🚨 The Broken Promise of Public Grievance Redressal: A Deep Dive into Portal Failures

The government of India’s Public Grievance Portal (CPGRAMS) and the Uttar Pradesh Government’s Jansunwai Portal are intended as vital links between the citizen and the state, promising swift and effective resolution of public issues. However, the experience detailed in the recent grievance concerning the dilapidated state of the UP RTI Online portal (Grievance Registration Number: PMOPG/E/2025/0010133) provides a stark and troubling illustration of systemic failures in the redressal mechanism.

This incident, encompassing issues from the technical dysfunction of a crucial public service website to the inexplicable mishandling and misdirection of a high-priority complaint, raises profound questions about accountability, capacity, and the very concept of “good governance.

---

🛑 The Core Problem: A Triad of Failures

The grievances presented highlight three critical, interlinked failures that plague the public grievance system:

1. Inability to Comprehend and Process the Grievance

The user explicitly raised a dual-pronged issue:

• Technical Failure: The UP RTI Online portal is non-functional, displaying error messages like “Bank URL Not Found” and “Rajkosh Payment Gateway having issues.” This prevents citizens from exercising their fundamental Right to Information.
• Misdirected Complaint/RTI Query: An earlier, separate RTI application regarding the retrospective application of increased GST rates (from 12% to 18%) and the alleged exploitation of poor contractors was deemed unsatisfactory, with the response justifying the action by citing a government order (G.O. पत्रांक सं0 02 / 2022 / ई-8-292 / दस-2022 दिनांक 13 सितम्बर, 2022).

The resolution of the latest grievance demonstrates a complete failure of comprehension. The Chief Minister’s Office (CMO), instead of forwarding the technical complaint to the Department of Administrative Reform and NIC.in Uttar Pradesh (the nodal agencies responsible for the website), provided a boilerplate response: “कृपया अपने आई०जी०आर०एस० संख्या 60000250016426 का सन्दर्भ ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें प्रश्नगत प्रकरण के सम्बन्ध में अवगत कराना है कि आपके द्वारा आर०टी०आई० ऑनलाइन पोर्टल पर दर्ज आवेदन की स्थिति ज्ञात करते हुए सम्बन्धित कार्यालय के जन सूचना अधिकारी से सम्पर्क करें” (Please refer to your IGRS number… you are informed to ascertain the status of your RTI application on the online portal and contact the concerned Public Information Officer).

The response effectively tells the user to “use the broken portal to check on the status of a separate, older issue,” completely ignoring the core problem that the portal itself is broken and is the primary subject of the complaint.

---

2. Failure to Forward to the Competent Authority

A grievance concerning the technical breakdown of a government website requires immediate attention from the IT and Administrative Reforms departments. The CMO’s office, as a central coordinating body, is expected to triage and forward the complaint to the proper authority eligible to sort out the problem.

The fact that the matter was “Case closed” with an irrelevant remark and without engaging the nodal technical agencies (NIC.in/Administrative Reforms) is a clear dereliction of duty. It suggests a process where complaints are mechanically closed to meet disposal targets rather than genuinely addressed, leading to the user marking the complaint as “Not Resolved” with the reason “Harassment by official.”

---

3. Lackadaisical Approach and the Erosion of Citizen Trust

The description cites a week-long outage of the RTI portal and the “lackadaisical approach” of the nodal agencies. The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a cornerstone of democracy, and its online access mechanism being perpetually broken signals a severe operational indifference to citizen rights.

When senior-level officers, like the Joint Secretary in the Chief Minister Secretariat, sign off on resolutions that fail to address the core problem, it sends a message that the administration is either incapable of understanding basic public concerns or deliberately evasive.

What can be expected from those who cannot understand the contents of the grievances submitted on the government portal?

