A Score Card for Pre-Legislative Consultation

by Mallika Dandekar and Antaraa Vasudev.

In 2014, the Ministry of Law and Justice published the ‘Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy of 2014′, the policy aims to create a framework for effective participation in lawmaking. This policy encouraged Ministries and Departments at the State and Central Levels to proactively publish and seek feedback on draft laws and policies.

Pre-legislative consultation, if implemented to its full potential – is a crucial tool in removing the democratic deficit in law formulation and regulatory functioning. Pre-legislative consultation (or public consultation as is commonly referred to), refers to the process of publishing a draft regulation or legislation for public comment for a period of time to gather feedback from practitioners, academics and the lived experiences of citizens impacted by the law. Consultation leads to further deliberation on the instrument, and re-drafting of certain clauses as needed.

While one may make the case for faster lawmaking, consultation if implemented correctly highlights the practical constraints of a law or policy document, which may not otherwise be visible to an administrator, without adequate input from those impacted by the instrument.

While India’s history of consultation (particularly among Parliamentary standing committees and regulators) is long standing – the process continues to be viewed largely as a qualitative or unstructured process to be implemented. This poses challenges as it enables a great amount of discretion in consultation methodologies, and subsequently the input that informs the policy.

The subject of Pre-Legislative Consultation has garnered significant traction in Parliament since 2014. Member of Parliament – Supriya Sule proposed the private member bill the ‘Pre-Legislative Consultation Bill, 2019′, another private member bill was introduced byMember of Parliament – Jagdambika Pal, titled the ‘National Consultation Commission Bill, 2019′. The Finance Minister in budget speeches of 2023-24 and 2025-2026 emphasised on the importance of regulatory consultation and impact assessment. More recently RBI, PFRDA and other regulators have made significant strides in codifying the process of consultation. Borrowing from these examples, as well as international best practices – Civis has aimed to devise a robust methodology to assess and evaluate the procedural integrity of India’s pre-legislative consultation methodologies across Central, State Governments and regulatory bodies.

What follows is an exploration of the methodology devised to assess consultations, and an open invitation to assist with contributing to and enhancing the methodology. Annually, these parameters are used to assess consultations culminating in a platform to share recognition with those who excel in implementing the process – an initiative known as CIPCA (Civis’ Public Consultation Awards).

The 10-Criteria Matrix of the Methodology:

Building upon a robust theoretical and practical foundation, Civis has codified a methodology. This framework combines academic standards and best practices with Civis’ practical experience in fostering public engagement. The core of this methodology is a 10-criteria list, organised under four overarching analysis metrics, designed to provide an assessment of any public consultation.

The methodology to assess public consultations relies heavily on India’s 2014 Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, the United Nations Public Consultation Index, OECD’s Practitioners Handbook on Public Consultation, and inputs from our jury of practitioners involved in the awards in 2024 and 2025.

A. Quality of Consultation Document

The first set of matrices assess how effectively the government’s document presents the proposed policy for public feedback, focusing on its clarity, comprehensiveness, and accessibility.

1. Justification:This criterion looks at whether the consultation document clearly articulates the rationale behind the proposed policy or legal change. Is the problem it seeks to address defined well, with the context in which it is being proposed, including relevant background, existing issues, and the objectives it aims to achieve? A strong justification helps citizens understand the ‘why’ behind the proposal, enabling more informed and relevant feedback. Assessing the justification required qualitative assessment of the Consultation document. The jury across the first and second edition has retained this criterion as its original conception.

This criterion is borrowed from the Pre-Legislative Consultation Policy, particular Section 2 that reads “The Department/Ministry concerned should publish/place in public domain the draft legislation or at least the information that may inter alia include brief justification for such legislation, essential elements of the proposed legislation, its broad financial implications, and an estimated assessment of the impact of such legislation on environment, fundamental rights, lives and livelihoods of the concerned/affected people, etc”. This section has also helped shape the next 3 criteria, as detailed below.

2. Essential Elements: This criterion looks at whether the proposed changes, new provisions, or key components of the draft are clearly outlined. Citizens should be able to easily identify and understand what exactly is being proposed, and its key features. These include any proposals being made, key rights and penalties, or any other government intervention or policy decision. The qualitative test is to discern whether these proposals are clear, with no room for ambiguity.
3. Impact Assessment: Has the potential impact of the proposed draft, including financial, social, environmental impact, been analysed and stated within the document? The third criterion looks at this issue in great detail. Transparency about potential impacts, both positive and negative, is crucial for citizens to assess the draft’s broader implications and offer feedback after considering these effects. In edition one of the awards, the impact assessment was calculated uniformly across the financial, social and economic impacts flowing from the policy and whether it was articulated. This was an extremely subjective process, validated by each level of deliberation.

