UPSC IAS exam preparation - Governance in India - Lecture 13

Excellent study material for all civil services aspirants - begin learning - Kar ke dikhayenge!

Citizen's charter

[हिंदी में पढ़ें ]

---

1.0 Introduction

A Citizens' Charter represents the commitment of an organisation towards standard, quality and time frame of service delivery, grievance redress mechanism, transparency and accountability. Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, in its efforts to provide more responsive and citizen-friendly governance coordinates the efforts to formulate and operationalise Citizens' Charters. Various central government ministries/ departments/ organisations have brought out their Citizens' Charters. With a view to ensure effective implementation of Citizens' Charter, Nodal Officers have been appointed in the concerned central government ministries/ departments/ organisations.

Basically a public organization will write on a paper - "We provide this, this and this service(s) with(in) this, this and this time limit(s). If you don't get the service within that time, contact Mr X officer".

Such a written document is called citizens' charter. You can see citizen charters on the websites of almost all union ministries, PSUs, and public sector banks.

Prime Minister John Major introduced the first Citizen’s Charter in early 1990s in UK.

2.0 The Indian Scenario

Over the years, in India, significant progress has been made in the field of economic development. This, along with a substantial increase in the literacy rate, from 51.63% to 65.38% in the last decade (and growing), has made Indian citizens increasingly aware of their rights. Citizens have become more articulate and expect the administration not merely to respond to their demands but also to anticipate them. It was in this climate that a consensus began to evolve, since 1996, in the Government on effective and responsive administration. At a Conference of Chief Ministers of various States and Union Territories held on 24 May, 1997 in New Delhi, presided over by the Prime Minister of India, an "Action Plan for Effective and Responsive Government" at the Centre and State levels was adopted. One of the major decisions at that Conference was that the Central and State Governments would formulate Citizen's Charters, starting with those sectors that have a large public interface (e.g., Railways, Telecom, Posts, Public Distribution Systems and the like). These Charters were to include first, standards of service as well as the time limits that the public can reasonably expect for service delivery, avenues of grievance redressal and a provision for independent scrutiny through the involvement of citizen and consumer groups.

The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances in Government of India (DARPG) initiated the task of coordinating, formulating and operationalising Citizen's Charters. The guidelines for formulating the Charters as well as a list of dos and don'ts were communicated to various government departments/organisations to enable them to bring out focused and effective charters. For the formulation of the Charters, the government agencies at the Centre and State levels were advised to constitute a task force with representation from users, senior management and the cutting edge staff.

The Charters are expected to incorporate the following elements:

1. Vision and Mission Statements
2. Details of business transacted by the organisation
3. Details of clients
4. Details of services provided to each client group
5. Details of grievance redressal mechanism and how to access it and
6. Expectations from the clients.

Primarily an adaptation of the UK model, the Indian Citizen's Charter has an additional component of 'expectations from the clients' or in other words 'obligations of the users'. Involvement of consumer organisations, citizen groups, and other stakeholders in the formulation of the Citizen's Charter is emphasised to ensure that the Citizen's Charter meets the needs of the users. Regular monitoring, review and evaluation of the Charters, both internally and through external agencies has been enjoined.

By 2014, 115 Citizen's Charters had been formulated by the Central Government Ministries/Departments/Organisations and more than 700 Charters by various agencies of State Governments & Administrations of Union Territories. Most of the national Charters are posted on the government's websites and are open to public scrutiny. The organisations with Citizen's Charters have been advised to give publicity to their Charters through such means as print/electronic media and awareness campaigns.

Problems with Citizens' charters in India: Measurable standards of delivery are rarely spelt out in the charter. Standards are poorly defined, it becomes tough to assess whether the desired level of service has been achieved or not. Most charters are verbose (containing too many words).

Promises contained in the Charter were vague and meaningless (like those hollow vision and mission statements). If the service is not delivered then very hard for citizen to get compensation (he has to make trips to multiple offices).

Citizen Charters are not revised with time. The needs of senior citizens and disabled are not considered while drafting charters. Resistance to change can be seen. 

Lack of Public Awareness: End Users (public) & NGOs are not consulted when the charters are drafted.

