Have you ever had to pay a bribe?

Have you ever had to pay a bribe to get a passport, ration card, driver’s license or another government service? Are you fed up with the corruption in your city but are not sure how to tackle it? Janaagraha, a Bangalore based NGO might just have an answer.

IpaidABribe.com is a unique website launched by Janaagraha to help citizens tackle corruption. The website invites citizens across the country to log on and report the nature, pattern and types of corruption that they face on a day to day basis. Janaagraha will try and use the data to argue for improving governance systems and procedures, tightening law enforcement and regulation and thereby reduce the scope for corruption in obtaining services from the government.The website allows citizens to report bribes, generate bribe reports, find out the market rate for bribes in different sectors/services. For more information log on to: http://www.ipaidabribe.com/

Coming soon – A privacy law in India?

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, has become the nodal agency for drafting laws on privacy and data protection in India.

Recently suggestions were invited from people on what such a law should contain. It appears that very few civil society organisations and even fewer RTI users and activists responded to this advertisement. Perhaps this is why the recentWorkshop on Legal Framework for Privacy, Data Protection and Security  hosted by the DoPT had barely two or three civil society representatives, with a large majority of participants from government departments and agencies. Senior officers of the RTI Unit of the DoPT constituted the remainder of the delegation.

The summary of the proceedings and the power point presentations from the Workshop make for an interesting read. The absence of a clear and comprehensive legal framework for data protection and safeguarding privacy of individuals is a major theme. In the era of growing digital databases containing information about individuals and their transactions in both private and public sectors, this lack of clear regulation on data protection and privacy is an obstacle.

Two of the Workshop participants, the Registrar General, Census of India and the Chief Legal Advisor Indian Banks Association (IBA) called for amendments to the RTI Act to protect the data that was gathered while conducting sample surveys or banking operations. The Registrar General noted that the Central Information Commission did not allow access to information about private individuals that was collected during the census. Nevertheless he was in favour of amending the RTI Act to immunise such data from disclosure. The IBA representative held that the existing laws governing secrecy of bank transactions were adequate and no separate law on privacy and data protection was necessary. However he demanded an amendment of the RTI Act to protect banking secrecy.

The proceedings show that one participant asked the big question: “Is the right to privacy a fundamental right?” (Someone has to ask such a question at some point, especially if nobody does it at the beginning!). There is however, nothing in the proceeding to indicate if this question was satisfactorily answered. Neither is there any reference to the jurisprudence developed in India on the subject of the fundamental right to privacy. One may perhaps assume that this issue was not discussed at all and this is ample reason for concern. 

There are several cases where the Indian Courts have stated the scope of the right to privacy. The kind of information for which disclosure may be denied on grounds of privacy, instances when the claims for privacy do not apply (i.e. when the personal information is contained in public records), the status of medical records and data regarding financial transactions have been discussed several times by the Supreme and High Courts.

Some High Courts have even stated when the right to privacy must yield to the people’s right to know in the era of the RTI Act. There at least two cases that spring to mind, one of them being the celebrated as the “Supreme Court Judges Assets case”. Perhaps the DoPT may elect to consult other experts on this important subject in future!

It is high time that all RTI users and activists start to engage with the DoPT to ensure that a sound law for protecting privacy and data is drafted without curtailing the RTI Act.

The Process of Lawmaking in India

This post is an attempt to explain the process of law making in India. It also explains how citizen groups can participate in the process of lawmaking. 

Who makes laws?

 In India, at the central level, laws are formulated by the Parliament and at the state level by Legislative Assemblies and Councils.

How is a law made?

The process of enacting a new law can be broadly divided into four steps:<--break->

Step 1: The need for a new law, or an amendment to an existing piece of legislation, is identified. This may be done either by the government or by citizen groups who can raise public awareness regarding the need for the law.

Step 2: The concerned ministry drafts a text of the proposed law, which is called a ‘Bill’The Bill is circulated to other relevant ministries for inputs. Comments from the public on the proposed draft may also be invited. For example recently, the UIDAI has invited public feedback on the Draft National Identification Authority Bill. Following this, the draft is revised to incorporate such inputs and is then whetted by the Law Ministry. It is then presented to the Cabinet for approval.

