NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW, RANCHI

Administrative Law

THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS FOR TIME BOUND DELIVERY OF GOODS AND

SERVICES AND REDRESSAL OF THEIR GRIEVANCES BILL, 2011: AN
ANALYSIS

Submitted to: Submitted By:

Mr. Jagdish Jena Lokesh Mewara
Asst. Professor of Law Roll. No. - 627
NUSRL, Ranchi Section - A
Semester - Vth

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………………….3

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………….4

PRELUDE TO THE BILL…………………………………………………………………….5

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE……………………………………………………………6

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM…………………………………………………………….….8

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………………………………….….9

ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLES VIS-À-VIS THE BILL……………………….…. ……10

THE TEST OF ESSENTIAL LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION……………………………………10

HENRY VIII CLAUSE………………………………………………………………….12

CONSULTATION WITH PUBLIC IN FRAMING OF CITIZENS’ CHARTER………………….14

CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………15

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………….16

2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

List of Cases

1. Baxter v Ah Way, 8 C.L.R. 626.

2. Edward Mills Co. Ltd. v State of Ajmer, AIR 1955 SC 25.
3. Gammon India Ltd. v Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 960
4. Harishankar Bagla v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 465.
5. In Re: Delhi Laws Act case, [1951] 2 SCR 747.
6. Jalan Trading Co. v Mill Mazdoor Union, MANU/SC/0439/1986.

Legislative Material

1. The Right of Citizens of Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal
of their Grievances Bill, 2011 (Bill no. 131 of 2011).

3
INTRODUCTION

The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their
Grievances Bill, 2011 was tabled in 2011 in Lok Sabha but never got passed and eventually
lost, after the dissolution of 15th Lok Sabha, in the eternal darkness alongwith other citizen
welfare bills which never saw the light of day. The Bill essentially confers a statutory right on
each citizen for time bound delivery of goods and services and redressal of grievances.
Further, it also mandates formation of Citizens’ Charter by every public authority detailing
the goods and services provided and the time line for the delivery of such.

The bill is not the first attempt by the government to improve efficiency and work attitude of
administration or bureaucracy. There have been many models, policies, guidelines and State
legislations but these were fragmentary steps and could not eventually lead to full-fledged
implementation of time bound efficient delivery of services and redressal of grievances.
Therefore, the bill, if passed, could have proven very instrumental in bolstering the efficiency
of administration and restoring the relationship between administration and public.

In this research paper, I would analyse this bill through administrative principles such as
Essential Legislative Functions test which actually emanates from Doctrine of Separation of
Powers, Henry VIII clause and Public participation. While analysing the bill through the lens
of administrative principles various case laws have been taken into account and the 53rd
Report by the Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee On Personnel, Public
Grievances, Law And Justice has been useful in understanding the bill.

The relevance of analysing this bill is that it cannot be denied that administrative machinery
in India is suffering huge crisis with respect to relationship of public and administration. The
bureaucracy looks at public as burden to get rid of or to be ignored at best and the public
therefore rightfully looks at bureaucracy as unsympathetic and mechanised without any
feeling or emotions. Therefore, this bill was a great and courageous step on part of the
legislature to control the damage to the reputation and working of administrative machinery.
However, the bill never got passed but the administrative aspects it tried to bring into folds of
public domain would remain essential to be discussed, deliberated upon and used for future
reference point for a new journey towards a new legislation or policy for administration
efficiency.

4
PRELUDE TO THE BILL

The Right of Citizens for Time-bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their
Grievances Bill, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 2011 Bill’) is one of the myriad citizen
welfare bills which have not seen the light of day for years either due to being lapsed or non-
enactment or non-implementation thereof. The 2011 Bill was introduced in Lok Sabha in the
year 2011 but with the dissolution of the fifteenth Lok Sabha the bill got lapsed due to non-
passage. 1It essentially proposed that every public authority has to, within a stipulated time
frame, publish a Citizens’ Charter enumerating the goods and services provided by the said
public authority and the set timelines for their delivery. It also provided alternative
mechanism apart from Judiciary to citizens for redressal of their grievances within a time
frame.

