More than two decades after the event, the ghastly assassination of Rajiv Gandhi was once again an issue of discussion and debate. The occasion was the judgement of the Supreme Court to grant a reprieve, to the assassins or those who were part of the conspiracy. This was followed by the controversial decision of the Tamil Nadu government to free the convicted persons. While the unseemly haste with which the Tamil Nadu government acted was uncalled for and was definitely with a collateral purpose, there was no denying the fact that the Supreme Court was reacting to the inordinate delay that was caused in disposing of the mercy petitions of those who were to be sent to the gallows. If an authority with which discretion is vested declines to exercise its discretion either way and leaves a petition undecided for a period of 20 years, then the petitioner is entitled to succeed.
Let us take the case of the unfortunate accident involving two young officers on the naval submarine Sindhuratna. The media reports suggest that there is enormous delay in taking decisions with regard to acquisition of arms and modernising the armed forces. This has resulted in our armed forces operating with ageing equipment. If we are so callous about national security then one shudders to think what must be the fate of other files that gather dust in government departments. The irony is that a government which has been dilly-dallying in regard to acquisitions of arms and material was quick to lay the blame at the door of the Naval Chief, and accepted the Naval Chief’s resignation with alacrity.
Delay has become a part of public life. What is the reason for the snail’s pace in government functioning? Is it that all our bureaucrats are inefficient? I do not think so. While corruption has certainly affected administrative machinery, we do have a fair number of competent and upright public officers. Unfortunately, there seems to be a tendency to judge every decision of a bureaucrat in hindsight. If any incident occurs pursuant to an action of a public officer, the immediate response of a politician is to order an enquiry. By doing so the politician has satisfied public anger but the career of an official may be seriously affected. Consequently, the tendency of many officers is not to take any decision at all. Things have come to such a pass that if an authority acts in time and disposes of matters expeditiously this is looked upon with suspicion. It is almost as if, prompt action is taken only if there is a vested interest. While one must necessarily hold public officials accountable, we must learn to accept honest bonafide mistakes and stop hounding people for committing them. If that happens then decisions will be taken and delays will reduce.
Crossing timelines has become a norm particularly where a government official is involved. If we are to become an economic superpower which we aspire to be, and certainly deserve to be, this issue of delays needs to be addressed on a war footing. There will be a change if the attitude of those at the helm of affairs undergoes a change. If ministers stop brushing inconvenient problems under the carpet and start taking a firm view on various matters, things will change. Once this percolates downstream there will be greater accountability. One way would be to apply the law of limitation in favour of the applicant. If a decision on a petition or application is not taken within the time specified, that application or petition would be deemed to have been granted. Another solution could be that if the approval of a higher authority is pending on a decision taken by his junior, after a certain lapse of time, decision of the junior should be treated as having become final. There will have to be checks and balances when these approaches are incorporated in a statute or regulations but I think they can be built in.
While we are critical of government for the inordinate delays in decision making, we are not free from blame. Very recently I was the speaker at a program which was delayed to accommodate a politician. This resulted in delay of an hour, and apart from the inconvenience it caused me, one hour of more than 200 people in the audience was wasted which meant a loss of 200 man-hours. We must learn to respect the time of others which is an accepted norm the world over. I felt really sad when organising an international conference call, my colleague, warned me that the call was to take place at a schedule time and not ‘Indian Standard Time.’ While many of us do try to adhere to timelines, there are still others who treat the clock with disdain. While they are certainly entitled to their preferences in their private life, while interacting with others in public, delays should be a strict no-no.
And while we are on delays and timelines I realise that I have taken enough time of my readers. I will therefore stop here and return to my professional duties. After all time is money!
Anil J. Sathe
Editor
