Ethics Theory, TLP-UPSC Mains Answer Writing
Q. 2. Citizen’s Charters are tools of participatory governance, yet often fail in their intended purpose. Critically examine their role in promoting accountability and ethical governance. (150 words, 10 marks)
Introduction
The Citizen’s Charter movement, inspired by the UK in the early 1990s, was introduced in India to promote responsive and citizen-centric governance. The 2nd ARC defines it as a voluntary declaration by service providers to uphold quality, timelines, and transparency, thus fostering trust and ethical accountability.
Body
Principles of the Citizen’s Charter (DARPG)
Role in Participatory Governance and Ethical Accountability
Citizen’s Charters empower citizens and institutionalize transparency by setting service expectations.
- Defines Service Standards: Citizens gain clarity on timelines and entitlements, ensuring predictability.
Example: Passport Seva Kendra commits to passport delivery within defined timelines. - Enables Informed Participation: By disseminating service information, it reduces dependence on intermediaries.
- Fixes Accountability Chains: Naming responsible officers for each service ensures answerability.
Example: Delhi Jal Board assigns officers for tanker delivery with escalation contact. - Promotes Citizen Empowerment: Encourages citizens to demand timely and quality services.
- Fosters Ethical Climate: Ensures moral commitment from public officials to serve citizens efficiently.
Example: Bengaluru One centres streamline citizen services with courteous, standardized delivery.
Limitations and Implementation Gaps
Despite its ideals, Citizen’s Charters often underperform due to systemic and structural deficiencies.
- Poor Design and Content: Many charters lack clarity, essential information, and measurable standards.
- Lack of Public Awareness: Citizens are often unaware of the commitments made in the charters.
- Inadequate Groundwork: Agencies fail to reform internal processes to meet the promises made in the charter.
Example: A CAG report on Karnataka noted delays due to mismatch between charter timelines and real capacities. - Resistance to Change: Organizational inertia and vested interests can hinder meaningful implementation.
- Neglect of Marginalized Groups: Charters often overlook the specific needs of senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and other vulnerable groups.
Example: A study on health charters in Tamil Nadu found no mention of disability-access provisions. - Rarely Updated: Many charters remain outdated, diminishing their relevance and effectiveness.
Example: Several central ministries had not revised their charters for over a decade, as per DARPG review.
Way Forward for Strengthening Impact
Bridging the design-implementation gap is essential to revive the Charter’s transformative potential.
- Outcome-Oriented Design: Charters must specify timelines, penalties, and citizen entitlements.
Example: Maharashtra’s RTS Act imposes penalties on officials for service delays. - Citizen Co-Creation: Draft charters with ground-level consultations to ensure practicality, as recommended by the 2nd ARC.
- Awareness and Grievance Integration: Promote visibility and embed charters in complaint systems.
Example: Sevottam model integrates service standards with grievance tracking dashboards. - Periodic Evaluation and Audit: Regular third-party assessments to identify gaps and improvements.
International Practice: The UK’s “Service First” framework ties charter compliance to regular performance audits and citizen satisfaction surveys. - Institutional Accountability: Link charter outcomes to performance appraisal of civil servants.
Example: Himachal Pradesh introduced performance-linked incentives for prompt delivery under Public Services Act.
Conclusion
- While Citizen’s Charters aim to institutionalize ethical and participatory governance, their impact remains limited. The Sevottam model addresses these gaps by embedding accountability, responsiveness, and continuous improvement into public service delivery.