Step 3: After the Cabinet approves the Bill, it is introduced in Parliament. Under the Indian political system, the Parliament is the central legislative (or law making) body. Every Bill goes through three Readings in both Houses before it becomes an Act.

  • During the First Reading the Bill is introduced in Parliament. The introduction of a Bill may be opposed and the matter may be put to a vote in the House. In August 2009, the Law Minister withdrew the motion to introduce the Judges (Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities) Bill as many MPs were opposed to the Bill, on grounds that it violated the Constitution.
  • After a Bill has been introduced, the Presiding Officer of the concerned House (Speaker in case of the Lok Sabha, Chairman in case of Rajya Sabha) may refer the Bill to the concerned Department Related Standing Committee for examination.
  • The Standing Committee considers the broad objectives and the specific clauses of the Bill referred to it and may invite public comments on a Bill. For example, the Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests has invited suggestions on the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010.
  • Bills which come under the ambit of a number of different ministries, may be referred to a Joint Comittee.
  • The Committee then submits its recommendations in the form of a report to Parliament.
  • In the Second Reading (Consideration)the Bill is scrutinized thoroughly. Each clause of the Bill is discussed on the floor of the House and may be accepted, amended or rejected.
  • During the Third Reading (Passing), the House votes on the redrafted Bill.
  • If the Bill is passed in one House, it is then sent to the other House, where it goes through  second and third readings.
  • During the second reading, the Government, or any MP, may introduce amendments to the Bill, some of which may be based on recommendations of the Standing Committee. However, the Government is not bound to accept the Committee’s recommendations.

Step 4: After both Houses of Parliament pass a Bill, it is presented to the President for assent. She has the right to seek information and clarification about the Bill, and may return it to Parliament for reconsideration. (This may be done only once. If both Houses pass the Bill again, the President has to assent.)

Step 5: After the President gives assent, the Bill is notified as an Act. Subsequently, the Bill is brought into force and rules and regulations to implement the Act are framed by the concerned ministry, and tabled in Parliament.

Do bills get passed even without any discussion in the parliament*?

Parliament passes about 60 Bills every year. It devotes 20-25% of its time on legislative business. The time spent on debating each Bill varies widely.

  • In total, the Lok Sabha passed 30 non-financial Bills in 2009.
  • In 2009, 8 Bills were passed in less than 5 minutes (27% of the Bills passed by Lok Sabha in 2009). These included, The Legal Metrology Bill, The Commercial Division of High Courts Bill, and the Trade Marks Amendment Bill.
  • Only 5 Bills were debated for more than 3 hours.
  • In 2008, 16 out of 36 Bills (excluding finance and appropriation bills) were passed by Lok Sabha in less than 20 minutes, most of these without any debate.
  • In 2008, Lok sabha worked for 46 days, the lowest ever in a calendar year.
  • Things are worse, for Legislative Assemblies. Delhi assembly worked for 20 days in 2007.

Number of Working Days in Legislative Assembly

Year

2006

2007

Delhi

23

20

Mizoram

19

18

Rajasthan

30

25

Chhattisgarh

41

35

Madhya Pradesh

43

29

Kerala

51

56

Karnataka

56

34

* Source: PRS Legislative Research

Sruti Bandyopadhyay is a Research Analyst with the Accountability Initiative.

Secrecy over the draft Whistleblower’s Bill

Efforts to bring in legislation to protect whistleblowers in India have been on-going for some years now. In 2001, the Law Commission of India studied the laws that protect whistleblowers in the UK, USA and other developed countries and had submitted a report to the Government.  Along with the report the Law Commission submitted a weak draft bill to protect whistleblowers. Meanwhile in the absense of a specific law on the subject,  the Government of India created a mechanism for its employees and those employed in central public sector enterprises to blow the whistle on wrongdoings.

