Civil servants, not slaves

The line of intellectual liberty for the civil servants belonging to the all-India services was drawn last in the year 1968, when conduct...

The line of intellectual liberty for the civil servants belonging to the all-India services was drawn last in the year 1968, when conduct rules for them were reformulated by the Central government under the powers granted by Parliament under the All-India Services Act. A similar line was drawn for the members of the Central services by the conduct rules framed for them in 1964. The redrawing of the line for the civil servants has become due in the wake of India acceding to the two international treaties in 1979: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. Insertion in 1976 of Article 51A into the Constitution has also necessitated the exercise.

Though the two covenants were brought into being in 1966, India acceded to them only in 1979. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stipulates under Article 153 that the state parties to the covenant undertake to respect freedom of scientific research and creative activity. But, Rule 62 of the AIS Conduct Rules makes the government8217;s permission necessary for publishing a book or contributing an article to a book or a journal or even writing a letter to a periodical or a newspaper. No time limit has been specified within which the permission must be granted or refused, thus allowing the government to suppress free expression by neither granting nor refusing it.

Exceptions are made in case of publications, which are 8220;purely literary, artistic or scientific in character8221;. Interestingly, it is not clarified what is 8220;purely8221; literary, artistic or scientific. An officer from the academic background of political science may like to write critically on the political system in a scientific spirit. Is this permitted? No one knows, as it is not clarified whether 8220;science8221; includes the social sciences.

Rule 7 of the AIS Conduct Rules, 1968 says that no public utterance should be made by a civil servant 8220;which has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the Central government or a state government.8221; Any statement of fact can be construed to have the effect of an adverse criticism of the policy of some government department though the intention may only be to scientifically analyse a subject and to contribute to sound policy-making. No other rule has done greater damage to the intellectual freedom of civil servants. This amounts to treating government servants as intellectual slaves. It is high time the expression 8220;which has the effect of an adverse criticism8221; was deleted and only direct criticism of the government, which is of a derisive or vitriolic nature with the intention of maligning the government or subverting public interest, prohibited. If civil servants are allowed to make statements of facts and express their own opinion supported by arguments innewspapers and periodicals, there can be more informed debate on issues of public interest.

What is potentially dangerous in the wording of Rule 7 is that a civil servant cannot even make statement of a fact8217; in a public utterance, written or oral, which has the effect of adverse criticism of a current or recent government policy. Today, it is widely realised that governance should be as transparent as possible so that policy decisions are taken in fairness and based on facts, and not on the whims of individuals or to help vested interests. Why, then, should a government be wary of somebody making a fact8217; public? If civil servants are allowed to bring facts out into the open, the possibility of correct policy decisions being taken will increase and public welfare will be promoted. If restrictions on speaking the truth in public must be imposed, they may relate only to defence, external affairs, counter-intelligence and internal security.

Obviously, the conduct rules in question violate the fundamental rights enshrined in our Constitution. Article 19 I of the Indian Constitution says that all citizens shall have a right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19 II stipulates that nothing in sub-clause a of clause I shall prevent the state from making any law that imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the rights conferred by the clause in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of state, friendly relations with foreign states, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence. The kind of restrictions imposed under Rule 6 or 7 of the AIS Conduct Rules cannot be justified on any of the stipulated grounds.

Interestingly, in the chapter on fundamental duties, under Article 51a, the Constitution further stipulates that 8220;it shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform and to strive towards excellence in all spheres of individual and collective activity so that the nation consistently rises to the higher levels of endeavour and achievement8221;. This duty is enjoined on all irrespective of official position or service.

Story continues below this ad

It should not be difficult to foresee that, despite modification of the conduct rules on the lines suggested, the intellectual liberty of civil servants will be in constant danger of being eroded if the powers of deciding whether a civil servant has overstepped the limits remain in the hands of the government. In such cases, the arbitrator should be an independent body. Action against civil servants should be initiated only when that authority concludes that there has been an unfair or misleading criticism of the government policy, or that incorrect facts have been projected by civil servants with non-constructive intentions.

Ideally, the job of arbitration should be entrusted to a sitting member of the National Human Rights Commission, drawn from the judiciary, in the case of Central services officers and all-India services officers serving under the Central government. In the case of all-India services officers working under the state governments and the officers of the state civil services, the referee may be a member of the State Human Rights Commission, who has been a judge in a High Court or the Supreme Court.

Those aware of the internal processes of actual governance can see that grant of intellectual freedom to civil servants will not only secure for a large class of citizens some of their basic human rights but also make the government more accountable and transparent. There cannot be a better way of celebrating the 50 years of India8217;s independence than to liberate the different organs of our society and different agencies of the government from all that shackles their healthful growth, creativity and initiative.

The writer is an IPS officer and secretary, national citizens8217; commission for national issues