I have a question.If the Legislative Assembly is meant to represent the voice and concerns of the people, should it not also be the responsibility of an elected MLA to take genuine public grievances to the Assembly and, wherever permissible under the Rules of Procedure, convert them into questions to the concerned Minister or Department?
An ordinary citizen may not have the right to stand up and question the Government directly on the floor of the House. However, every citizen has a democratic right to approach his or her elected representative with a genuine grievance. The MLA, as the representative of the people, is expected to give such grievances an appropriate legislative platform by raising them through an Assembly Question or any other permissible procedure. This is one of the important ways in which elected representatives can ensure governmental accountability.A citizen may knock on the door of an office, but a representative can open the door to the institution of accountability.
A recent grievance of the writer provides a clear example of why such representation matters. The issue concerns the renewal of the Registration Certificate of vehicle No. JK18-2912, for which an application was submitted online through the Sarathi Parivahan portal. The prescribed fee was deposited vide receipt dated 11.07.2026, while the vehicle had already undergone physical inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on 09.07.2026. Despite completion of the requisite formalities, the application reportedly remained pending at ARTO Kulgam for about two and a half months, with the portal displaying the status “Application Pending at Re-entry scrutiny at Kulgam ARTO”, after which the fee status was reportedly shown as “Cancelled.”
“The portal may say ‘pending’, but democracy should not.”
In such circumstances, the issue is not merely about one vehicle owner. It raises legitimate questions regarding administrative efficiency, accountability, the handling of online applications, and the protection of citizens from avoidable inconvenience and financial loss. This is precisely the kind of genuine public grievance that an elected representative can place before the Government through the legislative mechanism.
The Question That Could Have Been Asked in the Assembly
The matter could appropriately have been placed before the Government in the form of an Unstarred Question, such as:
UNSTARRED QUESTION
Will the Government be pleased to state:
1. Whether it is a fact that the owner of vehicle No. JK18-2912, bearing Application/Reference No. JK260711V9701598, applied online for renewal of the Registration Certificate (RC) through the Sarathi Parivahan portal, deposited the prescribed renewal fee vide receipt dated 11.07.2026, and the vehicle had undergone physical inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on 09.07.2026;
2. Whether it is also a fact that, despite completion of the requisite formalities, the said application remained pending at ARTO Kulgam for about two and a half months, with the portal showing the status “Application Pending at Re-entry scrutiny at Kulgam ARTO”, and subsequently the fee status being reflected as “Cancelled”;
3. If so, what are the specific reasons for keeping the application pending for such a prolonged period and subsequently cancelling the fee, and whether any reason for such action was communicated to the applicant;
4. Whether the Government has ascertained the present status of the amount deposited, particularly whether the cancelled fee has been refunded to the applicant; if so, the amount and date of refund, and if not, the reasons for non-refund;
5. Whether the Government has examined whether the delay and cancellation resulted from any technical issue, procedural lapse, or delay/inaction at ARTO Kulgam;
6. Whether the Government proposes to ensure immediate reprocessing/restoration of the RC renewal application without any additional financial burden on the applicant and its disposal within a prescribed time frame; and
7. Whether the Government proposes to prescribe a time-bound mechanism for RC renewal applications and refund of cancelled fees, with responsibility fixed for avoidable delay or procedural lapses?
The significance of such a question is that it would require the concerned Government Department to place its position on record. It would also provide an opportunity to determine whether the delay was caused by a technical problem, a procedural deficiency, or administrative inaction, and whether the applicant should bear any financial or procedural consequence for a delay that was beyond his control.The larger issue, therefore, is not simply whether one individual gets his RC renewed. It is whether public grievances are actually reaching the institutions created to address them. If citizens approach their elected representatives with genuine and documented grievances, those representatives should, wherever the matter falls within the permissible legislative procedures, provide such grievances a voice in the Assembly.

Email:---------------------Khanhussain.ang@gmail.com