2.1 Recommendations of Second ARC (Administrative Reforms Commission)

The Second ARC made the following recommendations -

1. The Charters should clearly spell out the remedy / penalty / compensation in case there is a default in meeting the standards spelt out in the Charter.
2. Before the organization makes a charter, it should restructure its internal system and processes.
3. One size does not fit all. Citizens' Charter should be close to ground reality and local conditions.
4. Consult all the stakeholders before finalizing the charter (including civil society).
5. Firm Commitments should be made. There must be redressal mechanisms which are citizen-friendly.
6. Organizations should evaluate the Charters periodically.
7. Hold officers accountable for results.

Evaluation of Citizen's Charters: An evaluation of the Citizen's Charters of various government agencies was carried out by DARPG and Consumer Coordination Council, New Delhi, an NGO, in October 1998. The results were quite encouraging given the nascent stage of this initiative in India. A brief questionnaire has been circulated to all Ministries/Departments and State Governments/Union Territories to enable them to undertake an in-house evaluation of their Citizen's Charters. These organisations were also advised to undertake external evaluations, preferably through NGOs.

During the Year 2002-03, DARPG engaged a professional agency to develop a standardised model for internal and external evaluation of Citizen's Charters in a more effective, quantifiable and objective manner. This agency also carried out evaluation of implementation of Charters in 5 Central Government Organisations and 15 Departments/Organisations of States of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. This Agency was also required to suggest methods for increasing awareness, both within the organisation and among the users, and to suggest possible methods for orientation of management and the staff in the task of formulating and deploying Charters.

The major findings of the evaluation carried out by the agency, as stated I its report were:

1. In majority of cases Charters were not formulated through a consultative process
2. By and large service providers are not familiar with the philosophy, goals and main features of the Charter
3. In none of the departments evaluated, had adequate publicity been given to the Charters. In most Departments, the Charters were only in the early stages of implementation and
4. No funds were specifically earmarked for awareness generation on Citizen's Charter or for orientation of the staff on various components of the Charter.

Further, the key recommendations in the report, inter alia, stressed upon:

1. The need for citizens and staff to be consulted at every stage of formulation of the Charter
2. Orientation of staff about the salient features and goals/objectives of the Charter; vision and mission statement of the department; and skills such as team building, problem solving, handling of grievances and communication skills
3. The need for creation of database on consumer grievances and redress
4. The need for wider publicity of the Charter through print media, posters, banners, leaflets, handbills, brochures, local newspapers etc. and also through electronic media
5. Earmarking of specific budgets for awareness generation and orientation of staff, and
6. Replication of best practices in this field.

3.0 The Gift Formula

The  eight step Gift Formula devised by Janelle Barlow and Claus Moller is extremely useful. The Gift Formula is a step-by-step process that, in its optimal form, is delivered in a set order. It may be noted however, that, there might be occasions when it will be more appropriate to vary the sequence. The steps are as follows:

1. Say "Thank you"
2. Explain why you appreciate the complaint
3. Apologize for mistake(s)
4. Promise to do something about the problem immediately
5. Ask for necessary information
6. Correct the mistake - promptly
7. Check customer satisfaction, and 
8. Prevent future mistakes.

Say "Thank you". Do not think about whether customers have a legitimate complaint or not. Just consider the complaint valuable information and thank them for the gift. The expression should be as natural and spontaneous as the gratitude shown when receiving a gift/present. It must be made sure that the body language demonstrates appreciation for the complaint and that the service provider supports the customer's right to complain. Eye contact, an understanding nod, and a friendly smile can work wonders.

Explain why you appreciate the complaint. "Thank you" by itself can sound empty. You need to qualify it by saying something about how hearing the complaint will allow you to better address the problem.

Apologize for the mistake. It is important to apologize to customers, but it should not be the first step. You create a more powerful rapport with customers by saying, "Thank you, I appreciate your telling me about this". Then comes the apology.

Promise to do something about the problem immediately. Once you have apologized, do not ask for anything else right away. Do not start to interview the customer. Service recovery has two aspects 

1. Psychological 
2. Tangible 

The psychological dimension helps everyone feel better about the situation that has created dissatisfaction. The tangible dimension is doing something to fix the situation. Tangible responses are steps that will cost money or time. Steps one through four of the Gift Formula are part of the psychological response; they cost nothing and are easy to implement.

Ask for necessary information. "In order for me to give you fast service, could you please give me some information?" Do not say, "I need some information, otherwise I can't help you." You are the one asking for help from the customers. They are the ones who have brought you the gift. Ask only for what is necessary. But ask for all relevant details as by questioning, you will discover the real problem. Sometimes they only want to let you know something happened; they don't necessarily want anything from you.

