Govt moots proposal to fast-track decision making, nip needless litigations in the bud
The Government is actively considering a proposal to equip every Ministry with a legal wing and grievance redressal officer to fast-track decision making and nip in the bud needless litigations. This is seen as big ticket reform to remove delay in several areas including preparation of draft legislations by the Ministries, clearing of affidavits, and time-consuming litigations.
Union law Minister DV Sadananda Gowda wants to have all Ministries on board as these reforms are path-breaking. Once the consensus arrives, the Ministry will submit the draft for Cabinet approval. The law Ministry has written to all other Ministries and departments to give their opinions on this issue.
Solicitor General of India Ranjit Kumar forwarded the proposal to the law and Justice Ministry, which is in the advance stage of finalising the framework for a National litigation Policy. In his views sent to the law Minister, Kumar has said that the process of decision-making in the Government takes unusually long time since all legal opinions have to be necessarily routed through the law Ministry.
Thus a file for legal opinion travels from the legal advisor to the Deputy legal Advisor and then to the Joint Secretary, and sometimes even to the Minister depending on the sensitivity of the case. To cut short the tedious process, Kumar proposed appointing legal officers in every Ministry.
Speaking to The Pioneer, Kumar confirmed that his proposal is being considered by the law Ministry. Explaining it further, he said, “At present legal opinions are given by officers of Indian legal Service (IlS) in the law Ministry. I see no reason why there can’t be such officers in every Ministry.” “Once this is done, the delay on decision-making within the Government will get considerably reduced,” he added.
Kumar said similarly there was need to introduce a grievance redressal wing in each Government department. “litigants approach court directly on issues related to their pay, retirement benefits, working conditions, and other services. If you have a place where your grievances can be suitably addressed, nobody would prefer litigation.”
Such a grievance wing, in Kumar’s opinion should be headed by an officer of a rank “capable to take decisions”. There may even be provision for a legal officer to cater to legal issues that could arise in resolving the dispute. Such a mechanism should allow the person with the grievance to be heard out and if necessary, a stage of appeal could be provided similar to the RTI model where an information officer’s decision is open to appeal before an appellate authority under the same department.
From his vast experience in handling court litigation, Kumar said, “Most cases travel directly to court which can be remedied at the departmental level. Unfortunately the lack of any mechanism to cater to this need forces government servants to approach court.”