However, as we evolved the criteria for the second edition through fresh deliberations with the jury, it led to a demand for increasing the granularity and detail in how this criterion was evaluated. Hence, we sought support from the Trustbridge Foundation, and the team led by Dr. Renuka Sane, who further refined this criterion to include 25 sub-questions that were answered to arrive at the overall score.

4. Comprehension: This criterion asks the question of whether the draft can be easily understood by an average reader, even if they do not possess specialised domain expertise? This criterion qualitatively evaluates the document’s readability, clarity of language, and overall user-friendliness. Is the language unambiguous, avoiding jargon where possible or providing clear explanations for technical terms? Complex technical concepts should be simplified or accompanied by clear explanations, and the document should be free of excessive jargon or overly academic prose.

In addition to Section 2 of the PLCP, it also follows on the heels of Section 5 of the PLCP – “Every draft legislation or rules, placed in public domain through prelegislative process should be accompanied by an explanatory note explaining key legal provisions in a simple language”.

B. Scope of Engagement Opportunities

These matrices evaluate the breadth and effectiveness of the consultation’s reach and the opportunities they provided for stakeholders to engage.

1. Duration: Here, we looked at whether a consultation is open for a reasonable period, allowing sufficient time for stakeholders to review the document, understand its implications, and prepare their feedback. An inadequate consultation period can severely limit participation and the quality of feedback. This criterion is derived from Section 2 of the PLCP which reads: “…Such details may be kept in the public domain for a minimum period of thirty days for being proactively shared with the public in such manner as may be specified by the Department/Ministry concerned”.

Across the two editions, the manner of scoring this criterion has evolved through deliberations with the jury. In year one, a more granular approach was adopted, similar to the other criteria, where a range of scores from 1-5 were applicable on a sliding scale based on the number of days a consultation was open for. This looked like:

• Consultations that gave less than 20 days were marked a 1,
• Those that allowed between 20 to 29 days were given 2 points,
• Those that met the PLCP criteria of 30 days exactly received 3 points,
• Those that allowed for 30 to 59 days received 4 points, and lastly,
• Those that allowed for 60 days of more for comments received a full 5 points.

However, the jury in the second edition recommended moving to a binary approach, where only two quantitative scores were possible: 1 for any consultation open for a duration under 30 days, and 5 for any consultation open for 30 days or higher. This was a deviation from our first edition, and it reflects the duration provision contained in the PLCP. In order to have a binary scoring, but not conflict with the scale on the rest of the criteria, 1 and 5 were chosen as the binary scoring indicators.

Outreach: Here, we consider if the outreach was comprehensive and diverse through various media and channels to ensure the consultation reached a broad range of relevant stakeholders and the general public. Effective outreach goes beyond merely publishing on a government website; it involves active dissemination through different platforms (e.g., print media, social media, community forums, targeted invitations) to maximise visibility and encourage participation. A compilation of all consultation outreach helped score the efforts undertaken by the relevant department.

The criterion is derived from Section 3 of the PLCP which reads “Where such legislation affect specific group of people, it may be documented and disclosed through print or electronic media or in such other manner, as may be considered necessary to give wider publicity to reach the affected people”.

C. Inclusivity

This set of matrices focuses on ensuring that the consultation facilitated diverse participation and equitable access for all citizens, regardless of their background or location.

1. Feedback Collection: The criterion considers whether multiple, accessible avenues were provided for stakeholders to submit their responses and feedback. This includes online portals, email, postal addresses, and potentially public hearings and interviews. Offering a variety of channels ensures that citizens with differing levels of digital literacy or access can participate effectively.

This criterion builds on the principle outlined in OECD Practitioner’s Guide on Stakeholder Consultations, which recommends evaluating consultations on the “transparency of the process and accessibility of the consultation, e.g., was there an equal opportunity to take part, was the process easily understood by stakeholders”.

2. Translations: Here we considered if the consultation document translated into regional languages is relevant to the target audience. In a linguistically diverse nation like India, providing materials in national and local languages is paramount to ensuring true inclusivity, allowing citizens to engage with the content in their mother tongue and participate meaningfully. In addition, braille and sign language transcriptions have also greatly aided the accessibility of some drafts.

Translation and accessibility of policy documents across languages is emphasised in OECD Practitioner’s Guide on Stakeholder Consultations. The Guide recommends that consultation bodies “assure clear and plain language drafting, including in translations”.