Correct the mistake promptly. Do what you said you would do. A sense of urgency will be greatly appreciated by the customer. Rapid responses say you are serious about service recovery. A sense of urgency lets you get back in balance with the customer. The Gift Formula will not be adequate if you do not fix the problems to the customer's satisfaction.

Check customer satisfaction and do a proper follow-up. Call your customers back to find out what happened. Ask them directly if they are satisfied with what you did for them. If appropriate, tell them what you are doing to prevent this from happening in the future so that they feel good about having helped you with their complaints. Thank them again for your complaints. You are now in partnership.

Prevent future mistakes. Make the complaint known throughout the organization so this kind of problem can be prevented in the future. Fix the system without rushing to blame the staff. Punish your processes, not your people. Staff members will be more likely to pass along complaints to management if they know this is the company's approach to complaints.

Complaints systems are unlikely to be fully effective if they are not supported and supervised at higher levels. Senior officials should regularly review complaints information and ensure that complaints handling is built into all performance reports of the department. Each department may consider putting up on a display board their PLEDGE to welcome complaints.

4.0 Citizen’S Charter Bill 2011

This was the first systematic attempt at guaranteeing services to citizens in a time-bound manner. Though the bill lapsed, it remains an interesting guide for times to come. 

Salient features

The Right of Citizens' For Time Bound Delivery of Goods & Services & Redressal of Their Grievances, Bill 2011

Highlights of the Bill

• The Bill seeks to create a mechanism to ensure timely delivery of goods and services to citizens.
• Every public authority is required to publish a citizens charter within six months of the commencement of the Act. The Charter will detail the goods and services to be provided and their timelines for delivery.
• A citizen may file a complaint regarding any grievance related to: 

1. citizens charter; 
2. functioning of a public authority or 
3. violation of a law, policy or scheme

• The Bill requires all public authorities to appoint officers to redress grievances. Grievances are to be redressed within 30 working days. The Bill also provides for the appointment of Central and State Public Grievance Redressal Commissions.
• A penalty of up to Rs 50,000 may be levied upon the responsible officer or the Grievance Redressal Officer for failure to render services.

Key issues and analysis

1. Parliament may not have the jurisdiction to regulate the functioning of state public officials as state public services fall within the purview of state legislatures.
2. This Bill may create a parallel grievance redressal mechanism as many central and state laws have established similar mechanisms.
3. Companies that render services under a statutory obligation or a licence may be required to publish citizens charters and provide a grievance redressal mechanism.
4. The Commissioners may be removed without a judicial inquiry on an allegation of misbehaviour or incapacity. This differs from the procedure under other legislations.
5. Appeals from the Commission’s decisions on matters of corruption will lie before the Lokpal or Lokayuktas. The Lokpal and some Lokayuktas have not been established.
6. Only citizens can seek redressal of grievances under the Bill. The Bill does not enable foreign nationals who also use services such as driving licenses, electricity, etc., to file complaints.

Key features 

The Bill requires public authorities to publish a citizens charter within six months of enactment of the Bill. The charter should specify the services and the quality of services to be provided by the public authority. The head of departments are responsible for disseminating and updating the citizens charter. 

Public authority

• Public authorities include: 

1. constitutional and statutory authorities 
2. entities established under a notification and 
3. public-private partnerships. They also include NGOs that are substantially government funded, government companies, and companies that provide services under a licence or a statutory obligation.

• Public authorities are required to establish Information Facilitation Centres for efficient and effective delivery of services and redressal of grievances. Information Facilitation Centres may include customer care centres, call centres, help desks and people's support centres.

Public Grievance Redressal Commissions

• The Bill establishes Central and State Grievance Redressal Commissions. Each Commission would consist of a Chief Commissioner and up to 10 Commissioners. The Commissioners would be appointed by the President (Governor) on the recommendation of a selection committee. This committee would consist of the Prime Minister (Chief Minister), the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha (Legislative Assembly) and a sitting Supreme Court (High Court) judge.
• The Commissioners should be: 

1. present or former Secretaries to the central (state) government; or 
2. present or former Supreme Court judges or Chief Justices of a High Court (district court judges for 10 years, or High Court judges); or 
3. eminent persons with at least 20 years (15 years) of experience in social sectors with a post graduate degree in a relevant sector. The Commissioners may be removed by an order of the President (Governor) under certain conditions.

