Last week, I pinged a senior government official on facebook, about a public facility being closed in violation of the revised timings. The issue was resolved in ten minutes. You can call this a best case scenario.
Consider a different response, which may well be a more common practice. A senior citizen and doctor had a genuine grievance about an encroachment.
After sending representations to every department head, he filed a writ petition in the High Court. A senior official summoned him for a ‘personal hearing’, ostensibly to show adherence to the principle of natural justice. Leaving his patients behind, the doctor turned up on time.
The official was away at some meeting and gave the aggrieved doctor a ‘darshan’ 5 hours after the appointed time. Then came that eureka moment: “Your presence is not required!” In the first case, a proactive and social media oriented bureaucrat pre- empted a visit to his office or even a writ petition in court.
In the second case, the official may well have been busy. So are citizens. The battery of secretaries is meant to reschedule appointments and give visitors updates to obviate unreasonable waiting time and not to ward off the public.
States like Tamil Nadu do not have a Right to Public Services Act. However, there is a Citizens Charter based on accountability, standards, transparency and feedback.
Aside of Sections 6 & 7 of the Right to Information Act and the Citizens Charter, tax payers have a Right To Interaction in the corridors of power, through any platform.
I’m reminded of the Supreme Court’s observation in the landmark M.C. Mehta Vs Union of India case: “Procedure being merely a hand-maiden of justice, should not stand in the way of access to justice.
Even a letter addressed by a public spirited individual or a social action group acting pro bono publico would suffice to ignite the jurisdiction of this sourt.” If that’s the approach of the highest court in the country, should public servants harp so much on procedures and protocol?
It’s such a pity that the Right of Citizens To Time Bound Delivery of Goods & Services and Redressal of Grievances Bill, 2011, was allowed to lapse. The bill had envisaged redressal of grievances within 30 days, penalties for delays and the setting up of a Central & State Grievance Redressal Commissions.
However, an apprehension that the bill introduced under Entry 8 of List 3 of the Constitution under ‘actionable wrongs’ would upset the federal spirit by tampering with the constitutional line of control delayed its passage and it ultimately lapsed along with 67 other bills.
The Right to Constitutional Remedies kicks in only when the regular system fails. How does it work? Mondays may be a cure for insomnia for city slickers but an opportunity for people in districts to meet Collectors with petitions.
I hear that on an average Monday, a Collector may receive 500 to 1,000 petitions in person.
A common citizen may have to take the whole day off, perhaps on loss of pay, spend on conveyance, food outside and hopefully not ‘speed money’ to the mighty peon or PA who often remind one of the Tamil saying: “God will give but not the Poojari.”
This is where Public Relations Officers should come in. Not of the junior level we witness today but senior and skilled enough to solve problems without having to function like mere forwarding agents.
There must be a clear distinction between publicity and public relations. While the former can be restricted to handling press releases and media interface, the latter and often neglected aspect, is addressing gaps in service delivery.
Social media interaction - facebook and twitter, skype chats or whatsapp through which even documents can be sent and dedicated portals - can be far more effective and timely than the old fashioned grievance meetings with foolscap petitions and green notings.
Imagine sanctions and permits being sent additionally on whatsapp? And that doctor having a skype chat from his clinic with the official?
(Sanjay Pinto is a lawyer, columnist & author)
