When Government Policies Do Not Reach the People

Y. Babji, Advocate / PR Educator

Information Deficiency, Selective Perception and the Failure of Public Communication

A government may formulate an excellent policy, launch a well-designed programme, issue detailed rules and spend substantial public money on implementation. Yet, the intended benefit may not reach the intended beneficiary. Sometimes the problem is poor implementation. Sometimes it is corruption or administrative apathy. But there is another, less visible reason: the policy information itself does not reach people in a manner that they understand, remember and act upon.

The problem becomes even more serious when people receive only fragments of information, interpret those fragments according to their own interests and ignore the conditions attached to the benefit.

This can be explained substantially through two communication concepts: Information Deficiency and Selective Perception.

The recent building collapses and enforcement drives in Hyderabad provide an excellent illustration.

The Hyderabad warning

On 22 August 2026, a seven-storey under-construction building collapsed at Anjaiah Nagar in the Gachibowli–Kondapur area of Hyderabad, killing two workers. Reports stated that the building was unauthorised and stood on a very small plot. Authorities subsequently found other dangerous and unauthorised structures in the locality. HYDRAA and the Cyberabad Municipal Corporation initiated demolitions and enforcement action. 

The episode was not merely about one illegal building. It exposed a larger urban phenomenon: the enormous pressure for accommodation in Hyderabad, particularly around employment centres, IT corridors and educational institutions, combined with the willingness of some builders and property owners to exploit small-plot exemptions and regulatory loopholes.

Following the collapse, CMC identified 38 unauthorised under-construction buildings in one enforcement drive, issued 28 notices, seized one structure and demolished nine. Subsequently, 17 more unauthorised structures were demolished and another 54 were identified through inspections, MyCURE and citizen complaints.

Even more significantly, CMC had reportedly identified more than 800 unauthorised constructions across its three zones over the preceding year—365 in Kukatpally, 224 in Quthbullapur and 195 in Serilingampally. 

The question therefore is not merely: Why are people constructing illegally?

The deeper question is: Why do government rules, warnings, permissions, exemptions and safety requirements fail to influence behaviour before a tragedy occurs?

Information deficiency: a policy can exist without becoming public knowledge

Information deficiency does not necessarily mean that government has not published information. In the digital age, governments may have websites, portals, notifications, FAQs, press releases, advertisements and social-media accounts.

Publication is not Communication

A rule hidden in a Government Order, technical regulation or website is not necessarily information in the practical sense for an ordinary citizen.

For information to become useful, the citizen must know that the rule exists; know that it applies to him; understand what it means; know what he is permitted to do; know what he is prohibited from doing; understand the consequences of violation; and know where to seek clarification.

Failure at any of these stages creates an information deficit.

Government communication research similarly recognises the importance of closing the "gap" between government policy communication and citizens' understanding of policy. 

The small-plot exemption: what does the citizen actually understand?

This is where the Hyderabad building controversy becomes instructive.

The Telangana government's official TG-bPASS information states that for residential plots up to 75 square yards, construction of a ground or ground-plus-one floor does not require building permission approval, although online registration is required. The same system provides instant approval for individual residential buildings above 75 square yards up to 500 square metres and up to 10 metres height, subject to the applicable rules. 

This distinction is crucial.

The public may hear: "Up to 75 square yards, no building permission is required."

But the actual rule is much narrower: No building permission approval for a specified residential construction - ground or ground-plus-one - subject to registration and the applicable conditions.

The difference between these two statements is enormous.

A citizen who remembers only the first sentence may conclude: "My plot is below 75 square yards. Therefore I can construct whatever I want."

That is not what the exemption means.

The same problem can arise with the 7-metre height limit. TG-bPASS currently describes instant registration for individual residential buildings up to 75 square yards and up to 7 metres in height. It does not mean that a 75-square-yard plot is entitled to a seven-storey building. 

Indeed, following the Anjaiah Nagar incident, CMC's enforcement drive specifically targeted buildings on plots below 75 square yards where construction exceeded 7 metres, along with unauthorised buildings on larger plots. 

Thus, the distinction between plot-size exemption, height, number of floors, permission, registration and structural safety must be communicated together. Isolated communication of any one element can be dangerously misleading.

The danger of selective perception

Information deficiency explains why people may not know the complete rule. Selective perception explains why they may remember only the part that suits them.