Complaint mechanism

• Complaint: Any citizen may file a complaint for: 

1. failure in delivery of goods or services listed in the citizens charter; 
2. the functioning of the public authority; and 
3. any violation of a law, policy, programme, order or scheme. Complaints have to be redressed within 30 working days

• Complaints have to be made to the Grievance Redressal Officer (GRO): GROs are to be appointed by each public authority at the central, state, district, sub-district, municipality and panchayat levels. The GRO is required to: 

1. ensure that grievances are redressed within 30 working days; 
2. ensure that disciplinary action is taken against a defaulting officer if he has acted negligently; and 
3. recommend penalties and compensation where an individual has wilfully neglected to deliver services or there is a prima facie ground for a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The GRO has to inform the complainant about the action taken on the complaint.

• Appeal: The orders of the GRO may be appealed before the Designated Authority (DA). The DA shall be an officer above the rank of the GRO and outside the concerned public authority. (According to a statement made by the Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, the DA shall be an officer at the district level.11) The DA shall dispose of appeals within 30 working days of their receipt. If a complaint with the GRO is not redressed within 30 working days, the GRO has to forward it as an appeal to the DA. The DA may penalise the defaulting officers.
• Second Appeal: The DA's orders may be appealed before the Central or State Public Grievance Redressal Commission within 30 working days. Appeals relating to complaints arising out of functioning of the central (state) departments would lie before the Central (State) Commission. The Commissions have to dispose of the appeal within 60 working days.
• Third Appeal: In relation to an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, an appeal against the decision of the Commissions shall lie with the Lokpal or the Lokayukta.
• Suo motu mechanism: The Central and State Commissions can suo motu refer matters related to nondelivery of goods and services to the heads of government departments. The Commissions may also initiate suo motu inquiry if they believe that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter.
• Complaints may also be made to the Commissions in certain cases. It is the duty of the Commissions to inquire into complaints by persons: 

1. who are unable to file appeals before the DA
2. who are refused redress of grievances
3. whose complaints are not disposed of within 30 days and 
4. who are denied access to the citizens charter because it has not been prepared or has not been widely disseminated.

Penalties

1. GRO: The Bill requires the GRO to recommend penalties to the DA when: 

• he is convinced that the default was due to wilful neglect by an officer or 
• when there is prima facie evidence of corruption.

DA and Commissions: 

1. The Bill empowers the DA and the Commissions to impose a maximum penalty of Rs 50,000 upon the defaulting officer and the GRO. Penalties may be imposed upon the defaulting officer when he has acted in a mala fide manner or has failed to discharge his responsibility in a proper manner. A portion of the penalty may be awarded as compensation to the complainant.
2. If there is evidence of corruption against the defaulting officer, the DA and the Commissions would have to refer the matter to appropriate authorities. Additionally, the DA may initiate proceedings in such cases.
3. Disciplinary proceedings may be initiated by the GRO, DA and the Commissions against the defaulting officer if there is evidence of mala fide action.
4. In any appeal proceeding, where it is alleged that the grievance has not been redressed by the GRO, the burden of proof shall be on the GRO.

5.0 Criticism

Against federal spirit: BJP said that the Citizen’s Charter Bill provides for GRO and Grievances Commission at the state and central level.  But Parliament doesn't not have jurisdiction to enact such law. Entry 41 of the 7th schedule of constitution puts state public services in the state list.It means that only State legislatures have the jurisdiction to make laws regarding state public services.

More than ten states have already enacted a Citizen Charter Act or Public Services Guarantee Act in their respective states. The states of Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Punjab, Uttrakhand and Himachal Pradesh have their own laws in place.

Many of these state laws have provisions that are much better than the proposed Bill.

The Central government can and should enact Citizen Charter for central services but should not encroach upon the states' domain. At best, the Centre can suggest a model law.

However, the Ministry of Personnel Affairs defended this bill saying "Provisions of the Bill relate to 'actionable wrongs' which comes under the concurrent list."

Duplication of work: Several states such as Delhi, Punjab and Bihar have also enacted their own grievance redressal laws. The mechanism provided under these laws is different from that provided under the Bill.

So this will lead to duplication of work and organizations. Similarly, MNREGA Act, RTE Act, National Food Security Bill, 2011, and the Public Procurement Bill, 2012 also have their own grievances redressal forums.