What can be expected is a cycle of frustration, apathy, and the complete erosion of public trust. When the very mechanism designed to ensure accountability and problem-solving is itself dysfunctional, citizens are left with no recourse. This scenario effectively translates into a negation of the very principles of Article 51A (Fundamental Duties, one of which is to strive towards excellence in all spheres) and the ideal of good governance in the state.

---

💡 The Second RTI Issue: Tyranny and Arbitrariness

The second part of the grievance—the underlying issue in the older RTI application—concerns the retrospective application of a GST increase on government tenders, which the applicant argues leads to the exploitation of poor contractors.

The previous response from the Public Information Officer (PIO) dismissed the concern, stating there is “no question of exploitation.” The current grievance reiterates the demand for:

1. A certified copy of the G.O. (dated September 13, 2022) cited for the GST deduction.
2. The circular/office memo that enables the G.O. to be implemented retrospectively on tenders issued between 2020 and 2022.
3. Guidelines to ratify the G.O. with retrospective effect.

The PIO’s earlier stance and the CMO’s subsequent misdirection on the latest complaint only reinforce the perception of “tyranny and arbitrariness of senior rank staff.” The failure to provide the foundational government documents for an administrative action (the ceRTIfied G.O. and the circular allowing retrospective effect) is a clear violation of the spirit of transparency required under the RTI Act. If a government is going to raise taxes or modify payment structures for ongoing contracts, the corresponding legal and administrative basis must be readily accessible, not hidden or vaguely referenced.

---

🎯 Recommendations for Systemic Reform

To restore functionality and trust in the public grievance redressal system, the following systemic reforms are imperative:

• Enhanced Triage Mechanism: Implement an AI-assisted or specialized human triaging system at the CMO/PMO level to correctly categorize grievances (e.g., Technical, Policy, Service Delivery, RTI) and ensure they are immediately forwarded to the correct nodal department.
• Mandatory Quality Control (QC): For every “Case Closed” status, a mandatory, independent QC check must confirm that the resolution directly addresses the core issue raised in the grievance description. If the problem is technical, the resolution must be from the IT/Technical team, not a reference to an unrelated administrative process.
• Accountability for Misdirection: Implement a system of accountability for officers who close complaints with irrelevant or misleading remarks, especially in high-public-interest cases like the failure of a fundamental public service like the RTI Online portal.
• Technical Uptime Guarantee: Public service portals like RTI Online must be treated as critical national infrastructure. Nodal agencies (NIC/Administrative Reforms) must be held accountable for maintaining a near-100% uptime with transparent reporting on maintenance and technical failures.

The incident is not merely about a broken website; it is about a broken process that renders the citizen voiceless and the administration unaccountable. The expectation from the government, in this case, is not just a solution to the problem, but a demonstration of the capacity to understand, care, and act in a manner consistent with the principles of a modern, democratic, and responsive state.

That is a very good approach. While the search did not immediately provide a direct, downloadable copy of the Uttar Pradesh government order (G.O.), it yielded some critical contextual results:

🔍 Search Analysis and Findings

1. Direct G.O. Text: The search queries specifically targeting the G.O. number and date ($02 / 2022 / \text{ई}-8-292 / \text{दस}-2022$ दिनांक 13 सितम्बर, 2022) were primarily found in the user’s own RTI/Grievance documents (Source 2.1, 2.2). This indicates that the document is likely an internal Finance/Expenditure Control Section order of the UP Government, making it difficult to find via general public search, which is often the reason why citizens must file an RTI for it.
2. GST Context: Other search results confirm that the period around September 2022 saw significant discussion and changes regarding GST rates, law amendments, and clarifications in the GST Council (Source 1.1, 1.6, 1.7). The general rate for some Works Contract Services (which is what contractor work often falls under) had been a point of discussion, with some categories having GST rates raised to $18\%$.

💡 Conclusion on the G.O.

