REDRESSAL OF GRIEVANCES – SPECIAL FEATURE BY SHANTONU SEN

All Parties whether Regional or National have, in the General Election 2014, stressed the importance of responding to the challenges that people face in their day to day life. Since some problems require the elected people to intervene, each of these parties see setting up of a requisite machinery to redress grievances as necessary.

Serious attention to this area of governance has remained mired in red tape for most of our years following our independence. Right to Information Act(R T I ) which came into force in the UPA 1 regime gave the people one avenue to find out what , if any thing, was happening to any reference sent to a particular Department of the Government ( both in the State and Central) . This Act does not oblige the Department concerned to redress the grievance mentioned . It does, however, compel him to inform him the status of his reference and supply copies of documents showing action taken. It is a vast improvement on the earlier era of no replies to the people’s plaintive plaints. A meaninful instrument of redressal is very much needed. R T I will get teeth . People then may/will get their dues without intervention of vigilance / anti- corruption units. Intervention via courts may/will plummet. For all this to happen the redressal machinery set up and its human component has to be special. Presently, the complaints are routinely forwarded for redressal. More often than not this method of routine forwarding does not receive any serious attention. For one,its dealt with in the same section which had taken the decision against which the complainant has a grievance.The usual reaction in the section , in its human element is to find a reason to dismiss the grouse. This is not an unexpected reaction, as one can weii imagine. The order under challenge may well open a Pandora’s Box . Its this human factor which stands in the way of a genuine redressal of grievances today.

The answer is to create an independent Department of Redressal of Grievances. The solution is classic Parkinson Law some may say. Not so. Such a Department will only come about if not one post is created to man this new Department. All its personnel should be assigned only on secondment/attachment. Secondly, all those who become a part of this Department must, by way of a process of interview /psychological assessment, found to be willing to join such a department. They , by nature , should be sympathetic , compassionate, willing to submit themselves to read /appreciate/ hear /listen to grievances; take pains to make the complainant feel he will be heard .In a large percentage of cases the complainant is satisfied if he is heard with patience. It is equally true that in ninety percent cases he, the complainant, is not heard. He is often inarticulate. The person in distress is often , incapable of either being measured or coherent in his approach at such times . He is sent packing with the bland assurance that he will be receiving a reply . In a great number of other cases he is informed it ( the complaint) is receiving attention. In a few exceptional cases he might have a genuine response after ages and much persuit. What the complainant needs is a hearing. A appreciation of what ails him. Some one summarising for him what is the best solution possible of his grievance. This will be possible if an official understands the grievance. This pre supposes that the quality of officials assigned to this Department possesses that innate ability to come to terms with the complainant and his grievance. it is this official who will try and ensure that the Department conscerned either resolves the grievance or gives a very good reason not to do so. Only then the sufferer, the complainant is a sufferer, will get relief. There should also , be a definite time limit. This limit should be in the knowledge of both the complainants and the Department looking into the complaint. The final disposal of the grievance , at times may extend that time limit, or not satisfy the complainant but the complainant will , at least, receive an answer that will be genuine . This loop is vital and the Department of Redressal of Grievance will/should provide it.
The ultimate aim is to reduce grievances from surfacing if not eliminating? it altogether ! A tall claim ! NO. The Departments of the State and Central Government can be made to find it more comfortable to avoid facing the” inquisition “of the officials of the Department of Redressal of Grievances. How? By improving their quality of service. They must come to ” dread” the Department of Redressal of Grievances. There are ways to do so. These ways can be found if Redressal of Grievance is a meaningful part of the manifesto of political parties that include them in that document.