The concept of Citizens’ Charter is not new to the arena of public administration. Various
states have already passed pertinent legislations in regards to guaranteeing time bound
delivery of services and goods provided by various public administrative authorities.
Nonetheless, a Central legislation could have provided a homogenous statutory framework all
across the nation for implementation of Citizens’ Charter and time-bound delivery of goods
and services.

The Citizens Charter was first established in late 1890s by the Great Britain. These charters
aimed at promoting the standards of public service and administration to the expectations of
the public at large.2 Around century later, the United States also put forth such charters in the
name of ‘Customer Service Standards’ for all the federal agencies. After this, many other
nations like Portugal and India have also adopted the approach of the United Kingdom and
United States by establishing Citizens Charters for the public administrative bodies thereof. 3

In India, the initiatives regarding Citizens’ Charter began in year 1996 when a National
Debate on ‘Effective and Responsive Administration’ was embarked upon in the Conference
of Chief Secretaries which finally culminated into Conference of Chief Ministers on May 24,
1997. The Chief Ministers, in the conference, pressed upon the need for major modification
in the administration system so as to ensure a responsive, responsible, citizen-friendly

1
K. Venkataramanan, Guaranteeing time-bound services, THE HINDU (June 16, 2017) available at
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/guaranteeing-time-bound-services/article19077226.ece (Last Visited
on May 18, 2018).
2
P. Garg, Citizens’ Charter: A Step Towards Making Bureaucracy Responsive and Responsible, 67(2), 233,
240, THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE (2006).
3
Id.

5
bureaucracy and maintain the faith of citizens in the administrative authorities. One of the
issues bolstered in the conference was of implementation of Citizens’ Charters at all central
and state level public authorities and departments having large public interface. 4 These
initiatives indeed led to certain states implementing laws pertaining to Citizens’ Charter but
the Centre failed to pass such law. However, there exist various guidelines by the Department
of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances to all central and state level departments in
regards to citizens’ charter but these remain mere guidelines which ought to be followed and
henceforth there implementation on the ground level remains naught. In the year 2005, the
Sevottam model was initiated in order to improve the Public Service Delivery. The model has
been running successfully in certain identified government organizations. In 2007,
Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) was introduced
to effectively monitor and redress the grievances of public in all the Ministries of the
Government of India. However, these efforts though successful in their limited scope were in
dire need of an over-arching structure which this bill sought to provide.

4
Garg supra note 2.

6
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

➢ Dr. Ramaswamy B & Dr. Pushpa S (2013) in their book stated that the Bill seeks to

confer on every citizen the right to time bound delivery of goods and services and to

provide a mechanism for greviance redressal.

➢ Dr. Pandey V. (2018) in her book stated that the Bill envisages the right to services

under which every individual citizen shall have the right to time bound ddelivery of

godos and provisiono of services and redress of greviances.

➢ R. K. Tiwari,(2013) also stated that Such bills do find their place in the INC

manifestó of 2014 adovocating a better delivery of godos.

7
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Delivering public services in a time bound, decentralised and citizen friendly manner has
been one of the major challenges facing the administration wing of the government. The
evolution and very existence of multiple methods of grievance redressal questions the
effectiveness of fair and accessible provision of services in the first place and settling public
grievances in an expeditious manner, in the second. The fact that the already existent
mechanisms are failing to reduce systematic deficiencies and dissatisfaction amongst the
citizens makes us question what is going wrong.

