The Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) oversees implementation of administrative reforms and helps citizens file grievances concerning public services provided by the government. It came into being in its present form in 1985, as a department under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension.

DARPG implements recommendations made by the Second Administrative Reforms Commission, formed in 2005. The second ARC made a number of recommendations in the 15 reports it submitted, related to various issues like e-Governance, Right to Information and others.

DARPG is the hub for public grievances. It coordinates with other central government ministries and state governments, helping them draw their citizen’s charters.

In 1947, after India gained independence from British rule, approximately 50 committees examined administrative reforms in India and made recommendations.

While India inherited the British system of administration and its bloated bureaucracy, the needs of post-independence India were substantially different. The British model was mainly oriented toward maintaining law and order, perpetuating colonialism and collecting revenue.  

The new Indian state took the form of a federal democracy. Hence, the administration had to be in sync with the model in which the central government and states have complementary duties. At the same time, the welfare of the citizens, especially of the previously suppressed and backward castes and classes, assumed importance.

The government in 1948 set up the Economy Committee. Headed by Kasturbhai Lalbhai, a famous industrialist, the committee suggested ways to streamline the administration and eliminate unnecessary spending. It also mooted the idea of an Organization and Methods department.

In 1950, N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, a civil servant, submitted another report to the government called the Report on Reorganization of Government Machinery. Ayyangar also pushed for the O&M Department under the control of Home Ministry to improve the functioning of public administration.

A retired colonial era bureaucrat, A. D. Gorwala, presented another report on public administration in India in 1951. In his report, Gorwala also advocated establishing the O&M department.

The O&M department was finally set up in 1954, based on further recommendations by an American expert, Paul H. Appleby, who presented two reports in 1953 and 1956. He also pushed for establishing the Indian Institute of Public Administration to teach public administration in the country.

In 1964, the Department of Administrative Reforms was established under the control of Home Ministry. That same year, Administrative Reforms assumed control of the O&M Department.

It took the department two decades to achieve its current form. In 1985, it was designated as the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances, one of the three departments under the Ministry of Public Grievances, Personnel and Pensions.  

The first Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) ran from 1966 to 1970. It made more than 500 recommendations, touching upon issues of personnel management, citizens’ grievances, and relations between states and the central government. It was first headed by Korari Desai, and later, K. Hanumanthaiah. The first ARC also recommended ombudsmen to check corruption at both center and states called Lokpal and Lokayuktas.

The second ARC was set up in 2005 by the first United Progressive Alliance government, and was led by Veerappa Moily. The second ARC responded to India’s changing circumstances. Since liberalization in the early 1990s, the Indian government has moved towards greater privatization of economy. This meant a re-examination of the modus operandi of providing welfare to the people and the devising regulations to control private business. At the same time, the decentralization in governance has been the new agenda, with the passing of the Constitutional (73 Amendment) Act in 1992, which sought to promote “democracy at the grassroots level.”

The second ARC submitted 15 reports on topics like right to information, local governance, and e-governance, among others.

The Department of Administrative Reforms is responsible for executing four key measures, based on the recommendations of the second ARC.  

The first is to push for administrative reforms. This means the department works towards implementation of the 1,005 recommendations of the second ARC accepted by the government. It is also responsible for the Prime Minister’s Awards for Excellence in Public Administration, given annually to deserving bureaucrats on April 21, Civil Services Day.

The second is to popularize e-governance. This is to be done by instituting e-offices in government departments, organizing seminars for the purpose, and to provide training under the National e-Governance Plan. The Department for Administrative Reforms runs the e-Office Mission Mode Program under the NeGP.

Thirdly, the department promotes the Sevottam model it has developed to help improve public service. Under the this model, all government offices maintain a Citizens’ Charter, which delineates the services provided by any department. All services must meet a certain standard and be delivered within a stipulated time period. Sevottam also includes a Public Grievance Redress Mechanism. The department helps states put in place the Centralized Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring Systems.

Finally, the department builds partnerships with other BRICS countries like Brazil, China, and South Africa to develop understanding and practices related to public administration. It also holds seminars and conferences to discuss issues related to public administration.