Through deliberation, jury members concurred that English and Hindi translations for consultations with a national scope, and English and 1 regional language for a consultation with a regional scope would be scored quantitatively.

D. Open Governance

This final set of matrices examine the transparency and responsiveness of the consulting body throughout and after the consultation process.

Both transparency and responsiveness were created as qualitative criteria on the recommendation of the jury members on our inaugural edition of the awards. These criteria aim to highlight the importance of the completion of feedback loops and providing publicly accessible data, which are higher order asks – but extremely important to determine the responsiveness of policy making.

1. Transparency: Did the consulting body provide a report, a summary, or publish the responses received (in part or in entirety) after the close of the consultation period? Transparency in feedback processing is vital for accountability. It demonstrates that public input was received, analysed, and potentially influenced the final policy, fostering trust between citizens and government. It is also aligned with existing PLCP sections like Section 6 “The summary of feedback/comments received from the public/other stakeholders should also be placed on the website of the Department/Ministry concerned”. Additionally, elements of this were also derived from a public consultation index created by UNDP (Page 16 of ASSESSING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN POLICY-MAKING PROCESS).
2. Responsiveness: The question to be considered here was if the consulting body is responsive to communications made through letters, RTIs, or other means by citizens or civic organizations.

Responsiveness demonstrates that the government is open to dialogue and willing to address queries and provide information after the consultation process, reinforcing trust and encouraging future participation. Adding to transparency, responsiveness creates an additional avenue to allow government departments to publish and share information regarding the consultation process, i.e. even if they are not shared on their public websites and notices, they are open to sharing this information when specifically requested.

Application of the Methodology – Draft Kerala IT Policy 2023:

To better understand the methodology, we examine the Draft Kerala IT Policy 2023, (“Draft Policy”) and through it explore how the methodology to assess Pre-Legislative consultation in India can be improved upon.

The draft policy in question received an overall score of 37 out of a possible 50 on the scale, translating to a 74%effectiveness rating in the last edition of the awards. In order to contextualise the draft as against other draft documents the mean and the standard deviation for the complete data set of 286 consultations has been calculated. This comparison is only illustrative, as the lawmaking procedures and maturity across State Governments, Regulatory Bodies and Central Legislators differ greatly.

This policy, released in September 2023, aims to be a blueprint for the state’s IT sector growth and citizen well-being through digital technologies. We will integrate its performance against each criterion to provide a tangible illustration of Civis’ methodology in action.

A. Consultation Quality – Draft Kerala IT Policy 2023

1. Justification: The Draft Policy scored outstandingly well (5/5) on this criterion. Sections 1.1 and 2.1 of the policy thoroughly state the need for an IT policy for Kerala. This is further supplemented by details regarding the state’s and India’s current IT infrastructure and the opportunities for Kerala to contribute to its betterment.

   The policy provides a clear background, detailing Kerala’s historical strengths in IT (e.g., establishing Technopark in 1990) and the need for a new policy framework given global and national shifts in the digital landscape. It explicitly states its two-fold objective: leveraging IT, Electronics, and Space sectors for economic growth and adopting digital technologies for equitable, inclusive societal development.

   Mean Score: 2.74
   Standard Deviation: 1.49

2. Essential Elements: On this, the Draft Policy also received an outstanding score (5/5). Chapter II, titled ‘Policy Framework,’ meticulously lays down all essential elements, including ‘Directions for Growth’ (differentiating between economic and social development), ‘The Enablers,’ ‘New Policy Framework,’ and ‘Policy Objectives.’ Notably, section 2.2 explains the anticipated outcomes if the policy is implemented, showcasing forward-thinking and depth of thought. Furthermore, the policy addresses cybersecurity concerns through a dedicated section on ‘Information Security’ (Section 3.4) and discusses the augmentation of IT industry infrastructure via the development of four IT corridors in section 4.3.

Mean Score: 3.73
Standard Deviation: 1.12

3. Impact Assessment: The draft policy exceeded the average score here (4/5). The document effectively identifies the need for an IT policy in Kerala, backed by industry trends and growth potential. Stakeholder engagement and impact articulation are strong, as the Draft Policy incentives and investments for each business category separately. However, cost-benefit analysis and alternative strategies were not present explicitly, which was penalised. While implementation details exist, they lack clear timelines. Additionally, environmental impact, long-term evaluation, and rural integration were minimally addressed.