8
RESEARCH METHODOLGY

1. Population/ Universe – The universe of the research is the target population at which
it is aimed. This topic aims to study the problem in light of the entire Indian society
focussing especially on the citizens who seek the remedy for the redressal of their
grievance through a proper mechanised channel.
2. Method of Data Collection- The methodology employed is largely a review of
secondary data and literature on the subject. The RTPS Acts and Rules in various
states have been studied. The reports that have been consulted are those published by
organisations such as the DARPG, the Second Administrative Reform Commission
and the World Bank Annual report titled “Making Services Work for the Poor.”

9
ADMINISTRATIVE PRINCIPLES VIS-À-VIS THE BILL

The Test of Essential Legislative Function

In Re: Delhi Laws Act case5, the Supreme Court held that the delegation of legislative powers
is a permissible act until and unless the parliament does not delegate its essential law making
functions. In order to understand as to what constitutes the essential legislative function of the
parliament which it is not allowed to delegate, the case of Harishankar Bagla v State of
Madhya Pradesh6 gives some insight. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the
essential legislative functions of the parliament constitute the determination of the legislative
policy, principle and the binding rules of conduct which shall serve as guidelines for the
delegate to execute the delegate powers.

The Designated Authority

Section 2(h) of the 2011 Bill defines designated authority as “such officer or authority
outside the concerned public authority as may be prescribed by the appropriate
government.”

Section 52 of the 2011 bill confers rule making powers upon the appropriate government in
order to carry out the provisions of the bill. Sub-section (2)(a) provides that the appropriate
government may make rules regarding the “officer or the authority to be designated as the
Designated Authority under clause (h) of section 2.”

In its 53rd report on “The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services
and Redressal of Their Grievances Bill, 2011”, the Department Related Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice observed that since
the designated authority assumes an important role in dispensing the appeals of aggrieved
citizens from the Grievance Redressal Officer, the Parliament ought to have provided for a
framework according to which then the appropriate government could appoint such
designated authority and make rules related to it. In its own words, the Report observed, “The
Designated Authority being an important level in the grievance redress mechanism, it is

5
In Re: Delhi Laws Act case, [1951] 2 SCR 747.
6
Harishankar Bagla v State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 465.

10
important that the Bill gives an outline of the form, shape and the content of this level in the
grievance redress machinery.” 7

In the Harishankar Bagla case, the court held that the power to fill up the details can be
delegated to the public executive only after the legislature has outlined the skeleton of the
policy specifically under the domain of which the delegate can exercise such power of filling
up the details.

In the present bill of 2011, the section 2(h) read with section 52(2)(a), confers power to the
appropriate government in relation to filling up the details as to laying down the rules related
to the designated authority. Since there is laid down the broad policy by the parliament
regarding timely delivery of services and goods and effective citizen friendly grievance
redressal mechanism in the administration itself, it can be safely concluded that the rules to
be made by the appropriate government shall be guided by such principles and henceforth
cannot be said to be of nature of excessive delegation.

The contention of the Rajya Sabha 53rd report that the bill ought to have provided an outline
of the form, shape or level for the designated authority seems to be unwarranted because the
policy is quite comprehensive and clear that such appointment of designated authority ought
to be in such manner that it promotes the efficiency of grievance redressal mechanism of the
delegating bill.

Public Authority

Section 2(n) of the bill provides for an inclusive definition of public authority which renders
open the option for the appropriate government to include any public or private organization,
body corporate, government company, public-private partnership etc., through order or
notification. However, the section also provides the reasons or basis under which such
entities can be brought under the ambit of the bill.

In Edward Mills Co. Ltd. v State of Ajmer8, the Supreme Court held that the power of
inclusion or exclusion can be delegated to the executive bodies until the policy and the
guiding principles for such exercise of powers are clearly laid down in the delegating act. The

7
Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee On Personnel, Public Grievances, Law And Justice,
Fifty Third Report on The Right of Citizens to Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of
their Grievances Bill, 2011, 27, (2012), available at http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Citizen charter/SC
report , Citizens Charter Bill.pdf (Last Visited on May 18, 2018).
8
Edward Mills Co. Ltd. v State of Ajmer, AIR 1955 SC 25.

