States have case about infringement of rights

The Department of Personnel and Traininghasrecently writtento chief secretaries of the State Governments, in the context of a ‘Proposal for Amendment to Rule 6of the IAS (Cadre) Rules, 1954’, that irrespective of the consent of the concerned State Government, the officer whom the Union Government desires to put on the deputation would “stand relieved” from his or her respective cadre. As of now, a total of six states have opposed the move. Currently, the states can grant a no objection or an objection notice, or veto an IAS or IPS officer’s Central deputation. The proposed amendment would take this power away. Some of the proposed amendments are quite problematic- there is a proviso that in some “specific situations”, states have to send certain officers on the deputation, whose services may besought by the Union government. However, the term “specific situations” is not defined and is prone to politicisation and misinterpretation. And what about the unwillingness of civil servants to be deputed away from the States? In this context, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel made a critical observation that can be the touchstone for the elected political servant and the civil servant, especially in present-day India. In 1949, Patel exhorted in the Constituent Assembly, and I quote:”…If you want an efficient All-India Service, I advise you to allow the Services to open their mouths freely. If you are a Premier, it would be your duty to allow your secretary, Chief Secretary, or other Services working under you to express their opinion without fear or favour. But I see a tendency today that in several provinces, the services are set upon and told - ‘No, you are servicemen; you must carry out our orders.’ The Union will go - you will not have a united India- if you have not a good All-India Service which has the independence to speak out its mind…” Although, in 1946, Nehru and the likes were onboard for the substitution of the old Indian Civil Service cadre with an All-India Service, apoint of variance came along the way on whether the officers would come under the control of Central or Provincial Governments. T. Prakasam of Madras Province wantedample control of these civil servants under provincial governments. However, as also discussed in BB Misra’s book ‘Bureaucracy in India’, Patel remained resolute in his position:” He [Patel] recognised the necessity of adequate allowance for provincial susceptibilities, especially in a country inhabited by multicultural communities.:

Patel ruminated the all-India Service as essential to interweave the administrative framework of a vast and diverse country into a cohesive unit. The all-India Service officers are made available for central deputation through a consultative process involving the Centre, the States, and the officers themselves. Unfortunately, the concerned practice has been flouted at times. Recently, the Centre asked Alapan Bandyopadhyay, a West Bengal IAS officer, to report to the Centre on the last date of his retirement. He refused.  In another incident, after BJP President JP Nadda’s motorcade was besieged allegedly by TMC endorsers in Kolkata, the Centre sent three IPS officers responsible for his security to central deputation. The State refused to comply. On the other hand, there are examples of some states vindictively holding back the names of some officers who had opted for central deputation or holdingup their relief after the Centre selected them. States are, however,correct in pointing out that the proposed amendments are a serious infringement of their right to deploy IAS officers as they deem fit. The intended changes can degrade the security, independence, and morale of the IAS officers. It is hoped that the Centre pays heed to Sardar Patel’s ideals and drops the proposed amendments.

(The writer is a B.A., LL. B (Hons.) student at National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bangalore. The views expressed are personal.)