The aim of citizen’s charter is not –

Correct — option (4), To create effective hearing system of public demands.

The stem asks which is not an aim of a citizen's charter, so three options must be aims and one must belong to a different instrument.

A citizen's charter is a public statement by a department: which services it provides, the standard and time limit it promises for each, and where a citizen can complain if the promise is broken. That makes quality, time-bound delivery (option (1)), citizen-friendly governance (option (2)) and accountable government (option (3)) its aims.

Option (4), To create effective hearing system of public demands, describes building a separate machinery — officers who hear people's demands and complaints within a fixed time and decide them. A charter points citizens to an avenue of grievance redress; it does not create a hearing system.

Rajasthan created that machinery by a separate law, the Rajasthan Right to Hearing Act, 2012, with Public Hearing Officers and appeals.

The idea to remember: a charter declares standards; a hearing law builds the forum. DARPG's Sevottam model also keeps them apart, treating the Citizen's Charter and Public Grievance Redress as separate modules.

Why the others are wrong

• (1)
  Quality and time frame service delivery — This is the core of a charter, so it cannot be the "not an aim" option.

  When India adopted charters in 1997, each was to state standards of service and time limits for delivery. A charter tells the citizen what quality to expect and by when, which is what this option describes.

• (2)
  Citizen friendly governance — A charter is written for the citizen. It lists the services, what the department expects from citizens and whom to approach, so that dealing with a department is less opaque.

  That makes citizen-friendly, citizen-centric administration an aim of the charter, not something outside it.

• (3)
  Accountable Government — Publishing a standard creates a yardstick. Once a department states a time limit and a quality level, its performance can be checked against that promise.

  That is why accountability is an aim of the charter. The charter also names the avenue for grievance redress, which is the channel for holding the department to its promise.

A Citizen's Charter is a document in which a public organisation publicly commits to standards for its services. It typically sets out the services offered, the standard and time limit for each, what the organisation expects from citizens, and where to complain if the standard is not met.

The idea began in the United Kingdom in 1991, under Prime Minister John Major. India adopted it in 1997, and the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances (DARPG) coordinates charters for the Government of India.

A charter by itself is a declaration, not a law that a citizen can enforce. Enforceable rights came through separate statutes. Rajasthan passed the Rajasthan Guaranteed Delivery of Public Services Act, 2011 for time-bound services, and the Rajasthan Right to Hearing Act, 2012 for a time-bound hearing on complaints.

Key facts

• The Citizen's Charter idea began in the United Kingdom in 1991, under Prime Minister John Major.
• India adopted Citizen's Charters at a Conference of Chief Ministers on 24 May 1997, under an Action Plan for Effective and Responsive Government.
• Charters were to include standards of service, time limits for delivery and avenues of grievance redress.
• DARPG's Sevottam model has three modules: Citizen's Charter, Public Grievance Redress, and Service Delivery Capability.
• The Rajasthan Right to Hearing Act, 2012 (Act No. 22 of 2012) received the Governor's assent on 21 May 2012 and provides a hearing on complaints within stipulated time limits.

Common traps

• A charter does name an avenue for grievance redress, so option (4) can look like an aim. Naming where to complain is not the same as creating a hearing system for public demands.
• A charter is a declaration, not an enforceable law. Enforceable rights to a service or a hearing come from separate statutes such as Rajasthan's 2011 and 2012 Acts.
• In a "not" question, three options are true of the subject. Test each option against the charter's own job before choosing, rather than picking the one that sounds least familiar.

UnlockIAS will link similar questions from RAS Pre 2021 and 2016 here once those papers are published on this site.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  In India, the decision that the Central and State Governments would formulate Citizen's Charters was taken at –

  • (a)the Conference of Chief Ministers held in May 1997
  • (b)the First Administrative Reforms Commission set up in 1966
  • (c)a meeting of the National Development Council in 1991
  • (d)the Conference of Chief Secretaries held in 2005
  Answer(1) — The Conference of Chief Ministers on 24 May 1997 adopted an Action Plan for Effective and Responsive Government that included Citizen's Charters.

  Option (2) is wrong because the charter idea began in the United Kingdom only in 1991, long after 1966. Option (3) fails because India's decision came in 1997, not 1991. Option (4) fails because charters were already being formulated from 1997, well before 2005.

• practice — not a real PYQ

  The Rajasthan Right to Hearing Act, 2012 gives a citizen –

  • (a)access to information held by public authorities
  • (b)an opportunity of hearing on a complaint within a stipulated time limit
  • (c)delivery of notified public services within a fixed time
  • (d)a hearing on service matters of retired public servants
  Answer(2) — The Act defines the right to hearing as an opportunity of hearing on a complaint within the stipulated time limit.

  Option (1) is the Right to Information Act, 2005. Option (3) is the Rajasthan Guaranteed Delivery of Public Services Act, 2011. Option (4) fails because the Act's definition of a complaint excludes service matters of public servants, serving or retired.