Governments of the world embrace innovation because Innovation is the driver of development but for the governments of India it is nothing but a slogan. My experience of introducing innovative solutions, initially in eradication of ragging & now, in restoring equality & dignity of women is very poor with all governments of India. The much talked about Scheme of Sakhi – One Stop Centres, funded from the Nirbhaya Fund, is on the verge of failure because the Union Government & State Governments have both rejected innovation. (Please read the related article - “Tragic story of Sakhi – OSC”.

General L1 Tender, which is the most common instrument of procurement in governments of India. A tender is cancelled if there is only a single bidder even if the single bidder has the only & the most innovative solution. To qualify for any government tender one must have previous experience. As a result if there is a man or a women who has developed an innovative solution he/she is not even considered regardless of how brilliant or innovative his/her solution might be. Innovation by definition is something that did not exist earlier and what is not available with every bidder. It is unfortunate that young innovative minds are not welcome to work in government schemes or programs.

I know that general L1 Tender is not the only legally permitted instrument of procurement in India but most government officials have extremely poor knowledge of laws on procurement. Most of them think that L1 General Tender is the only instrument of procurement. Expression of Interest (EOI), Request for Proposal (RFP), Two Stage Tender are treated as alternate terms/words for a General L1 Tender. The most unfortunate part is that even if one educates a procurement officer on two different instruments, namely, (i) single source procurement & ( ii) Two Stage Tender that are available to him/her to acquire innovation he still rejects it because he does not have courage to suggest these instruments. Lack of confidence in one self results in lack of courage.

In March 2009 I designed a plan for eradication of ragging which is now known as the National Ragging Prevention Program. In May 2009 the Hon. Supreme court ordered the Union Government to implement the program , in the “same manner” as I had suggested. The “manner” of implementation was the innovation in it. Officials of the Union Government did not have the courage to procure my innovative solution despite an order of the Hon. Supreme Court in my favour. They called for a general L1 Tender. I was not even considered because I did not even qualify for consideration for lack of experience & turnover etc. An agency was selected. The selected agency failed miserably to deliver.

I protested for 3 years with the Prime Minister’s & President’s office, CVC & CAG, Parliamentary committee on higher education & the National Human Rights Commission against the inappropriate selection & the poor quality of work that the chosen agency was doing. I sought support from 35 Members of Parliament, across the party lines, to support my protest. All that I was trying to o was to convince the Government of India to use the innovative solution that I had designed & which was the same that the Hon. Supreme Court had ordered to be implemented. At the end of 3 years when officials of the Government of India agreed to implement the innovation the results , as expected, are brilliant. In the past 4 years ragging has reduced by 75% across the nation.

Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Nagar Nigam, Meerut Vs A1 Faheem Meat Export Pvt. Ltd. has said that where procurement is possible only from a single source or where no reasonable alternative or substitute exists then normal rule of public Tender may be departed from and such contracts may be awarded through ‘private negotiations’. Based on this Judgment the Central Vigilance Commission passed a supporting order on the 5th July, 2007, office order no. 23/07/07. These orders have been incorporated in Rajasthan Transparency & procurement Act of 2012 which allows for procurement from a single source in situations that have been defined by the Hon. Supreme Court in 2006 & by the CVC in 2007.

The Hon. Supreme Court ( 2006) , the CVC ( 2007) & the Rajasthan Act ( 2012) have not used the word ‘Innovative solution’ but they have used the term ‘No reasonable alternative’ or ‘availability from Single source only’. Therefore, it is legal for a procurement agency to procure an ‘Innovative solution’ without any tender on the grounds that there is ‘no reasonable alternative’ or there is only a single source from whom the solution can be procured but officers of governments of India do not have the courage & confidence to say so.

Again we are facing the same problem in our work for restoration of dignity to women in India. Government officials do not mind if the two schemes of Sakhi one stop Centre & Universal Women Help Line fail to deliver. They will hand pick an evaluation agency who will produce a fake/dishonest glorified evaluation report for them. It is business as usual. Please read a related article - “Tragic story of Nirbhaya Fund & Sakhi – One Stop Centre”.