Selective perception is a familiar phenomenon in communication. People do not receive every message objectively. They select information according to their interests, expectations, experience, beliefs and immediate needs.

A property owner facing financial pressure may hear: "No permission up to 75 square yards."

He may not hear: "Only G or G+1, subject to registration and applicable rules."

A builder may remember: "Up to 7 metres."

But disregard the restrictions on setbacks, structural safety, land use, road width, drainage, parking and other requirements.

A prospective tenant may see a newly constructed seven-storey building and think:

"If it has seven floors, surely the government must have permitted it."

Thus selective perception can operate on both sides—builder and beneficiary.

Building rules are not merely about permission

Building regulations are fundamentally life-safety regulations.

The Telangana Building Rules prescribe setbacks, permissible heights, parking requirements and special requirements for different categories of buildings. For example, the rules prescribe different height and setback parameters depending on plot size and road width. For several non-high-rise categories, the permissible height may be 7 metres or 10 metres, depending on the plot category and applicable conditions. 

The rules also impose restrictions on projections into mandatory setbacks. Balconies and corridors cannot simply be projected into mandatory open spaces, while specified projections such as cornices or chajjas are subject to limits. 

Parking is another important regulatory requirement. The rules prescribe parking percentages for different categories, including residential apartment complexes and commercial establishments. 

Most importantly, high-rise construction is subject to a fundamentally different regulatory regime. The Telangana Building Rules prescribe a minimum plot size of 2,000 square metres for high-rise buildings, along with structural drawings, qualified structural-engineer certification and other safety requirements. 

Therefore, a small residential plot cannot logically be transformed into a miniature high-rise merely because an exemption exists for certain small residential constructions.

Height is not the only issue

The public conversation after a building collapse often becomes excessively focused on the number of floors. But structural safety depends on much more than height.

It involves: foundation design; soil conditions; structural system; column and beam capacity; quality of construction materials; load calculations; setbacks; ventilation and light; access for emergency services; fire safety; drainage; road width; parking; land use; encroachment on nalas and water bodies; approved building plans; and compliance with the sanctioned plan.

The TG-bPASS system itself recognises third-party proof checking of structural designs in applicable cases and provides for various NOCs, including fire, water-body/FTL and other clearances depending upon the proposal. 

The official system also makes clear that self-certification is not a licence to violate the rules. Self-certification means a declaration that the proposal conforms to the applicable rules, master plan and planning requirements. 

The information paradox

Here lies a paradox. Governments today provide more information than ever before, but citizens may understand less than they need to know.

A Government Order may contain 50 pages. A municipal website may contain hundreds of pages. A building-permission portal may contain dozens of FAQs. Yet the ordinary citizen may still ask:

"Can I build three floors on my 60-square-yard plot?"

The answer may be technically available somewhere, but if the citizen cannot find, understand and apply it, the communication system has failed.

Information overload can therefore produce a form of information deficiency. Too much technical information can be as ineffective as too little information.

From information dissemination to information design

Government communication must therefore move from "We have published the rule" to "The citizen has understood the rule."

For example, instead of merely publishing a technical notification, the government should communicate:

75 Sq. Yards does NOT mean unlimited construction.

Then underneath:

Residential use only. Registration required. G/G+1 exemption subject to applicable rules. Height and other building regulations continue to apply.

Similarly: 7 metres does NOT mean 7 floors.

And: No building permission does NOT mean no building rules.

Such messages are simple, memorable and behaviour-oriented.

Why beneficiaries miss government schemes? 

The same phenomenon operates far beyond building regulations.

Consider a welfare scheme.

Government announces: "Financial assistance is available to eligible beneficiaries."

But the citizen may not know: Who is eligible? What is the income ceiling? What documents are required? Where should the application be made? What is the deadline? Is online registration compulsory? Is the benefit automatic or application-based? What happens if the application is rejected? Where can an appeal or grievance be filed?

The scheme technically exists. The government has technically communicated it. Yet the beneficiary remains outside the scheme. That is the information-deficiency gap.

Selective perception makes the gap wider

Even where the information reaches the beneficiary, selective perception intervenes.

People tend to notice information that is immediately relevant to them and ignore information that appears inconvenient.

