Politicians may no longer be able to use transfers to victimize bureaucrats.
By Rajiv Theodore
NEW DELHI: The painful days of the ‘Yes Minister’ seems to be getting over, at least on paper in India.
In a relief to the babus (or the bureaucrats as they are called by the media here) the country’s apex court ruled on Thursday that written directions are of critical importance, as mere oral commands defeat the object of transparency giving rise to favoritism and corruption. The court said that oral orders would deter ministers from issuing illegal or flawed decisions.
The Supreme Court also ruled that bureaucrats should have a ‘minimum assured tenure’ in postings which should also deter the politicians to use transfers as a Damocles sword on the babus.
The judgment is based on a petition filed by 83 retired bureaucrats. Much of the deterioration in bureaucracy is because of political interference, the court observed. It said that civil servants should not act on verbal orders given by political executives and all actions must be taken by them on the basis of written communication.
The judgment comes close on the heels of controversies surrounding alleged persecution of Uttar Pradesh IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal and Senior Haryana cadre IAS officer Ashok Khemka.
The bench said: “Civil servants cannot function on the basis of verbal or oral instructions, orders, suggestions, proposals etc. and they must be protected against wrongful and arbitrary pressure exerted by administrative superiors, political executive, business and other vested interests.”
If the instructions did not come in writing from superiors, the concerned bureaucrat who acts on such orders must put it down in writing on file to show that the decision was not his. This would save him from the risk of getting hounded later for it, the bench said.
“Recording of instructions, directions is, therefore, necessary for fixing responsibility and ensure accountability in the functioning of civil servants and to uphold institutional integrity,” said Justice Radhakrishnan, who authored the 47-page judgment and accepted most of the suggestions put forth by petitioners through advocate Menaka Guruswamy.
The court also saw merit in recording oral instructions from the angle of the Right to Information Act (RTI).
“By acting on oral directions, not recording the same, the right guaranteed to the citizens under the RTI Act, could be defeated. The practice of giving oral directions/instructions by administrative superiors, political executives etc. would defeat the object and purpose of RTI Act and would give room for favoritism and corruption,” it said.
To contact the author, email to editor@americanbazaaronline.com