<--break->The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers Resolution  was notified by the Government of India in 2004 to enable public sector employees to make disclosures of wrongdoing to the Central Vigilance Commission in confidence. This mechanism only covers employees working in the Government of India or any of its agencies. It does not cover the employees of State Governments. However, a law to protect all whistleblowers may be a reality in India very soon following the Cabinet’s approval of the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010 on 9th August. The draft Bill aimed at protecting whistleblowers is a welcomed move. However the lack of public debate and consultation on the Bill is not.

Secrecy over the draft whistleblower Bill and lack of public consultation:

In recent months the media has published reports about major disagreement within Government over the contents of this Bill. However the Government of India has not made any attempt to place the draft Bill in the public domain and consult with the people. Instead people will have to wait for the Bill to reach Parliament before they can comment on it. This secrecy is in clear violation of Section 4(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. According to Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act

“4. (1) Every public authority shall—

        X          X          X

        X          X          X

c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public;”

The draft whistleblower Bill is an important legislative policy whose contents the Government ought to have disclosed while formulating it. However the age-old practices of undue secrecy observed by the bureaucracy, while drafting legislation, continues to hamper the effective implementation of the RTI Act. Even here there is no consistency of practice. While other Ministries go through elaborate processes of public consultation on draft legislations such as the Draft Direct Taxes Code Bill and amendments to the Companies Act, the whistleblower Bill does not get the same treatment.

Given the tremendous importance of this legislation it is essential that the public have the opportunity to scrutinise and comment on its provisions – else there is a very real danger of it becoming another “paper tiger”.

Venkatesh Nayak is the RTI Programme Coordinator, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative (www.humanrightsinitiative.org)

Government releases the first ever Civil Services Survey

The Government of India has released the findings of the first ever survey of the Indian Civil Services. The report titled “Civil Services Survey – A Report” surveyed officers from all 3 India Services (The Indian Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Police Service (IPS) and the Indian Forest Service (IFoS)) as well as officers of 7 Central Services. In total, the Survey covered 18432 officers belonging to the ten selected services. Out of the total questionnaires sent, 4808 officers responded to the survey which is 26% of the total universe. 

The survey was conducted to assess the perceptions of civil servants on 11 major thematic areas including work environment, transfers, postings, integrity to harassment and discrimination. Click here to read the full report online or scroll down to download the pdf version of the report.

Gaps in the Whistleblower’s Bill

Venkatesh Nayak

The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making Disclosure Bill, 2010 (the Whistleblower Bill) has been tabled in the Lok Sabha (Lower House of India’s Parliament) yesterday (26th August 2010).

The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, which piloted this Bill did very little to consult with people on its contents. They refused to publicise the contents of the Bill while formulating it despite being mandated to do so under Section 4(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. During a full bench hearing at the Central Information Commission in my complaint case, representatives of the DoPT acknowledged that they had not disclosed anything about this Bill in the public domain. The Commission’s decision in this case is awaited.

Meanwhile the text of the Bill as introduced in the Lok Sabha is not available on the DoPT’s website, nor does the link to the text of the Bill on the Lok Sabha website work. The attached link for the Whistleblower Bill has been sourced from the website of PRS-India. Congrats guys, you have proven again that civil society puts information about public documents in the public domain faster than public authorities themselves.

The following issues have been highlighted CHRI’s preliminary analysis of the Bill (see attachment):

1. Limited coverage of reportable actions

2. Only one authority prescribed for receiving public interest disclosure

3. CVC permitted to disclose the identity of whistleblowers to the Head of the Department

4. Whistleblower Bill does not apply to the private sector

5. Armed Forces have been left out

6. Vexatious complainants will be imprisoned but no policy for rewarding whistleblowers

7. No clarity on the kinds of protection that a whistleblower is entitled to receive

Advocacy Recommendations:

Given the several major lacunae in the Whistleblower Bill introduced in the Lok Sabha, there is an urgent need to have this Bill referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice for detailed deliberations and improvement.