11
court also observed that every piece of legislation is to be made in keeping the future
contingencies in mind and therefore the power of inclusion or exclusion to the executive in
indeed beneficial and efficient until it is exercised under the guiding framework of the
policies and principles laid down in the delegating act.

In the present bill of 2011, the policy of the bill seems pretty clear and conspicuous to be of
ensuring timely and efficient delivery of services by the executive bodies and any other body
which in collaboration with the government renders services or goods to the citizens.
Therefore, it can be safely concluded that since the guiding policy in regard to the use of this
power of inclusion is clearly laid down, the delegation of power does not suffer from
excessive delegation.

The Rajya sabha 53rd report observes in relation to the public authority and scope for
inclusion of various organizations or entities by order of government, that such is an
expression of vagueness and ambiguity. However, this observation too is weak in analysis in
terms of administrative principles because as observed in Baxter v Ah Way9 and Edward Mills
case the aim of legislation has to be mindful of the future contingencies and therefore provide
powers of slight modification or inclusion/exclusion in consonance with the broad policy of
the delegating statute so as to incorporate change in circumstances or to solve certain small
problems in way of administration. Therefore, in conclusion, it can be said that the power of
inclusion provided to the appropriate government under the present bill is not excessive
delegation.

Henry VIII Clause

The Henry VIII clause refers to such delegated legislative powers which tend to endow on to
the delegate powers to modify or amend the delegating act for either removing any difficulty
or to bring the Act into full operation. Such clauses have been observed to be symbolising the
executive autocratic nature of the Henry VIII monarch of England. In Administrative law,
such clauses or provisions are considered to be quintessential paradigm of excessive
delegation. In the present bill of 2011, section 54 provides power to the Central government
to remove difficulties in the Act through an order published in the Official Gazette. However,
such power has been restricted in the bill so as to prevent it becoming Henry VIII clause. The
clause 54 restricts the power of the Central government in two ways. First, the clause holds

9
Baxter v Ah Way, 8 C.L.R. 626

12
that the Central government may only pass such order which is not inconsistent with the
provisions of the existing delegating bill, hence thwarting apprehensions of arbitrariness and
autocracy. Second, the clause also mandates that such order of the Central government shall
be placed before the Parliament “as soon as may be after it is made”. Therefore, the removal
of difficulty clause does not come under the ambit of Henry VIII clause i.e., being of nature
of excessive delegation.

In Jalan Trading Co. v Mill Mazdoor Union10, the legality of section 37(1) of the Payment of
Bonus Act, 1965 was in question based on it being Henry VIII Clause. Section 37(1)
delegated powers to Central government to issue order ‘not inconsistent with the purpose of
the Act’ for the purpose of removal of difficulties or to give effect to the provisions of the
Act. Further, clause 2 of section 37, made such order of the Central government final. The
court struck down the section on basis that power to remove difficulties by way of modifying
the delegating act amounts to a legislative act which cannot be delegated and also that even if
such delegation is allowed, the finality given to the Central government’s order of
modification renders the section subsumed with vice of excessive delegation. This case can
also be seen from the perspective of the Essential Legislative Function Theory/Test according
to which the legislature can delegate its legislative powers until and unless it prescribes the
policy, principle and rules regarding conduct for the delegate. In the present case, the Central
government was given power to decide for itself the purpose of the Act which is according to
the Essential Functions Theory the primary function of the Parliament itself. Therefore, such
section is illegal is example of excessive delegation through this test also.

In Gammon India Ltd. v Union of India11, the Supreme Court dealt with the validity of
section 34 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The section 34
provided that the Central government may by order or notification, for the purpose of
removal of difficulties in giving effect to the provision of this Act, make such provisions
which are not in contravention to the provisions of the delegating Act. The Court upheld the
validity of section 34 on grounds that unlike section 37 of Payment of Bonus Act in Jalan
case (supra) which gave power to Central government in deciding the purpose of the Act and
then make provisions not inconsistent with such purpose, section 34 restricts the amending
power of the central government to the extent of the explicit provisions of the delegating Act
per se.