Similar to R.T.I act, this bill also applies to organizations funded by Government. (e.g. Air India, Public Sector Banks, LIC.) However, if those organizations donot provide services on time, the matter also falls under jurisdiction of consumer courts, Banking ombudsman, IRDA respectively= lot of duplication.

Autonomy: According to the bill, the commissioners may be removed without judicial inquiry.

Government officials intentionally delay the service delivery because they want to demand bribe. So the whole Citizen charter thing is incomplete, without Lokpal and Lokayukta.

Exclusion of Non Citizens: Only Citizens can seek redressal, NRI & PIO are not entitled.

Distribution of responsibility: The distribution of responsibility for delivery of services is ambiguous. For example, if a passport is held up because the police verification took too long, should the passport office be responsible? Or should the police be held responsible? Bill is silent over the issue, this will only lead to blame games and further delays while seeking redressal.

6.0 HRD Ministry's citizens charter

The HRD Ministry also put out its Citizen Charter.  The mission of the Charter includes:

1. Provide greater opportunities of access to higher education with equity to all the eligible persons and in particular to the vulnerable sections.
2. Expand access by supporting existing institutions, establishing new institutions, supporting State Governments and Non-Government Organizations / Civil Society to supplement public efforts aimed at removing regional or other imbalances that exist at present.
3. Initiate policies and programmes for strengthening research and innovations and encourage institutions - public or private - to engage in stretching the frontiers of knowledge.
4. Promote the quality of higher education by investing in infrastructure and faculty, promoting academic reforms, improving governance and institutional restructuring towards the inclusion of the hitherto deprived communities.

The services to be provided and the standard for the same prescribed by the Ministry are as follows:

1. Policy Formulation relating to Higher Education (including Minority Education & focus groups) - Consultation, Conference (like Vice Chancellors Level etc.), discussion, interaction session etc.
2. Release of Funds under various schemes of this Department details of which are available on website www.education.nic.in and release of funds to grantee institutions.  Within 25 working days after approval of the competent authority.
3. Information dissemination about Higher Education:-  Updation of information on website and through various publication on Higher Education.
4. Monitoring of the Implementation of the  Policies/Programmes/

Projects:  Monthly Progress

Consultation at various forums such as Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) to have ideas to improve the higher education sector, Parliamentary Committees: Through Conference, Discussions, Interaction session and Meetings etc.

Grant of Scholarships to University & College students pursuing higher education: As per Guidelines of the specific scheme available on www.education.nic.in

Collaboration with United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Foreign Governments, International Partners to keep the higher education at par with the international standards: As per Charter

Registration of Copyright: Extract of Register to be sent to applicant within 15 working days of registration of  the work by the Registrar of Copyright.

ISBN Registration: To assign ISBNs to the applicant and send the same to him/her within 7 working days of registration of the book by the ISBN Registry.

7.0 Initiatives in Good Governance

7.1 MyGov

MyGov is an innovative platform launched to ensure citizens' engagement in decision making by the Government so that the ultimate goal of "Good Governance" for building India is achieved. This initiative is an opportunity for citizens and well-wishers from across the world to share their views on key issues directly with the Prime Minister of India.

The platform MyGov  encourages citizens as well as people abroad to 'Discuss' and 'Do'. There are multiple theme-based discussions on MyGov where a wide range of people can share their thoughts and ideas. Further, any idea shared by a contributor will also be discussed on these discussion forums, allowing constructive feedback and interaction among participants. MyGov aims to establish a link between Government and Citizens towards meeting the goal of good governance in the country. For those who wish to go beyond discussions and wish to contribute on the ground, MyGov offers several avenues to do so. Citizens can volunteer for various tasks and submit their entries. These tasks would then be reviewed by other members and experts. Once approved, these tasks can be shared by those who complete the task and by other members on MyGov platform. Every approved task would earn credit points for completing the task.

7.2 Loksatta Movement

Lok Satta is a non-partisan movement for democratic reforms, led by Dr. Jayaprakash Narayan, a former IAS officer and activist from Andhra Pradesh, India. The movement was started in 1996 as a non-governmental organization and later transformed into the Lok Satta Party.

Apart from creating India's largest base for a people's movement in Andhra Pradesh, Lok Satta is now deeply engaged in building a viable national platform for democratic reforms through building alliances in major states and promoting local initiatives, and building an effective and highly credible coalition at the national level specifically for electoral reforms. It has also launched its political party arm in October 2006, which has met with reasonable success.