The DoPT has  recently uploaded the complete text of the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Persons Making Dislcosure Bill, 2010 (Whistleblower Bill) on its website a short while ago. People have been invited to make submissions on its contents by 30th September.

It is rare for Governments to table a Bill in Parliament and then invite people to comment on it. Nevertheless this shows that the Government may be willing to consider amendments to the Bill. It is advisable to engage with this process. I request readers to send their analysis of the Whistleblower Bill highlighting other weaknesses. I am sure a more detailed examination will reveal more grey areas which need rectification.

For more email updates from CHRI on the Whistleblower’s Bill click here.

Venkatesh Nayak is the RTI Programme Coordinator, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative

 

 

Learning to Complain

Honk…. Splash…. Flooding…. Crawl… Blank…..Neon amiss….Frustration…. Underlining despair… Belied…Forgotten.

These are just some of the sights and emotions that we all encounter the moment we step out of that little island of comfort we call home. Whether it’s the frustrating and wholly unforeseeable traffic jams or the debiliting condition of roads which lend a whole new meaning to the term wear and tear, or even the whimsical traffic light whose temperamental nature inspires a host of caricatures (or maybe that’s just me!).

Such conditions appear to surround us all, but how we have been shaped by it? If our surroundings are governed by chaos then what is it most suitably captures our mental state… apathy, frustration, confusion or just plain helplessness? My many musings have led me to conclude that while we might experience different shades of these emotions what we really are is incapacitated. We appear to lack the basic capacity/ability to act, to change the very situation we find ourselves in. Academics classify this as a lack of agency but in my opinion its not just agency that we lack-we are stuck in this state of impotence, in which we are fundamentally attuned to the belief that things cannot change. The system or the lack of one is assumed to be so much more powerful than the individuals who comprise it; is imagined that it will never bend to their will. So while the so called powerless sections in our societies (farmers in Uttar Pradesh, Tribal’s in Orissa) launch protest marches and clash with repressive forces in staking their claims – we the  privileged educated class sit back, circumventing on most occasions any and every direct engagement with the powers that be.

 

Can we do something to demand what is classically and most nebulously defined as accountability? I believe we can.

 

But if we aren’t revelling in this situation then the question arises whether we can actually do something to change it? Can we do something to demand what is classically and most nebulously defined as accountability? I believe we can. I don’t say this because of my innate idealism but out of some amount of experience in trying a variety of strategies, which despite not being entirely successful have been instrumental in shaking off that feeling of utter inertia. I realize that a lot of the strategies that I have tried are not entirely revolutionary but sometimes even the most basic attempts can make a difference. So try the following when you find yourselves confronting the maddening and the inconceivable, even if it seems lame and entirely uninspiring.

1) Stuck in a frustrating traffic light- call the traffic police just dial 100 and report the place of the jam. I have tried this and some times it has yielded surprising results.

2) Traffic lights not working- call the traffic police in this situation as well. I have found them to be extremely polite on some occasions. Sometimes they are just as lost as us.

3) Dilapidated roads- File an RTI with the concerned authority. In Delhi you can file it with the Department of Road Transport and Highways, Ministry of Shipping Road Transport and Highways, or with the Urban Development Department of the Delhi government. This is extremely easy as it costs only Rs 10 and the RTI can be posted through speed post.

4) Garbage piling up on the streets- File a complaint with the designated MCD office, if that doesn’t work file an RTI on the status of your complaint.

Its time we learnt to complain!

Gayatri Sahgal is a Research Analyst with the Accountability Initaitive.

Linking outlays to outcomes in Education

By 2009, India has succeeded in enrolling 95% of all children in the elementary school going age into school. This is an impressive achievement. Thanks to a decent rate of growth and political commitment to address poverty, overall expenditures on programs like Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan have been increasing. There is today a government primary school within one kilometre of almost every habitation in the country. The education cess was introduced about six years ago. People paid up willingly. Overall, this has been a good decade for elementary education in India.

