Given that the issues covered in the Second Administrative Reforms Commission report are critical to extricate the country from policy paralysis, the Action Taken Report on the document must be placed in the public domain
What is the relevance of Government appointed commissions and committeesIJ The perception is that it is a strategy for keeping long-pending governance issues under wraps. The Government’s justification is that it is a ‘sincere effort’ to garner specific expertise to deal with the challenges.
Assuming that the Government’s claim is genuine, then a concrete time-frame should be mentioned in the terms of reference, both for receiving the recommendation and also for the Government to implement them. Often, recommendations received from various commissions, for want of effective action, become irrelevant with the passage of time.
The case under the scanner here is that of the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, set up in August 2005 under the chairmanship of Mr M Veerappa Moily, to prepare a blueprint on how to effectively revamp the public administrative system.
The Commission’s mandate was to suggest measures to achieve a pro-active, responsive, accountable, sustainable and efficient administration at all levels of the Government. The first report of this Commission on the Right to Information was submitted in 2006, and the last, in April 2009. Eight years since its commencement, and four years since the last report was submitted, there is no Action Taken Report in the public domain with regards to the recommendations of the Second ARC.
In response to an RTI application moved by Public Interest Foundation, the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances has disclosed that the total expenditure incurred in the working of the Commission till January 2013 was approximately `11.90 crore.
Subjects dealt by the Second ARC are of contemporary relevance like ethics in governance, steps to ensure effective administration at the State and district level, local self Government and Panchayati Raj institutions, transparent delivery of public services, citizen-centric administration, promoting e-governance, crisis management, public order, police reforms and judicial accountability.
Efforts to probe deeper by the PIF on the fate of more important reports on the Second ARC from the perspective of good governance, were rendered futile. The specific reports explored were the Fourth Report on Ethics in Governance and the Fifth Report on Public Order.
A perusal of the Fourth Report on Ethics in Governance shows the impact that could have been made through serious adoption of its recommendations on electoral reforms. These include partial State funding for elections, amendment of Section Eight of Representation of People’s Act, 1951 to disqualify persons facing charges of heinous offences, and bipartisan collegiums for the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner.
The Commission, while highlighting the delay in trials under the Prevention of Corruption Act, suggested that a time limit for various stages of trial be laid down by the apex court to preclude unwarranted adjournments and avoidable delays. The vital recommendations to cleanse the system and introduce integrity and efficiency have been put on a snail’s pace action mode.
On the first RTI plea filed in December 2012, regarding the status of recommendations under the Fourth Report, the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances informed that, of a total of 134 recommendations, 79 were accepted by the Government, 21 were referred to other forums, and 34 rejected. Of the 79, action on just 53 recommendations had been completed.
Not satisfied with the answer, the PIF filed another RTI application, enquiring about the status of specific recommendations such as those on lokpal and lokayuktas, political funding, anti-defection law, disqualification of MPs under Section Eight of the RP Act, coalition and ethics, fate of Members of Parliament local Area Development Scheme and MlA-local Area Development Scheme, ethical framework for judiciary, speedy trial under Prevention of Corruption Act and confiscation of illegally acquired property. The answer was evasive. This only shows that there is no concrete movement on central issues.
A similar fate met the PIF’s query on the Fifth Report, which deals with recommendations on police reforms and repealing of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958. The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances informed the PIF that the report, which was submitted in 2007, is still ‘under consideration’.
Given that the issues covered in the Second ARC are critical to extricate the country from the policy paralysis it finds itself in today, it is indefensible that the recommendations are being subjected to routine procedures. The Action Taken Report must be placed in the public domain to ensure accountability and check the propensity towards using commissions as a strategy for procrastination
(The writer is former Chairman of TRAI. The article has been co-authored by Tannu Singh)