#dnaEdit: Rights with riders

It is unfortunate that the Maharashtra government has taken the ordinance route in such haste, even if only to fulfil its electoral commitment to an effective Right to Services legislation. The very concept of a separate Right to Services Act is a glaring admission of governance failure. Yet, nearly 20 states and the central government — over the years — have considered legislations similar to the above-mentioned Act, in letter and spirit. It is truly remarkable that 67 years after Independence, governments do not feel embarrassed in claiming credit for an Act which promises to enforce what should be considered a basic governance tenet: ensuring citizens’ access to government services as a right. It is primarily malfunctioning governments which feel the need to enforce a separate law to this effect. 

Let’s consider the present system which has preserved a cosy and unhealthy relationship between the political class and bureaucracy even while that system hurts the citizen. Rather than make existing delivery mechanisms work and activate the sluggish bureaucracy, politicians seem to prefer to open another fresh legal front. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis’s Right to Services Act stipulates penalties between Rs500 and Rs5,000 and disciplinary action against officials for failing to deliver services. A sweetener — cash incentives for efficient officials — has also been thrown in for good measure. However, instead of creating an independent appellate structure to execute this Act, Fadnavis, is expecting bureaucrats to crack the whip on their own fraternity.

The First and Second Appellate Authorities to hear appeals from citizens include Group A and B officials who are more likely to take sides with their subordinates. The Commissioners to oversee the functioning of the Act and serve as the final appellate authorities, are also most likely to be serving or retired bureaucrats. The Act stipulates them to be “persons of eminence in public life with knowledge and experience in Government or Public Authority”. In effect, this rules out RTI activists, social workers, business leaders and corporate executives merely because of their lack of experience in government. Can Fadnavis assure us that the Right to Services will not be hijacked by bureaucrats the way state and central information commissions in the past have been? Also, by structuring three levels of appeals in the Act, the government appears to already express doubts about the efficacy of its implementation. Layers of bureaucracy, after all, are known to engender and strengthen corruption.

The Act suffers from several other shortcomings as well. It asks officials to deliver services subject only to “legal, technical and financial feasibility”. This is a vague and broad exception clause that could come in handy for unscrupulous bureaucrats in denying services. Further, only a small subset of the services provided by the government, have initially come under the Act. 

Add to this that the Commissioners can only “recommend” departmental inquiries and procedural changes in service delivery. Recommendations — by their very nature  —  are not binding and could leave the Commissioners without effective powers.

But, all is not lost. When the ordinance comes before the Maharashtra legislative assembly in the next session, legislators must underline these multiple loopholes. The e-platform must not be intended merely to cut paper-work and produce unique application numbers. The e-platform should have features to ensure centralised and departmental level supervision of officers, besides monitoring the time they take in disposing of applications. A 2006 version of the Right to Services Act promised officials fixed tenures and prevention of delays in their discharging official duties. That Act failed due to poor implementation. The onus is now on Fadnavis to prove his commitment to the Right to Services Act brought by his government.