<--break->Around 2004-2005, the then newly elected government made statements about the importance of linking outlays to outcomes. This was an important policy stance for India given that large outlays were being made in the social sector and that effective delivery of basic social services was a high priority for the new government. But accompanying these policy statements, there was no effort made by the government to make information available to the public to enable citizens to link outlays to outcomes. So the question is, with increases in allocation; by building schools in every habitation and by enrolling our children into schools, have we achieved the desired outcomes?

The first ASER – the Annual Status of Education Report was born in 2005 in this context. People wanted to take a look themselves to see what the status of children’s education was – and see what the “aser” was of the outlays in elementary education. In ASER for the first time, in each rural district in the country, local groups began to visit villages and talk to families and children. Hundreds and thousands of children were given a simple paragraph and asked to read. They were given simple arithmetic problems and asked to solve them. As a country we listened to them as they read or they tried to read. Putting together the data for all rural districts we came to the conclusion that only half of all children in Std 5 could comfortably read Std 2 level text.

The ability of children to do simple arithmetic tasks was even worse. This meant that after 5 years in school, 50 percent of children in India were at the level expected after 2 years in school. Nationally, in five years, from 2005 to 2009 this trend has not changed much. Available information including findings from ASER brings out the basic characteristics of  elementary education in rural India. Enrollment is very high. Schools are available within striking distance of most habitations in the country. So outlays are translating into inputs and infrastructure. But outlays do not seem to be going all the way to generating desired outcomes. At least as far as learning outcomes are concerned, the level is inadequate and the pace unsatisfactory. Children learn slowly. For many it is too late to have a fighting chance of completing eight years of schooling in a meaningful way. In many fundamental ways, the Indian school system is in a “big stuck”.

Where we are “stuck”? Children learn many things in many places and in many ways. However, one important and common site where children are expected to learn is in school. Regardless of language or context or location, we commonly expect that is a child goes to school, he or she will definitely learn reading and arithmetic. Teaching learning processes can be complex and difficult to measure. But for ordinary people who are paying taxes and cess, what are features of schools and school functioning that can be easily observed and tracked?

ASER makes basic observations in schools. But these observations have a difference. We do not just count teachers, we look to see if they are coming to school. We do not simply ask if there was midday meal in school, we observe to see if the midday meal has been served in school on the day of the visit. Similarly, we note not only if there are taps, handpumps and toilets, but also see if there is water in the taps that we can drink and toilets that are being used. A quick look at schools indicates that while many inputs are there, much more needs to be done to make the inputs useable and facilities function well.

In ASER 2009, a new component PAISA was introduced to understand money. Like the other components of ASER, the first step was at the ground level. In every sampled village in the country, a government primary school was visited. Questions were asked about how much money came to the school, when did it come and how was it spent. Interestingly, many teachers in schools did not know how much is to come and what they can do with it. The PAISA component of ASER is the first time a national attempt has been made to understand fund flows at the ground level.

ASER is a beginning. There are many challenges that lie ahead. The big question is: why are we in this “big stuck” and how can we get out it? To do this we need to understand the pathways by which allocations translate to action. We have to be able to track goals and their links to plans, decision making, allocations, expenditures to processes and outcomes. Each district in the country makes an annual work plan for elementary education. How do these plans define and  articulate outcomes to be achieved? How much money is allocated to what? How does it flow and how is it spent? Does the level, type and pace of expenditure link with changes in outcomes? Not only are these questions important, but it is also essential to develop simple metrics and methods for measurement that can be used widely. We are hopeful that with each year, this citizens effort – ASER and PAISA – will go further and further in figuring out how to translate outlays to outcomes and how to bring our children to school and enable them to learn well.

Rukmini Banerji is Director, ASER Centre & Director, North India Programs, Pratham. The PAISA project is a collaboration between the Accountability Initiative, ASER Centre and National Institute for Public Finance Policy.

What prompts collective action for accountability?

