Read Time: 08 minutes

On Tuesday, an Advocate & social-political activist Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in Supreme Court under Article 32 of Indian Constitution seeking appropriate writ order or direction to Centre and all States to implement a Citizen Charter in every Public Service Department to ensure time bound delivery of Goods and Services.

In the alternative, a direction has been sought to the Law Commission of India to examine the Right of Citizens for Time-Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011 and Citizen Charter of developed countries and prepare a report within three months.

PIL states that the cause of action arose out of the failure of Centre in enacting a Citizen Charter Law till date, whereas, on 27.08.2011 both House of the Parliament unanimously adopted ‘Sense of the House Resolution’ to provide a Citizen Charter in every public service department to ensure time bound delivery of goods and services.

The aforementioned “Sense of House Resolution” reads as follows:

“This House agrees in principle on following three issues (i) Citizen Charter (ii) Lower Bureaucracy under Lokpal through an appropriate mechanism (iii) Establishment of Lokayuktas in the States; and further resolves to forward the proceedings of the House to Standing Committee on Law and Justice, while finalizing its report”.

Following the resolution, ‘The Right of Citizens for Time-Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011’ was introduced in the Parliament which was lapsed in 2014 due to dissolution of Loksabha. It makes it mandatory for authorities and departments to publish a Citizen Charter to address citizen’s grievances in a time-bound manner preferable within 30 days.

Mentioning that corruption is the key element in economic underperformance and major obstacle to poverty alleviation and development and that India ranked 86 in Corruption Perception Index, PIL alleged that despite all this Centre has failed to reintroduced the Bill,.

PIL further highlighted that,

“A Citizen Charter in every public department in letter and spirit of the “Sense of House Resolution” dated 27.8.2011, which is “Will of the Parliament and Will of People” will send a clear message that Centre is determined to prevent and control corruption. It will warn corrupt officials that betrayal of public trust will no longer be tolerated and also reaffirm importance of core values i.e., honesty, respect for rule of law, accountability, transparency in promoting development and making India a better place to live. Therefore, being protector of Rule of Law and Right to Life Liberty and Dignity, the Court may direct Centre to implement the Citizen Charter.”

According to the PIL filed, Transparency International recently conducted a study and found that around 62% Indians had first-hand experience of paying bribes or influence peddling to get jobs done in public offices successfully. In its 2008 study, it reports around 40% Indians had such experience. In 2012, India was ranked 94 in Corruption Perceptions Index and even in 2020, she ranked 86.

Because corruption is a big barrier in achieving the golden goals, as set out in Preamble of the Constitution, it is constitutional obligation of the Executive to guarantee time bound delivery of goods and services and redressal of citizen’s grievances related to corruption in a time bound manner. A Citizen Charter in every public service department is not only necessary to curb the corruption; but also, essential to achieve great golden goals set out in Preamble of the Constitution, petitioner stated.

Petitioner emphasizing the dire need of eradicating corruption pleaded that,

“Centre must reintroduce “The Right of Citizens for Time Bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of their Grievances Bill, 2011”, as eradication of corruption is not only necessary to secure Social Economic Justice but also essential to promote Fraternity assuring dignity of individual and Unity and national integration.”

Citing various Apex court Judgments and statements of Parliamentarians, the petitioner prayed the Supreme Court to invoke its power as provided under Article 32 in the widest terms to grant consequential relief to do full and complete justice even in favour of those persons who may not be before the Court or have not moved the Supreme Court.