The department is divided into separate sections for fulfilling different responsibilities:

Administration and Co-ordination

This section ensures work in government offices is completed according to regulation. It helps the state governments to do the same. Administration and Co-ordination also handles RTI requests.

Administrative Reforms

Administrative Reforms ensures that the second ARC’s recommendations are implemented at all levels of government. It also informs the cabinet and the parliamentary standing committees of the pace of this implementation. Additionally, it organizes the Civil Services Day, the Annual Conference of Chief Secretaries and gives away the Prime Ministers Awards for Excellence in Public Administration.

Documentation and Dissemination

The section documents and evangelizes attempts to improve governance in the country. It holds conferences, and publishes books and newsletters for the purpose.

e-Governance

This section promotes governance through the help of Information and Communication Technology. The department founded the National Institute for Smart Government in Hyderabad to develop the concept. The section also documents the most innovative e-Governance practices, which are available at the Government Knowledge Centre.  

Public Grievances

The section handles public and staff grievances. The Centralized Public Grievances Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS) is the Web-based model devised by the section, which is implemented in central government offices and two state offices – Orissa and Haryana.

Citizen’s Charter

The department initiated the process to formulate a citizen’s charter after 1997, following recommendations from a chief minister’s conference in New Delhi. The department followed the British model established 1991, setting baseline expectations for ministries. This is especially important for ministries like Railways, Telecom and Posts, which frequently deal with the public.

As per the latest figures, 107 citizen’s charters have been put in place by various central government ministries and state governments have established an additional 629. The charters include mechanisms to address grievances. They also incorporate the expectations of public, vis-à-vis public services. The department launched a website in 2002, which showcases the different charters operational in various central government ministries.

The department receives $9 million for its expenses. Out of this amount, approximately half goes for salaries. The other expenses include medical treatment, domestic and foreign travel, publication and other administrative expenses.

Electoral Disputes Decided at a Snail’s Pace

The second ARC recommended the formation of special tribunals for trying cases dealing with electoral disputes. This was because the delay in deciding such matters, with the usual slow pace of India’s judicial process, often exceeds the legislative body’s term. With the matter of the Home Minister P. Chidambaram’s election in 2009 parliamentary elections being tried in Madras High Court for alleged irregularities, the press called for a quick trial, based on the second ARC’s recommendation. But three years after Chidambaram’s election, the Madras High recently ruled that the case would proceed.

2009 LS Poll Case: HC Rejects Chidambaram's Plea (by Meenakshi Mahadevan and Veeraraghav, CNN-IBN)

Faster Implementation of Administrative Reforms

Some sections of society feel aggrieved with the pace of India’s administrative reforms. The overall state of public administration in India, known for its inaccessibility and corruption, is linked to this slow pace. In a case before the Supreme Court, several high-ranking former civil servants demanded the creation of an independent board to deal with promotions, punishments and to ensure the appointment can no longer be used to reward political allies or punish political foes.

ARC Recommendations to be Implemented with Speed, Says Prime Minister; RTI Act to be Improved (Babus of India)

How to Select the Chief Election Commissioner

In June 2012, Senior BJP leader Lal Krishna Advani wrote to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh suggesting that the chief election commissioner should not be selected by the central government, but rather through a broad-based group comprising representatives of other political parties and the Chief Justice of Supreme Court.

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission, set up in 2005, essentially recommended the exact same course of action. 

This debate isn’t new. The matter first arose in a meeting of the Constituent Assembly after Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s drafting of India’s constitution in 1949. The draft bill stated that the president would appoint the chief election commissioner, according to the Prime Minister Nehru’s advice. It was opposed on the grounds that such an appointment would allow the ruling party to control the CEC. Responding to this charge, Ambedkar accepted that such a possibility existed. He modified the provision so both the ruling government and the opposition would appoint the CEC. Subsequent governments, however, haven’t adhered to the provision.  