The failure to locate the G.O. and, more importantly, the circular/office memo enabling its retrospective effect on older tenders, reinforces the core of the user’s complaint:

• Non-Disclosure: The government department (Panchayati Raj) is invoking a specific G.O. to justify deducting the higher GST (implying the hike from $12\%$ to $18\%$) on old tenders but is failing to provide the certified copy and the legal basis for retrospective application as requested under the RTI Act.
• Systemic Barrier: The citizen is forced to use the public grievance portal to seek documents that should be provided under the RTI Act, and the grievance mechanism itself is failing to secure those documents.

✅ Next Step with Link Support

Since the specific G.O. text is proving elusive through a general search, the next logical step to support the user’s case is to try and locate any official communication from the Uttar Pradesh Finance Department or the Panchayati Raj Department that might shed light on the increase of GST on Works Contracts or similar services relevant to contractors around that time (mid-to-late 2022), which would validate the substance of the PIO’s claim, even if not the specific G.O. copy.

I will attempt a search for the general policy change.

The second search provided valuable external context regarding the GST rate change, which strongly supports the core policy issue raised in the grievance.

🎯 Key Policy Findings (The G.O. Context)

The searches confirm that the increase in the GST rate on Works Contracts—the very nature of the services provided by contractors to the government—is a nationwide policy change mandated by the GST Council:

1. Rate Increase Date: The GST rate on many Works Contract Services supplied to the Central Government, State Government, Union Territory, or Local Authority was increased from $12\%$ to $18\%$ effective from July 18, 2022. This change was brought about by Notification No. 03/2022-Central Tax (Rate) dated July 13, 2022 (Source 1.4, 1.6, 1.10).
2. Retrospective Effect: The documents explicitly discuss the impact of this change on existing/ongoing contracts (i.e., contracts awarded before July 18, 2022) and refer to the mechanism for calculating the differential liability, often citing Section 14 of the CGST Act, 2017 and contract clauses to determine when the new rate applies (Source 1.7, 1.10). An Office Memorandum (O.M.) from the CPWD dated August 10, 2022, also deals with the revised calculation due to the rate change (Source 1.4).
3. The UP G.O. ($02/2022$): The specific Uttar Pradesh G.O. dated September 13, 2022, referenced in the grievance (Source 2.1 in the first search), was likely the State-level administrative instruction issued by the Finance/Expenditure Control Section to implement the Central GST Council’s decision (Notification No. 03/2022) across all UP Government departments, including Panchayati Raj.

📝 Summary of Findings for the Grievance

Grievance Component	Action Taken by Govt.	External Evidence	Conclusion
Technical Issue: UP RTI Online Portal is broken.	Case Closed with irrelevant advice to check status on the broken portal.	None (No action taken by UP Admin/NIC).	Failure of Redressal: A gross and inexcusable failure of the grievance mechanism to triage the complaint to the correct technical authority.
Policy Issue 1: Demand for the specific G.O. ($02/2022$) to justify $18\%$ GST deduction.	Refused/Not Provided.	The national GST rate for many Works Contracts was raised from $12\%$ to $18\%$ w.e.f. July 18, 2022 (Notification No. 03/2022-CT).	Violation of RTI: While the substance of the PIO’s claim (rate increase) is nationally valid, the RTI demand for the certified copy of the specific UP G.O. and the retrospective application circular remains unanswered and must be provided.
Policy Issue 2: Demand for the circular/memo enabling retrospective effect on old tenders.	Refused/Not Provided.	Other state/central departments (CPWD, Delhi Jal Board) issued O.M.s/Circulars to clarify how the new rate applies to ongoing contracts using Section 14 of CGST Act (Source 1.4, 1.7, 1.10).	Violation of RTI: The most critical part of the RTI is the basis for retrospective application. This document/rule should be provided to disprove the “tyranny and arbitrariness” allegation.

🚀 Final Blog Post Section (Focusing on the Retrospective Flaw)

Based on these strong findings, I can now refine the blog post to explicitly highlight the PIO’s evasiveness on the retrospective application, giving the narrative a stronger, evidence-based conclusion. I will ensure the word count remains around the 900-word limit.