What prompts collective action for accountability? Information campaigns are premised on the assumption that information can act as a catalyst for mobilizing collective action. Yet, experience suggests that these links are neither implicit nor automatic. For instance, a recent evaluation by J-PAL MIT, of an information based education intervention to mobilize village education committees in Jaunpur, Uttar Pradesh explored this question to find that information campaigns had no visible impact on community involvement in public schools and no impact on learning outcomes in those schools. The study proposes several reasons for this failure including the challenges of coordinating and sustaining collective action in a large group, the expectations people had about the efficacy of the Village Education Committee (VEC) and the possibility that people do not care enough about education.

<--break->Our Sehore experience offers some interesting insights in to why people do not come together (although we learnt very little about why people do come together). First, we found that there is a widespread perception amongst parents that monitoring the school and demanding accountability for teaching is simply not their responsibility and it is this which creates the first barrier to effective collective action. Interestingly, the villages we worked in had never had a community discussion about education till we parachuted in. This is not to say that parents do not care about the education. The very fact that they send their children to school is evidence that they care. But parents seem to feel that sending their children to school is the extent of their responsibility and what happens inside the school is not something they are in a position to assess or influence owing largely to a sense of disempowerment and lack of confidence owing to their own illiteracy. In the many meetings and informal interactions we tried to instill a sense of ownership for the school by drawing attention to the fact that parents pay for the school directly through the education cess. On other occasions we drew analogies with parental behavior when children are sick arguing that in dysfunctional schools result in ‘sick’ children and just as parents ‘act’ by taking their sick children to the doctor, they ought to act when the school does not function. It is unclear whether any of these ‘mobilization’ tricks had an impact but what the experience did teach us is that there is a need for greater investment in creating parental ownership towards the school and its everyday activities.

Second, and perhaps more important, we found that the greatest barrier to collective action is that parents simply do not believe in the efficacy of the Parent Teacher Associations (PTA’s) or other community based forms of participation. And this is probably a consequence of bitter experience. I have mentioned in a previous blog the story of Dhaba where the PTA came together and took a decision to fix a leaky roof with their school grants. But the school grant arrived much after the monsoon and the PTA found that it had very few avenues to go to in order to resolve this problem. So where’s the incentive to participate?

And it is not just about money. Parent Teacher Associations (and Village Education Committees and other similar organizations) simply have no teeth. For instance, it is widely acknowledged that the largest problem face by India’s elementary education system is teacher absenteeism and poor teaching quality. Yet, critical powers related to enforcing teacher accountability whether its appointment of teachers, distribution of salaries, imposition of penalties on errant teachers and so on are vested in the state administrative machinery. And as we know, the state administrative machinery is too far removed and has almost no incentive to regularly monitor teachers and hold them accountable for performance. So even if a PTA wanted to do engage with the school and demand accountability, in the current system they have no powers to do so. So why should they bother? Would you?

In this context, Geeta Kingdon makes another interesting observation. She argues that the large socio-economic distance between teachers and the general population can also make it difficult for mobilizing collective action through the PTA’s. Kingdon estimates that in a state like Uttar Pradesh, post the implementation of the 6th pay commission, the ratio between teacher’s salaries and state per capita income is 17:1! Since rural per capita GDP is even lower than average state per capita GDP, the distance between teachers and parents in rural areas is probably even higher. In such a situation is collective action for teacher accountability even feasible?

What the Sehore experience taught us is that the mere creation of local participatory institutions and provisioning of them with information does not in itself result in effective participation. Micro level participatory spaces like PTA’s need to be nurtured, resourced and empowered in order for them to mobilize collective action. More importantly they need to be embedded in a larger institutional structure where the entire delivery mechanism is geared to be responsive to PTA’s so that PTA’s have incentives to participate and engage with the government.

Yamini Aiyar is Director of the Accountability Initiative.

One World Trust: Accountability tools

The One World Trust and the International Research Centre of Canada have created a new online accountability database.  At present, the database has an inventory of around 200 tools, standards and processes. The dynamic interface and varied search functions allow users to focus on accountability issues that interest them and the system generates ideas (supported by sources and further reading) to improve accountability in this area. The database is continually growing and evolving as users comment on existing tools, add new tools, and provide further links and analysis.

Click here to access the database!