Opinion No gag orders,please

Let civil servants speak out: it only strengthens democratic institutions

B.K. Chaturvedi

October 21, 2011 12:43 AM IST First published on: Oct 21, 2011 at 12:43 AM IST

Some very interesting issues have been raised in the article The Officer Raj (IE,October 15). The functioning of our democracy is incumbent on the effectiveness of its institutions the executive,the legislature and the judiciary. It may be useful,therefore,to consider the inter-relationship of these institutions. It is also appropriate to consider,in the context of the civil services,what good norms of behaviour are.

Are civil servants too much the public face of government in recent years? My experience in the last decade does not support this view. An ideal civil servant is neither seen nor heard. He works quietly. Ministers are the departments public face,and often meet the press,a policy followed by all governments. The cabinet secretary very rarely meets the press,since there are very few occasions requiring this. There are,however,several civil service jobs where this policy may not be applicable,such as the external publicity division office in the ministry of external affairs. Certain senior civil servants like the home secretary,the finance secretary or sometimes the food secretary or disaster management officer,who deal with sensitive public issues on which there is a great deal of interest,may very often be required to brief the press or interact with them. Invariably,the extent of this interaction is decided by the minister himself. Very often a balanced approach is required in this,lest a view is taken that civil services are not interacting or briefing the press due to a gag order. But generally speaking,it is the political executive who leads from the front. I have not seen any major deviation in this position in the last decade,during which governments of different complexions have been in power.

The second aspect I wish to consider is the responsibility of civil servants while giving advice. One of the cardinal principles for senior civil servants is to give free and frank advice,which the executive can then accept or reject. Civil servants who fail to do so in fact fail in their responsibility. The criticism levelled against some of them,as against Sudha Pillai recently,has to be viewed in this context. As an upright civil servant,she has put her views in writing. I am sure these concerns will be considered and a final view will emerge,so that the UIDAI can move forward faster. The project is still under implementation and the performance audit appears premature. Understandably,the CAG would like to audit all major expenditure and its outcome. In this case,it may be a bit early. In the absence of full facts,I will not comment on this aspect any further.

The third aspect I wish to consider is the office of cabinet secretary and the nature of relationship between civil servants and the ministers. The tradition has to be of a relationship of mutual trust and respect. The cabinet secretary is a very senior civil servant,the head of the civil services; in the protocol hierarchy,he has a rank equal to the lieutenant-governor of Delhi. When senior civil servants work closely with the political executive,a relationship can often demand social interaction. I remember ministers in several governments would,often,invite me for an informal discussion. I do recall very vividly the farewell lunch given by the present prime minister when I completed my term as cabinet secretary. Several senior ministers were present on this occasion. There have been strong traditions of similar interactions whenever the chief of the armed forces demits office. In such close working relationships,social courtesies often have to be extended. It would be useful for senior people to know the topmost civil servant of the country. Should we not then have a tradition of senior civil servants being introduced on a social occasion,as the minister of state for science and technology did? Wouldnt the relationship of trust be strengthened by such social interactions? Another interesting question is the reason for a number of former civil servants participating in the recent PILs on nuclear power and the debate on food security. It will be useful to consider this in a certain perspective. In the last decade,PILs have become widely prevalent,some raising issues of wide public interest like the one filed by the former director-general of the BSF on police reforms. Recently there has been,because of the RTI,an increased interest and public debate on many issues. This has generated an atmosphere of discussion and dialogue.

In this context,several former civil servants have joined in. Many of them,like Aruna Roy,are extremely dedicated individuals,who have been working for a long time for their causes. Several of us do not agree with their views; we may feel that the current governments policy on nuclear issues is very much in the national interest. They are,however,as citizens,entitled to their views. I would consider this as a part of a vital democratic debate in which former civil servants who would often retire and write books,have considered it worthwhile to join and participate. Given the public importance of the two issues,it will be difficult to say that these are driven exclusively by these civil servants. I feel that they have joined the debate. Ultimately,however,it is for the courts to take a view after considering the various viewpoints.

The concept of our democracy as a system where decisions are taken through discussions is getting stronger,particularly after the RTI. Many civil servants may be raising issues that would be decided by the courts. Many other professionals would also gradually participate and engage in this dialogue. Should we see it as an assault on any government? Or should we consider this as an evolution of our democratic institutions?

The writer is a former cabinet secretary and a member of the Planning Commission