Pro-Selection of CEC by Government

The thrust of this argument is that since the present system is working well, there is no need to tamper with it. After Advani wrote to the prime minister in June 2012, Congress leader Harish Rawat said that the present selection committee was satisfactory and shouldn’t be changed. Commenting on the issue, Samajwadi Party leader and UPA II coalition member Shahid Siddiqui praised the election commission and its way of functioning, while dismissing the need for a non-partisan overhaul.

Against Selection of CEC by Government

A committee to recommend electoral reforms was established in 1974 by Jayaprakash Narayan, the Congress leader whose opposition to Prime Minister Indira Gandhi brought about the Emergency. The chairman of the committee was Justice V.M. Tarkunde. The Tarkunde Committee report recommended that members of the Election Commission “should be appointed by the President on the advice of a Committee, consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition (or a Member of Parliament selected by the Opposition) in the Lok Sabha, and the Chief Justice of India.”

After assuming power in 1977, the Janata Party government didn’t change this process, even though the Emergency was lifted. Subsequent governments also didn’t enact this reform.

In 1990, Prime Minister V.P. Singh again constituted a committee on electoral reforms, under  Law Minister Dinesh Goswami. The committee recommended that the “appointment of the CEC should be made by the President in consultation with the Chief Justice of India and the Leader of the Opposition.”

The National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution was set up by the BJP government in 2000. It recommended that the CEC should be selected “on the recommendation of a body consisting of the Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.”

It’s ironic that Advani is again pushing the changes. The BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government, in which Advani served as deputy prime minister, also didn’t change the provision.

Background

Think Big on Small Issues (State Times)

Advani Demands Collegium for Appointments to Constitutional Bodies (by Sandeep Joshi, The Hindu)

Appointment of Election Commissioners (by Era Sezhiyan, The Hindu)

Citizen’s Charter in the Lokpal bill

Team Anna Hazare, the prominent anti-corruption crusaders, are demanding that Citizen’s Charter should be made a part of the Lokpal bill. The government, however, has already introduced a bill called “The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011.” The bill rules that every government department publishes a Citizen’s Charter and act on public grievances within 30 days or action will be initiated against the concerned official. The government had earlier showed willingness to include Citizen’s Charter as part of the Lokpal bill.

Pro-Inclusion of Citizen’s Charter in Lokpal Bill

Proponents of including the Citizen’s Charter in the Lokpal bill believe the government’s bill overly centralizes grievance redress. According to Team Anna, their alternative bill decentralizes the process. Arvind Kejriwal, Team Anna’s key ideologue, told the press that including Citizen’s Charter in the Lokpal bill would free citizens from having to bribe corrupt officials to do their job. Team Anna’s Janlokpal bill hands control of the mechanism to the Lokpal.

Against Inclusion of Citizen’s Charter in Lokpal Bill

Supporters of excluding the Citizen’s Charter in the Lokpal suggest that the large volume of complaints likely to be received would make the Lokpal’s job unfeasible. The government, through a committee headed by Congress party member Abhishek Manu Singhvi, stated in a report that Citizen’s Charter could be dealt with through separate legislation:

“One of the prime reasons for this separation, as cited by various witnesses, was that the institution of Lokpal would be severely burdened and become unworkable if it also included the jurisdiction of handling public grievances. Public Grievances Redressal, fortified through a Citizens Charter, would necessarily invite millions of complaints on a daily basis and it was, therefore, critical that a separate mechanism was set up more akin to the Right to Information structure. The other major reason for keeping the Grievance Redressal Mechanism separate is that these are qualitatively different and easily severable from the issue of corruption in political and bureaucratic circles.”

Background

What the Jan Lokpal Bill has in it about Anna's Three Demand (IBN Live)

‘Government has not Conceded Anything’ (by Subhash Kashyap, Frontline)

Anna Bill Bends Govt Will (by Deepak K Upreti, Deccan Herald)

Citizen's Charter Bill Tabled in Lok Sabha, Team Anna Spells Out Why It Won't Work (by Anchal Vohra, NDTV)

Centre Introduces Citizens Charter Bill in the Lok Sabha (India Today)

Include Citizen’s Charter in Lokpal Bill: Team Anna  (Press Trust India)
48th Lokpal Report (Rajya Sabha) (pdf)