Understanding Citizen’s Charters Through an RTI Case Example
A Citizen’s Charter is meant to define service standards, responsibilities of public authorities, and mechanisms for grievance redressal. Many government departments publish Citizen’s Charters to increase transparency and accountability. But does the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) follow one?
This article examines the concept of Citizen’s Charters in India, and uses a real Central Information Commission (CIC) case to illustrate how RTI can be used to seek such information.
Why Citizens Ask About the PMO’s Citizen’s Charter
Applicants often file RTIs to understand:
- Whether the PMO has adopted a Citizen’s Charter,
- What standards or timelines it commits to,
- Whether older policy proposals like the Citizen’s Charter Bill, 1997 or the Citizens’ Services Delivery Bill, 2011 made progress,
- How citizens can hold the PMO and its departments accountable.
In this case, the RTI applicant sought extensive information regarding Citizens’ Charter legislation and specifically asked for the Citizen’s Charter of the PMO.
Case Example: RTI Query About Citizen’s Charters and the PMO
The appellant filed an RTI with the Prime Minister’s Office seeking:
- Details and progress of the Citizens Charter Bill, 1997,
- Status of the Rights of Citizens for Time-bound Delivery of Goods and Services and Redressal of Grievances Bill, 2011,
- A copy of the Citizen’s Charter, if adopted PMO.
Because legislative matters and administrative reforms fall under the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG), the PMO transferred the RTI accordingly.
What Happened Before the CIC
During the CIC hearing:
- The appellant argued that the PIO did not mention the 1997 Bill at all, despite it being specifically asked about.
- He also pointed out that the Citizen’s Charter of the PMO was not provided.
- The respondent department maintained that they had provided all available information.
CIC’s Findings and Directions
The CIC directed the PIO to do the following:
1. Clarify Whether the Citizens Charter Bill, 1997 Ever Existed
The Commission asked the PIO to verify the existence of the 1997 Bill and provide all relevant history and documentation, if it was indeed drafted or introduced.
2. Provide the PMO’s Citizen’s Charter, If Adopted
The CIC instructed the PIO to obtain and supply the PMO’s Citizen’s Charter, if one had been formally adopted. If not adopted, the PIO was expected to state this clearly.
This reinforced a key principle under RTI:
Even if information is not available within the responding department, the PIO must make reasonable efforts to collect it from the appropriate source.
What This Means for RTI Applicants
This case highlights several important points for citizens who want to understand accountability mechanisms in top government offices:
1. Citizen’s Charters Are Not Uniform Across Offices
Some departments have clear, published charters; others do not. Applicants may need to seek clarification through RTI.
2. Historical or Abandoned Bills Can Still Be Requested
Even if a bill was draft-only or never tabled, the public has a right to know its status.
3. PIOs Must Proactively Collect Information
If another office (such as the PMO) holds the information, the PIO must obtain and provide it rather than simply deny it.
4. RTI Remains a Tool for Policy Transparency
Many reform proposals, including service delivery guarantees and time-bound grievance systems, can be understood only through RTI-based inquiries.
Conclusion
While it is unclear whether the PMO has formally adopted a Citizen’s Charter, this case shows that citizens can use the RTI Act to seek clarity. The CIC’s directions emphasize that transparency must extend to both historic legislative proposals and current administrative practices.
targeted questions and following up through appeals, applicants can hold even the highest government offices accountable.