Andhra Pradesh Election Watch - Checking the criminal background of politicians in 2001, 2004

Ensure backward communities are able to vote - 2001

Goals

1. Democratization of political parties to make them open, member-controlled, transparent, and accountable in all aspects.
2. Electoral reforms to make elections truly democratic, fair and transparent; to facilitate and promote participation of the best men and women in India's political process; and to curb electoral mal-practices.
3. Balanced distribution of functions between the union and the states and local governments, together with allocation of adequate resources and devolution of powers commensurate with their functions.
4. Effective decentralization of governance through empowerment of local governments as participative tiers of constitutional, democratic governance, and direct empowerment of people as stakeholders wherever feasible.
5. Effective functioning of legislature, executive and judiciary at all levels, with appropriate checks and balances.
6. Measures for speedy, efficient, affordable, and accessible justice to people.
7. Measures to make bureaucracy truly accountable, responsive, and efficient at all levels.

Institutional checks to prevent abuse of office, including freedom of information for transparent governance; insulation of crime investigation and prosecution from partisan pulls and political vagaries; creation of an effective, independent anti-corruption mechanism; and creation of an independent mechanism for appointment of constitutional functionaries.

Principles: According to Lok Satta, the specific reforms derived from the above generic principles must be in conformity with the following basic principles of democracy:

1. Freedom
2. Self-governance
3. Empowerment of citizens
4. Rule of law
5. Self-correcting institutional mechanisms

The Lok Satta party was started on October 2, 2006 by Jayprakash Narayan with clean politics, good governance and improvement of India as the main goals. When he launched the party, he stated that this party aimed to enrich the political scenario in India with its true spirit. He felt that it could be considered as an alternative to any other political party, since it aimed to create a true and faithful political picture in India without involving illegitimate money, liquor and caste in elections.

7.3 Association for Democratic Reforms

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is a non-government organisation co founded in 1999 by Prof Trilochan Sastry, Prof Jagdeep Chokar and Ajit Ranade.  The ADR came into existence when a group of Professors from the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad and Bangalore filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with the Delhi High Court regarding the disclosure of the criminal, financial and educational background of the candidates contesting elections. The PIL was upheld by the Delhi High Court in 2000 but the Government of India appealed to the Supreme Court of India against the High Court judgement. However, in 2002 and subsequently in 2003, the Supreme Court made it mandatory for all the candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal, financial and educational background prior to the polls by filing an affidavit with the Election Commission of India. The process led to greater awareness among voters of criminal cases against politicians

Alongwith the National Election Watch (NEW) which is a collection of over 1200 organisations, ADR aims at bringing greater transparency and accountability in Indian politics by trying to reduce the influence of money and muscle power in the elections. 

Some of the remarkable achievements of the ADR are:

May 2002 and March 2003: ADR's petition resulted in two milestone judgments from the Supreme Court that made it mandatory for candidates contesting elections to file self-sworn affidavits declaring their assets and criminal antecedents.

April 2008: ADR obtained a landmark ruling from the Central Information Commission (CIC) stating that Income Tax Returns of Political Parties would now be available in the public domain along with the assessment orders.

June 2011: After a two year long RTI battle, crucial information on the 'Registers of Members' Interest' was finally mandated by CIC to be available in the public domain in June 2011. The Second report of the 'Committee on Ethics' of the Lok Sabha mentions ADR's recommendations to instate a Register of Members' Interest to disclose business and financial interests of the members on the same lines as that of the Rajya Sabha.

June 2013: The CIC delivered a landmark judgment that brought six national political parties under the ambit of the RTI Act declaring them 'public authorities'. This is one of the biggest achievements of ADR.

July 2013: Supreme Court delivered a Judgment on a petition filed by Lily Thomas and Lok Prahari NGO, (ADR Intervened) setting aside clause 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, due to which sitting MPs and MLAs were barred from holding office on being convicted in a Court of Law.

September 2013: ADR had also intervened in the petition filed by Common Cause for having a separate button on the Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) with the option of 'None of the Above (NOTA).' The Supreme Court gave a favourable ruling on 27th Sept. 2013 and the NOTA button was inserted in the EVM machines for the Lok Sabha elections in 2014.

May 2014: The Delhi High Court issued notices to the Government of India and the Election Commission on a petition filed by ADR to monitor election expenditure of political parties.

Join PT courses | PT Youtube | PT App | Contribute |  Testimonials