Mean Score: 2.54
Standard Deviation: 1.31

4. Comprehension: The policy also received a 4/5 for comprehension. The draft IT Policy is logically structured and emphasises inclusivity, innovation, and social equity. While it provides detailed objectives, strategies, and frameworks, its technical language may challenge non-expert readers slightly, but not significantly. Visual aids or summaries were absent which could have enhanced accessibility, and hence one point was lost. The document maintains clarity throughout, with no apparent contradictions.

Mean Score: 3.28
Standard Deviation: 1.03

B. Scope of Engagement Opportunities – Draft Kerala IT Policy 2023

1. Duration: The Draft Policy scored a 5/5 for its duration. The consultation period was from October 27, 2023, to January 31, 2024, for a total of 96 days. This significantly exceeds the recommended 30-day minimum, providing ample time for review and feedback.

Mean Score: 2.85
Standard Deviation: 1.23

2. Outreach: The Draft Policy received a 4/5 for its outreach efforts. The Government of Kerala extensively leveraged social media platforms, with posts found by Infopark, Technopark, and Kerala IT on X. Instagram posts were traced on Cyberpark Kozhikode and Infopark pages, and Facebook was utilized by Kerala IT, Technopark Trivandrum, Infopark, and Cyberpark Kozhikode. Several of these government undertakings also created awareness through their LinkedIn pages. The Draft was also available on the Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Limited (KSITIL)’s website. Furthermore, the erstwhile Secretary of the Kerala Electronics and Information Technology department utilized digital media to spread information about this policy.

Mean Score: 1.49
Standard Deviation: 0.80

C. Inclusivity – Draft Kerala IT Policy 2023

1. Feedback Collection: Here, the Draft Policy needed improvement (2/5). The Draft Policy did not mention any feedback collection mechanism. However, a webpage was created (https://itpolicy.startupmission.in/) to accept feedback in both English and Malayalam. While a digital portal was available, the lack of explicit mention within the policy document itself and potentially limited other traditional avenues for feedback impacted its score.

Mean Score: 2.40
Standard Deviation: 0.69

2. Translations: The Draft policy meets average expectations (3/5) in this category. The Draft is available in both English and Malayalam. This demonstrates a decent effort towards linguistic inclusivity, allowing a wider segment of the population in Kerala to access and understand the policy in their state language.

Mean Score: 1.50
Standard Deviation: 0.86

D. Open Governance

1. Transparency: The Draft Policy scored very low (1/5) on transparency. No published reports or public comments were found after the consultation period. Despite the general emphasis on e-Governance and proactive data disclosure within the policy, the lack of specific mechanisms for publishing feedback on this particular draft significantly impacts its score significantly.

Mean Score: 1.59
Standard Deviation: 1.20

2. Responsiveness: The Draft Policy exceeds expectations (4/5) in responsiveness. The Government of Kerala responded to Civis’ RTI request and answered every question about the process individually. They also provided a list of all comments they received and shared that the final version of the document was not out yet, indicating that the consultation process still has the potential to yield changes to the policy. The criterion of responsiveness was only scored for the final 26 nominees, as data gathering for the full data set would be difficult. With that in mind, the scores for the 26 nominees are:

Mean Score: 3.84
Standard Deviation: 0.69

Conclusion

Codifying a methodology for assessment is the first step in building the legitimacy of the process of public consultation. Laying out a pathway for greater efficacy in consultations, and an enhancement of procedural trust in lawmaking as a whole.

The methodology outlined above works towards standardising a growing practice of consultation in India. However, there are unique improvements in consultative practices that we can look to from countries like Taiwan – which has institutionalised the platform vTaiwan, an open-source deliberative platform that brings together policy makers and citizens to deliberate national issues. Another example comes from the European Union’s Regulatory Fitness and Improvement (REFIT) program which requires stakeholder consultation at all stages of policy formulation i.e., problem definition, solution identification, drafting, and evaluation.

While the domain of consultation is evolving, the authors invite scrutiny and feedback to enhance the parameters and measures of this methodology. With the aim of creating a practical and evolved framework for consultation evaluation and best practices in the country.

We invite suggestions on:

• Strengthening specific parameters of the evaluation framework.
• Defining the guardrails for what may constitute policy paralysis as opposed to constructive deliberation.
• Highlighting other consultative best practices which don’t find mention in the methodology.
• Identifying national/international best practices that can be suggested to policy makers in the country.

Mallika Dandekar and Antaraa Vasudev are researchers at Civis.

Source: https://blog.theleapjournal.org/2025/09/a-score-card-for-pre-legislative.html