news details |
|
|
| Citizen-Centric Governance | | | The Government of India’s recent announcement in Parliament regarding the resolution of nearly 26.45 lakh public grievances out of over 29 lakh received in 2024 is a significant milestone in governance.
The figures, drawn from the Centralised Public Grievance Redress and Monitoring System (CPGRAMS), underscore the government’s resolve to create an accountable and responsive administrative system. While the high resolution rate is commendable, it also raises pertinent questions about the quality of grievance redressal, systemic inefficiencies, and the need for sustained improvements.
Launched as part of India’s e-governance initiatives, CPGRAMS has emerged as a vital tool for citizens to seek redress for their grievances against government departments. This online platform ensures that complaints are tracked in real-time, thereby increasing transparency and reducing bureaucratic delays. The impressive resolution rate of over 90% in 2024 demonstrates the efficiency of this mechanism and reflects the government’s emphasis on citizen-centric governance.
However, merely resolving complaints numerically does not necessarily indicate genuine satisfaction among citizens. The effectiveness of grievance redressal should not be measured solely by closure rates but also by qualitative assessments, including citizen feedback and the time taken to address complaints. The challenge lies in ensuring that grievances are not just closed on paper but are resolved in a manner that brings tangible relief to the complainant.
While the government deserves credit for its proactive approach, it is imperative to analyze the nature of grievances and identify patterns that reveal systemic issues. Common complaints related to pensions, public distribution systems, income tax, banking services, and land disputes need structural reforms rather than just case-by-case resolution. Addressing the root causes of these grievances will significantly reduce the burden on the redressal system and improve governance outcomes.
Moreover, accountability mechanisms must be strengthened to prevent superficial resolutions. There have been instances where grievances were closed without meaningful action, often leading to citizens having to refile complaints. Independent audits, citizen satisfaction surveys, and third-party evaluations can help ensure that the system remains credible and effective.
The government’s efforts in grievance redressal through CPGRAMS are commendable, but continuous refinement is essential. A more transparent, accountable, and citizen-friendly approach will ensure that digital governance is not just about statistics but about meaningful transformation in service delivery. Moving forward, the focus should be on enhancing the quality of resolutions, reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies, and institutionalizing mechanisms that address the root causes of grievances. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
