A notice issued by Chief Secretary K. Gnanadesikan to IAS officer C. Umashankar, asking him to stop his religious ‘preaching activities’ and cancel his meetings in three communally sensitive southern districts, has erupted into a controversy.

The issue has thrown up questions such as, is there any bar on a government servant professing his faith? Can such restrictions be imposed on an individual when the Constitution provides for a right to profess one’s religion?

In the case of Mr. Umashankar, the notice from the government cites Rule 3 (I) of the All India Civil Service Conduct Rules, which says that every government servant shall at all times (i) Maintain absolute integrity, (ii) Maintain devotion to duty and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a civil servant. It is not clear whether the notice cites the very act of preaching by Mr. Umashankar itself as “unbecoming of a civil servant” or whether it is the claim that one such session on January 16 had caused public disorder.

According to the former Judge of the Madras High Court, K. Chandru, the verdict of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in 1962, in Kameshwar Prasad and Others vs The State of Bihar, points to what the legal line should be in this present case.

“In the 1962 case, the apex court held that the government cannot frame any service rule that could violate the fundamental rights of a citizen. Being a civil servant does not mean one abrogates his fundamental rights,” he says. The Constitution, through Article 25, provides for the right to profess, practise and propagate religion of one’s choice.

When pointed out that Article 25 (1) places a reasonable restriction on the right by invoking “public order,” an aspect the notice too seems to be deploying, Mr. Chandru says such a restriction cannot be based on mere apprehensions.

“You cannot be selective in using such provisions. The fact is, the State has allowed public display of religion even in government offices though it is expected to be fully secular and divorce itself from religion,” he opines.

M.G. Devesahayam, former IAS officer of the Haryana cadre, says he does not agree with Mr. Umashankar’s actions.

Calling himself a “devout Christian,” Mr. Devesahayam, who hails from Kanyakumari, says that though there is no specific restriction in the All India Services (Conduct) Rules regarding “propagating activities” for any religion, the Central government has subsequently clarified that an official would conduct himself or herself in a manner without causing any impression or feeling that the official would act in a prejudicial way.

“This principle is applicable to any government official, more so in the case of IAS officers, who are in decision-making positions.” Mr. Umashankar is free to practise and profess any religion but not propagation that would lead to proselytisation. “When there is fear about disturbance to public order, the law-enforcing authorities have every right to prevent any event from taking place,” he says

Speaking to The Hindu , Mr. Umashankar says he would argue in the court that action cannot be initiated by citing a general clause alone in the service rules. Rather, a substantive clause should be supplemented with the general clause. “There is nothing in the book that says I cannot propagate. The notice in my opinion is invalid. Also, there is only a thin line between preaching and propagation. How it is received depends on the nature of the audience.”

Meanwhile, the Hindu Munnani has welcomed the notice issued to Mr. Umashankar.