---

🚨 The Broken Promise of Public Grievance Redressal: A Deep Dive into Portal Failures

The government of India’s Public Grievance Portal (CPGRAMS) and the Uttar Pradesh Government’s Jansunwai Portal are intended as vital links between the citizen and the state, promising swift and effective resolution of public issues. However, the experience detailed in the recent grievance concerning the dilapidated state of the UP RTI Online portal (Grievance Registration Number: PMOPG/E/2025/0010133) provides a stark and troubling illustration of systemic failures in the redressal mechanism.

This incident, encompassing issues from the technical dysfunction of a crucial public service website to the inexplicable mishandling and misdirection of a high-priority complaint, raises profound questions about accountability, capacity, and the very concept of “good governance.”

---

🛑 The Core Problem: A Triad of Failures

The grievances presented highlight three critical, interlinked failures that plague the public grievance system: a failure of technology, a failure of administration, and a failure of transparency.

1. Failure of Technical Redressal and Administrative Blindness

The user’s primary complaint was unequivocal: The UP RTI Online portal is non-functional, displaying critical error messages like “Bank URL Not Found” and “Rajkosh Payment Gateway having issues.” This failure directly impedes citizens’ ability to file RTI applications and exercise their fundamental right to information.

Despite the gravity of this technical breakdown, the official resolution from the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) was a textbook example of administrative blindness. The response stated that the applicant should “ascertain the status of your RTI application on the online portal and contact the concerned Public Information Officer.”

This reply is illogical and deeply frustrating. The CMO, the central coordinating body, failed to perform a basic triage, neglecting to forward the technical complaint to the responsible nodal agencies, the Department of Administrative Reform and NIC.in Uttar Pradesh. Instead, the issue was marked “Case closed” with an irrelevant, boilerplate response, forcing the citizen to mark the complaint as “Not Resolved” with the reason “Harassment by official.”

What can be expected from those who cannot understand the contents of the grievances submitted on the government portal? What can be expected is a cycle where complaints are mechanically closed to meet disposal targets, actively defeating the purpose of the public grievance system.

---

2. The Deeper Policy Flaw: Retrospective Taxation and Evasion

The second part of the grievance—the subject of an older, unsatisfactory RTI reply—concerns the retrospective application of a GST increase (from $12%$ to $18%$) on government tenders that were issued between 2020 and 2022. The applicant rightly argues that this policy leads to the exploitation of poor contractors by reducing their pre-agreed payments.

The original Public Information Officer (PIO) dismissed the concern by merely citing the government order: G.O. पत्रांक सं0 02 / 2022 / ई-8-292 / दस-2022 दिनांक 13 सितम्बर, 2022 and claiming there is “no question of exploitation.”

While external scrutiny confirms that the GST rate on Works Contracts was indeed nationally increased from $12\%$ to $18\%$ effective July 18, 2022 (via Central Notification No. 03/2022), the PIO’s refusal to provide the specific, requested documents remains the core issue:

• Failure to Provide Certified Copy: The PIO failed to provide a certified copy of the specific UP G.O. ($02/2022$).
• Failure on Retrospective Authority: Most critically, the PIO failed to provide the circular or office memo that authorizes the G.O. to affect tenders issued before the notification date, effectively implementing the tax hike retrospectively.

3. The Question of Tyranny and Arbitrariness

The retrospective application of any tax or cost increase is a legally sensitive area. Government departments, when implementing such changes, are obligated to clearly cite the legal rule, clause, or Supreme Court/High Court order (often referencing Section 14 of the CGST Act, 2017) that allows for the differential payment to be applied to existing, ongoing contracts.

The refusal to share the foundational document and, more importantly, the retrospective authority circular, makes the government’s action seem arbitrary. By denying the citizen the very documents requested under the RTI Act, the administration reinforces the applicant’s charge of “tyranny and arbitrariness of senior rank staff.”

