iv. Regulatory procedures to be simple, transparent and citizen friendly:

♤ There should be systemic reforms so as to minimize the scope for corruption. These include simplifying transactions, using IT, promoting transparency, reducing discretion, effective supervision etc.

v. Involving citizens’ groups, professional organizations in the regulation activities:

♤ The burden of the enforcement machinery can be shared by associating citizens’ groups as well as professional organizations to certify compliance and report violations of the regulations to the concerned authorities.

♤ Recently, in Delhi the procedure for grant of building permissions has been simplified and registered architects have been authorized to certify the building plans of houses. This has helped in reducing the work of the civic agencies and reduced corruption as well. This principle could be also extended to other spheres of activities.

In the 13th report of 2nd ARC, following steps have been proposed to improve the working of independent regulators:

a. Setting up of a Regulator should be preceded by a detailed review to decide whether the policy regime in the concerned sector is such that the Regulator would be better placed to deliver the policy objectives of the department concerned.

b. In addition to the statutory framework, which underpins the interface between the government and the regulator, each Ministry/Department should evolve a ‘Management

Statement’ outlining the objectives and roles of each regulator and the guidelines governing their interaction with the government. This would guide both the government department and the Regulator.

c. There is need for greater uniformity in the terms of appointment, tenure and removal of various regulatory authorities considering these have been set up with broadly similar objectives and functions and should enjoy the same degree of autonomy. The initial process of appointment of Chairman and Board Members should be transparent, credible and fair.

d. The appointment of the Chairman and Board Members for all such regulatory authorities should be done by the Union/State Governments after an initial screening and recommendation of a panel of names by a Selection Committee. The composition of the Selection Committee should be defined in the respective Acts and may broadly follow the pattern laid down in the Electricity Regulatory Commission Act.

e. The tenure of the Chairman and Board Members could also be made uniform, preferably three years or 65 years of age, whichever is earlier.

f. Legal provisions regarding removal of Board Members should be made uniform, while at the same time ensuring sufficient safeguards against arbitrary removal. This could be achieved by allowing removal by the Union Government only on fulfillment of certain conditions as laid down in Section 6 of the IRDA Act with the additional safeguard that a removal for abuse of power shall be preceded by an enquiry and consultation with UPSC.

g. Parliamentary oversight of regulators should be ensured through the respective Departmentally Related Standing Parliamentary Committees.

h. A body of reputed outside experts should propose guidelines for periodic evaluation of the independent Regulators. Based on these guidelines, government in consultation with respective Departmentally related Standing Committee of the Parliament should fix the principles on which the Regulators should be evaluated. The annual reports of the regulators should include a report on their performance in the context of these principles. This report should be referred to the respective Parliamentary Committee for discussion.

i. Each statute creating a Regulator should include a provision for an impact assessment periodically by an external agency. Once the objective of creating a level playing field is achieved, the intervention of the Regulators could be reduced in a phased manner ultimately leading either to their abolition or to convergence with other Regulators.

j. There is need to achieve greater uniformity in the structure of Regulators.

k. The existing coordination mechanisms such as the Committee of Secretaries/Cabinet Committees, assisted by Secretary (Coordination) could easily ensure that the institutional framework for all Regulators follow, by and large, a uniform pattern.

The Report of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (Government of India, 2008) contains a list of thirty-six ‘regulatory bodies’ with the governing Acts of Parliament under which they are set up and the Ministries to which they belong.

The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC-II) Report gives a shorter list of only major professional self-regulating authorities then operating in India, each formed under respective Acts of Parliament (year of enactment within brackets):

(a) Bar Council of India (1961),

(b) Previously, Medical Council of India (1956) presently National Testing Agency

(d) Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India (1959),

(e) Institute of Company Secretaries of India (1980) and

(f) Council of Architecture (1972) (Government of India, 2008b, p. 113).

The ARC-II has recommended to make their councils as well as committees more inclusive by supplementing the professional members with members from the civil society at large to be nominated by the government in consultation with the concerned regulatory agency.