institutions.

Justice Sharma also made it clear that citizens can bring a claim individually and by way of collective action. They can claim damages and compensation on “the principle of accountability” in case the officers remain remiss in discharge of the statutory duties cast upon them by the Municipalities Act, Municipal Corporation Act and the Panchayati Raj Act.

In a setup where the performance of even routine tasks requires external stimulus and at times adoption of extraordinary measures such as recommendations or submission of representations, filing of court cases in the absence of action appears to be a viable alternative.

But the already burdened courts need not be approached. The Punjab and Haryana High Court alone has 5,45,490 cases pending. Decisions do not come easily. The pendency of no less than 6,729 cases for 20 to 30 years provides a testimony to this effect.

High Courts also have strict PIL maintainability rules in place that restrict the filing of petitions in public interest by all and sundry. The rules, at times, come in way of filing petitions on issues that appear ordinary in normal course of life, but hold immense significance for people affected. A road not repaired in spite of representations, encroachments not removed despite complaints, parks not maintained notwithstanding all requests — the issues are many, solutions hardly any. It is also an actuality that the courts cannot act as municipal commissioners and order the repair of roads and maintenance of parks.

The departments should, as such, have their own independent complaint commissions to deal with the staff at fault. It essentially has to be different from the tribunals set up for hearing the grievances of the employees. In a democratic setup, the commissions have to be for the people.

The setting up of the commissions will primarily serve two purposes. It will save the common man from the rigmarole of court proceedings. It will also bring about a sense of discipline and work culture, where apathy and non-performance are viewed with a sense of fear by the authorities.

The aggrieved staff, in case of action, can approach the courts or tribunals if they believe the orders against them fall in the zone of harshness and are disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The fact that most of the departments have a complaint lodging system is not in the region of debate. From call centres and helpline numbers to contact details on official websites of the departments, the paraphernalia is complete to cast the impression of a system well established.

Equally true is the fact that the grievances are formally registered in the departments and the lodging of the same is also communicated to the complainants. To a non-discerning mind, all this may appear to be adequate till the adequacy of the system is put to test with the submission of a complaint.

Prevention is believed to be better than cure. But prevention of cure appears to be the harsh reality as complaints and objections are closed after lip and not real service. Else, the complaints remain pending in the files that gather dust, are overlooked, are brushed aside and are passed on from one table to another only to be dumped and discarded till the issues are revived with the submission of legal notices and filing of court cases.

The governments need to remember that submission of a grievance is one thing, its redressal another and complaints alleging lack of concern too meet the same fate as the original plaints in the absence of an independent system for looking into the issues.

It is for the state to don the robe of an efficient and effective worker and carry out tasks even in the absence of litigation and judicial direction. It, under the circumstances, needs to have complaints commission to be headed by an authority having the requisite experience, but from a different department — appointed, perhaps, after holding consultations with the High Court. It can be something like the police complaints authority set up to inquire into allegations of “serious misconduct” against the police personnel, either suo motu or on a complaint received.

Law, and the order

BENCH MARK
by Saurabh Malik

Right to health a fundamental right

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared right to health a fundamental right of all people under Article 21 of the Constitution. The assertion by a Division Bench headed by Justice Rajiv Sharma comes at a time when a high-level panel, set up by the 15th Finance Commission, on reforms in the health sector recently suggested declaring the right to health a fundamental right. The order indicates that everyone must have access to health services, including medical facilities, uncontaminated and safe drinking water, sanitation, sufficient housing, education and humane working conditions and nourishing diet. The right to health is also globally acknowledged as a fundamental human right and is incorporated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, of which India is a signatory.