A farmer may remember the subsidy but forget the eligibility condition. A student may remember the scholarship amount but not the deadline. A senior citizen may remember that a concession exists but not the procedure for obtaining it. A property owner may remember an exemption but not the restrictions attached to it. A contractor may remember the permitted height but not the setback. A tenant may see a low rent and ignore the absence of an occupancy certificate.

This is why communication cannot be treated as a one-way transmission of information.

The missing link: verification

Government policies also suffer because citizens often depend on secondary sources.

The information may pass from: Government → official → middleman → builder → neighbour → WhatsApp group → citizen.

At every stage, information can be shortened, distorted or selectively interpreted.

The official rule may say: "G+1 under specified conditions." The neighbourhood version becomes: "No permission below 75 yards." The builder's version becomes: "You can construct up to 7 metres." The purchaser hears: "Government allows it."

By the time the information reaches the citizen, the qualifying conditions have disappeared.

Enforcement after tragedy is not enough

The CMC and HYDRAA enforcement following the Anjaiah Nagar collapse is necessary because dangerous structures can threaten innocent lives. But demolition after a collapse is fundamentally different from prevention before construction.

The objective of regulation should be:

Detect → Inform → Warn → Stop → Correct → Enforce

rather than:

Permit/ignore → Construct → Occupy → Collapse → Demolish.

The present enforcement drive demonstrates the scale of the challenge. The identification of hundreds of unauthorised structures across CMC zones indicates that the problem is not an isolated aberration. 

Urban housing demand cannot be ignored

There is, however, another side to the problem.

Hyderabad's rapid economic growth has generated enormous demand for affordable accommodation. Migrant workers, students, IT employees, domestic workers and other urban residents need inexpensive places to stay.

The recent incident reportedly involved small buildings subsequently being used as hostels. Therefore, enforcement alone cannot solve the problem.

If the city needs affordable accommodation, urban policy must provide legal pathways for affordable accommodation. Otherwise, demand will create its own supply—often through informal, unsafe and unauthorised construction.

The solution requires a combination of: affordable housing + rational building regulations + adequate rental/hostel policy + simplified permissions + strict structural safety + effective enforcement.

The policy lesson

The Hyderabad building episode offers a larger lesson for governance.

A policy does not succeed merely because: a Government Order has been issued; a website has been created; a notification has been published; an advertisement has appeared; an app has been launched; or an official has announced the programme.

The real test is whether the intended citizen knows, understands, believes, accesses and correctly uses the policy.

In communication terms, the ultimate destination of a government message is not the government website. It is the mind of the citizen. And the ultimate test of communication is not whether the message was sent. It is whether the intended behaviour occurred.

From Government Information to Citizen Understanding

Government communication therefore needs a fundamental shift—from information dissemination to information comprehension.

Every major policy should answer five simple questions in citizen language: What is it? Who is entitled? What exactly can I do? What can I NOT do? What happens if I violate the rule? For building regulations, a sixth question is essential: Can my action endanger somebody else?

The answer to these questions should be available not merely in legal language but through diagrams, short videos, local-language explainers, FAQs, helplines, street-level campaigns and examples of permitted and prohibited constructions.

The government must also communicate the whole rule, not merely its attractive part. Because an exemption without its conditions becomes a loophole. A benefit without eligibility information becomes misinformation. A right without procedure becomes ineffective. And a regulation without public understanding becomes an invitation to violation.

Information is itself a form of governance

The Hyderabad building collapse is a tragic reminder that regulatory failure and communication failure can ultimately become human-safety failures.

The issue is not simply whether government rules are adequate. It is whether those rules are understood by those who must comply with them and by those whose lives depend upon compliance.

Information deficiency creates ignorance. Selective perception creates partial understanding. Partial understanding creates selective compliance. Selective compliance creates violations. Unchecked violations create risk. And risk, sooner or later, can become tragedy.

Good governance therefore requires not merely good policies but good policy communication. The government must ask a question before asking whether it has implemented a programme: "Has the citizen understood what the government intended him to know?"

And after every major policy, another question should follow: "What information is the citizen likely to misunderstand, ignore or selectively remember?" That is where communication theory becomes governance practice.

In the final analysis, a government policy succeeds only when it travels the entire distance - from the Government Order to the government office, from the office to the citizen, from the citizen's ear to the citizen's mind, and finally from the citizen's mind to responsible action.

Until that happens, there will always be a gap between policy on paper and public life on the ground.