Victory for honest officials as Supreme Court rules they must not be transferred frequently and need orders in writing




In a landmark ruling that will boost India's officials, the Supreme Court on Thursday said civil servants shall not act on verbal orders, cannot be transferred frequently, and are entitled to a fixed tenure.



Ordering sweeping reforms to insulate the bureaucracy, the court directed the Centre, state governments and Union Territories to constitute within three months a civil services board comprising high-ranking serving officers with the cabinet secretary at the Centre and chief secretary at the state level to guide and advise on all service matters, especially transfers, posting and disciplinary action.



The court noted that much of the deterioration of the standards of probity and accountability of civil servants is due to political influence.







"We are of the view that the civil servants cannot function on the basis of verbal or oral instructions, orders, suggestions, proposals, etc. and they must also be protected against wrongful and arbitrary pressure exerted by administrative superiors, the political executive, business and other vested interests," said a bench of Justice K S Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose.



"If the civil servant is acting on oral directions, he will be taking a risk, because he cannot later say the decision was in fact not his own. Recording of instructions, directions is, therefore, necessary for fixing responsibility and ensure accountability in the functioning of civil servants and to uphold institutional integrity," the court said.



Noting that the role of civil servants had become "very complex in the present political scenario", the court said a "fixed minimum tenure would not only enable the civil servants to achieve their professional targets, but also help them to function as effective instruments of public policy. Repeated shuffling / transfer of the officers is deleterious to good governance."



Controversies

The judgment comes on the heels of the raging controversy over IAS officer of Haryana cadre Ashok Khemka, who has been transferred 40 times in his career and who made news recently by alleging he was being hounded for cancelling a land deal involving Congress President Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra.

A huge row also broke out over suspension of Uttar Pradesh IAS officer Durga Sakthi Nagpal, which was seen as a "punishment" for her crackdown on the politically connected sand mafia. She was, however, reinstated last month after she "apologized".



The court passed the verdict on a public interest litigation filed by 83 retired bureaucrats, including former cabinet secretary TSR Subramanian, former Indian Ambassador to the US Abid Hussain (passed away in June 2012), former chief election commissioner N. Gopalaswami, former election commissioner T.S. Krishnamurthy, former IPS officer Ved Prakash Marwah, and former CBI directors Joginder Singh and D.R. Karthikeyan.



They had demanded reforms for the preservation of integrity, fearlessness and independence of civil servants. Lauding the verdict, Krishnamurthy said: "Good governance is critical to good quality democracy. Most of us have seen in our career how most of the transfers, promotions, postings and foreign assignments, all of them are decided on whimsical basis very often."



The 4,700-strong Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officers' Association welcomed the verdict.



"It vindicates our stand. It will help in good governance across the country," secretary Sanjay R. Bhoos Reddy said.



Government opposition

The government had stiffly opposed in the court the idea of a civil services board, saying it would interfere with governmental functions. It apprehended that creating such a board would be an intrusion into the executive function headed by the political executive.

The government also took a stand that the arrangement would lead to a dual line of control, creating complexities in managing administrative functions.



Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Paras Kuhad had said: "Any mechanism within the governmental structure could be thought of, but involvement of any person, howsoever high he may be, who is not part of the government would not be advisable."









A victory for democracy

By TSR Subramanian

It is a landmark verdict. The highest court of the land has, for the first time, recognised the problems faced by the country's civil servants, and our faith in the strength of the democracy has been reaffirmed.



The court has rightly pointed out that deterioration in the standards of probity and accountability of civil servants can be attributed to political influence. The court was also very right in saying that repeated transfers of civil servants is inimical to good governance.

The Supreme Court said the decrease in officials' probity can be blamed on political influence

The significance of the order - which bars a civil servant from acting on oral directions and calls for them to only heed written orders - is that hitherto, the political master cornered the accolades and benefits for whatever good he got done through the civil servant, but if something went wrong, the bureaucrat would be in trouble and the boss would say: "I had never asked him to do it."

So there is a need for written proof, which should be kept as a record for the future. I have seen it throughout my 30 years of service. There are no long term friends in the system. The boss may be close to you today, but may change colours later.

The Supreme Court judgment marks the beginning of a major reform, which was required urgently. It may not eliminate corruption but will surely reduce it if properly implemented. It will surely upgrade the quality of governance.