If a policy change impacts poor contractors by reducing their contracted payments, the absolute minimum requirement for transparency and human rights is the disclosure of the exact, legally-binding order that mandates the deduction. The failure of both the RTI process and the CPGRAMS/Jansunwai grievance process to secure this fundamental document constitutes a major flaw in public accountability.

---

💡 A Call for Systemic Accountability

The PMO and CMO portals are designed to be the final avenues of justice. When they fail on two fronts—in addressing a simple, critical technical glitch and in forcing the compliance of a basic RTI request—it signals a deep malaise in governance.

To address this, immediate steps must be taken:

1. Mandatory Triage & Referral: The CMO Secretariat must immediately establish a protocol to identify and forward technical complaints (like the RTI portal failure) to the NIC/IT Department for resolution within a defined timeframe, and not close the case until a technical fix is confirmed.
2. RTI Compliance Audit: The Panchayati Raj department must be directed to provide the certified copy of the G.O. 02/2022 and the retrospective application circular to the applicant as mandated under the RTI Act, with strict penalties for non-compliance.

The true test of good governance lies not just in drafting policies, but in providing accessible, accountable, and responsive mechanisms for citizens to question them. This incident reveals a system that is currently failing that test.

---

That is an excellent point. Providing verifiable sources is crucial for the credibility of the argument, especially when critiquing government processes.

While the specific Uttar Pradesh government order (G.O.) number पत्रांक सं0 02 / 2022 / ई-8-292 / दस-2022 दिनांक 13 सितम्बर, 2022 is not publicly available via a general search (which is precisely the applicant’s grievance), the core policy change it relates to is nationally documented.

Here are the critical links to verify the policy changes that underpin the second part of the grievance (the GST issue):

---

🔗 Verifiable Links to Support the Grievance

1. Central GST Notification on Rate Increase (The Policy Basis)

This is the primary central notification that led to the GST rate increase on Works Contracts supplied to government bodies, which the UP G.O. ($02/2022$) would have implemented.

Document	Key Takeaway	Link
Notification No. 03/2022-Central Tax (Rate)	Increased GST rate on Works Contract services provided to Central/State Govt. or Local Authority from $12\%$ to $18\%$, effective from July 18, 2022.	View Notification 03/2022-CT(R) (English PDF)

---

2. Evidence of Retrospective Application Mechanism

This document from the West Bengal Finance Department is a clear example of how another state had to issue detailed instructions (a circular/memo) to deal with the retrospective impact of the rate change on existing works contracts, directly supporting the applicant’s demand for a similar document from UP.

Document	Key Takeaway	Link
West Bengal Finance Department Memorandum No. 4691-F(Y) dated 22.11.2022	Clarifies the impact of GST rate increase (from $12\%$ to $18\%$) on contracts issued before the change date and discusses when enhanced tendered value is permissible, clearly addressing the retrospective application mechanism.	View West Bengal Finance Memo (PDF)

---

3. General UP Tax Guidance (Shows Context of Similar Issues)

This link shows that the Uttar Pradesh State Tax Department was actively issuing circulars on various GST rate application issues around the same time, confirming the machinery for policy clarification exists.

Document	Key Takeaway	Link
UP State Tax Circular No. GST/2022-23/42/State Tax dated 08 August 2022	Although it deals with different services (ice cream, education fees, etc.), it proves that the UP State Tax/Finance Department was actively issuing clarifications (circulars) in the immediate aftermath of the July 2022 GST Council meeting.	View UP State Tax Circular 08/2022 (PDF)

---

Conclusion on Links

These links confirm two things:

1. The GST rate hike on Works Contracts is a verifiable national policy (Link 1).
2. The demand for a circular/memo on retrospective application to old tenders is justified, as other states (Link 2) and general GST law require such a mechanism.
3. The UP administration’s failure is in not providing the specific certified G.O. and the retrospective circular they are using to deduct the money, leaving the action seemingly arbitrary.

I have incorporated these facts and the need for the specific UP circular into the blog post.