Arvind Kejriwal-led Delhi government is again at loggerheads with the capital’s Lieutenant-Governor, Anil Baijal – this time over the proposal of doorstep delivery of 40 public services.

While Baijal had asked the government to “reconsider its proposal”, pointing out that in the age of digital delivery of services, doorstep delivery is not required, deputy CM Manish Sisodia hit back saying the scheme will be “Super Digital Delivery”.

The idea was to deliver 40 government services of eight different kinds, including revenue, transport and social welfare schemes, at the citizen’s doorstep. Initiating the process of availing these services would be as easy as ordering a pizza at home.

The Delhi Cabinet had approved the scheme on November 16 and was waiting for Baijal’s nod. A month later, as expected, the LG’s office returned the proposal.

As the political rumbling is all set to increase, and might just drown the real issue, Newslaundry explains what exactly the scheme is.

What is doorstep delivery of services?

What if getting your driving licence or changes made in a registration certificate becomes as easy as pizza delivery at home? You call a given number, a representative visits your home at a convenient time of your choosing and the process of getting the service starts from there. You don’t need to skip office or college to queue up at government offices for small changes to be made in official documents. So far, such kind of smooth functioning has remained a dream for Dilliwallahs. 

On November 16, Kejriwal’s cabinet in a “historic decision” approved the proposal for delivery of 40 services at people’s doorstep. The move was to make public services more accessible and reduce the burden on citizens. The idea was to provide services beyond the government office counter, at the citizen’s residence, through a chain of mobile sahayaks or representatives. The scheme included services pertaining to driving licences, availing of caste certificate, new water connection, old-age pension, widow pension, and updation of BPL ration (AAY) cardholders.

One just had to make a request to the call centre in order to pre-schedule a visit – even for holidays – at a facilitation fee. The charges of services were yet to be announced.

Like physical documents required for a post-paid SIM card at home are collected and submitted by company representatives from customers’ homes, the same was proposed to be done through the mobile sahayaks. According to the proposal, the representatives would have deposited such documents with the department concerned.

The Delhi government had stated that “approximately 25 lakh transactions are held every year” to avail these 40 services. “Each transaction takes around four visits to the office concerned by the applicant,” it said.

The government was planning that a “minimum 30-35 more services would be added to the scheme every 30 days from the date of rollout, till all services are covered”.

Why was the proposal returned by the LG?

The AAP government probably didn’t think of the blockades ahead. While the LG’s office didn’t shoot down the scheme, in a much moderate action it asked the government to “reconsider” the proposal.

The argument was that in a time of digital delivery of services, doorstep delivery is not required. On December 26, Baijal’s office in a note flagged concerns such as safety of citizens and undue financial burden on both the exchequer and those availing the services.

The LG had cited that unlike digital delivery of services, the proposed scheme will “introduce another layer of human interface with its attendant complications, including concerns associated with safety and security of women/senior citizens, a possibility of corruption, delays, bad behaviour, loss of documents, breach of privacy, etc.” The note said “it adds unnecessary expenditure for the government and the people”.

Delhi government’s rebuttal

Kejriwal sprang into action as soon as Raj Niwas gave the cold shoulder to his pet scheme. Using it as an opportunity to attack the LG, Kejriwal tweeted: “LG says digitisation enough. Elected govt says digitisation needs to be coupled wid doorstep delivery LG does not agree So, the question is – in a democracy, in such a situation, who shud have final say – LG or elected govt??”

Indeed, it was Kejriwal who, instead of holding deliberations with the LG, preferred to register this as another chapter in the LG versus Delhi government battle. He later softened his stance, and tweeted:

However, his deputy Manish Sisodia is now leading the battle from the front. In the past two days, Sisodia has been aggressively campaigning for the scheme and has made scathing attacks against the LG’s office.

On safety concerns, the Delhi government said “if pizza delivery, LPG gas delivery, credit card and other delivery executives don’t pose a threat, how can doorstep delivery of services be a threat to the safety and security of women and other citizens? The concern in our humble opinion appears to be misplaced.”

Similarly, to counter the argument that in the era of end-to-end digitalisation of services one doesn’t need doorstep delivery of public services, Sisodia on Thursday met people queued up at government offices to take their feedback.

He, also Delhi’s revenue minister, could be heard saying in a video posted on social media that many people don’t have internet access and literacy to use online services.

The Delhi government argued that the “internet is not an easy medium for everyone to use; many are not tech-savvy enough. Even in the case of online services, people are required to go to government offices to submit documents”.

The LG had raised concerns about the safety of documents and that they could get misplaced in the process of delivery. But Kejriwal’s government said in a statement on Thursday that this shouldn’t be a concern as the executives “will not take any documents. He/she will just scan and upload the documents and give them back to the resident at the latter’s residence or office only”.

Considering that the revenue model of the scheme remains unclear, it would be too early to comment on whether it would prove to be an undue financial burden on the government and citizens.

However, the AAP government could have tried to resolve the crisis instead of making it look like a war between the selected and “the elected”. Especially when a constitution bench of the Supreme Court is already hearing the legal battle between the Centre and Delhi government over exercise of powers.

As far as government services at one’s doorstep is concerned, hardly anyone living in a metro city such as Delhi would not love the idea. The common service centres (CSC) or kiosks have failed to make an impact on delivery of services. Moreover, doorstep delivery of services could mean a revolutionary change in the model of governance.

There is no denying that visiting government offices for services remains a process of hassle. Given an opportunity, no one would like to miss a working day – including the LG – just to get a water connection or minor change in AAY cards.  

Concerns that such a scheme could increase corruption too seem based on flimsy ground. Scope for graft always remains in a country like India – whether the process is offline or online. Remember, Union minister Nitin Gadkari himself declared regional transport offices as the centres for loot.

Had PM Narendra Modi announced the scheme at a public meeting, he might have declared it as “government at your doorstep”.