10
Jalan Trading Co. v Mill Mazdoor Union, MANU/SC/0439/1986, Para 100.
11
Gammon India Ltd. v Union of India, AIR 1974 SC 960.

13
Thus, it can be safely concluded that the removal of difficulty clause in section 54 of the
present bill of 2011 is under the constitutional domain as set up by the Supreme Courts
through case laws.

Consultation with Public in Framing of Citizens’ Charter

There has been recent focus upon the public participation in the law-making procedures
either at legislature level or at administration level. In the context of subordinate law-making
which remains largely obscured from the eyes of public yet affecting them most, there has
been major emphasis to bring public into the centre of such law-making. In regards to the
framing of Citizens’ Charter, there are guidelines in relation to implementation of Sevottam
which require stakeholder consultation prior to formulation of citizens’ charter. 12 However,
the bill does not include any specific provisions regarding public participation in the process
of formulation of citizens’ charter. The bill under clause 5 merely gives lip service to idea of
public participation by mandating that citizens charter has to be published and disseminated
in wide manner so as to make maximum people aware, but, it is submitted that making people
aware of what the administrative body has decided is different from asking the people what
should be framed as law. It is the second method which was required to be given importance
at par with the first method that the law fails to provide. It is accepted that there exist
guidelines which mandate public participation but if these guidelines could have been
included as statutory rights of people to be consulted before enactment of law then such
would have bolstered the cause of public participation with greater force than what the bill
seeks to fulfil under clause 5.

12
Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee On Personnel, Public Grievances, Law And Justice,
Fifty Third Report on The Right of Citizens to Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of
their Grievances Bill, 2011, 27, (2012), available at http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Citizen charter/SC
report , Citizens Charter Bill.pdf (Last Visited on May 18, 2018).

14
CONCLUSION

The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their
Grievances Bill, 2011 was a great step by the then government and the parliament indeed to
entitle the citizens with the statutory right to timely delivery of goods and services and
redressal of grievances in the administration only thus relieving the citizens from the hectic
judicial procedures. However, the bill was never passed.

In light of various administrative principles, the bill proves to be rather a good legislation.
The issue of delegated legislation to the public executive is handled in the bill very carefully
in consonance with the administrative principles such as Essential Legislative Functions Test,
essential procedures as per Principles of Natural Justice, Henry VIII clause, Rule against bias
etc. However, the bill does not follow in spirit the idea of public participation in subordinate
law-making inasmuch it does not provide for any participation of public or consultation with
stakeholders prior to formulation of citizens charter by the public authority. However, apart
from that, the bill seems to pass all other administrative principles in regards to delegated
legislation.

15
REFERENCES

Books

1. D.D. Basu, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 1986.

2. I.P. Massey, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 1985.
3. M.P. Jain, PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 1986.
4. Y. Ghosh, TEXTBOOK ON ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, 2016.

Articles
1. B.V.L. Narayana, Citizens Charter- strategies for successful implementation in India,
58(2), INDIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (2004).
2. D. Gavin, Whatever happened to the citizens charter?, 1, PUBLIC LAW (2002).
3. D.V. Rao, Citizens Charter in municipalities – Andhra Pradesh’s initiative, 35(1),
NAGARLOK (2003).
4. S. Paul, Indians Citizens Charter: In search of a champion, 43(7), ECONOMIC AND

POLITICAL WEEKLY (2008).

Report
1. Department related Parliamentary Standing Committee On Personnel, Public
Grievances, Law And Justice, Fifty Third Report on The Right of Citizens to Time
Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011,
(2012), available at http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Citizen charter/SC report
Citizens Charter Bill.pdf (Last Visited on May 18, 2018).

16