Inside India's Bureaucratic Drama: Extensions, Suspensions, and the Call for Transparency

Bureaucratic Flexibility in India

India's bureaucrats have a knack for presenting flexibility as policy. A recent example involves Sonia Narang and Abhishek Goyal, both senior IPS officers currently on central deputation with the Enforcement Directorate (ED), who have received extensions that bend the IPS tenure rules. This is bureaucratic language for 'We have rules, but we can choose when to follow them.'

Narang was reassigned back to her Karnataka cadre in early April without any explanation, only to be granted a one-year extension in Delhi shortly after. During her tenure at the ED, she managed several high-profile cases, including those involving PFI and IFFCO. Observers are left questioning the reasons behind her abrupt reassignment.

Similarly, Goyal, who is currently overseeing the HIU and the Northern Region, has also been awarded a one-year extension. His position places him at the center of political activity, which may have influenced this decision.

The role of Special Director in the ED is significant, being the second-highest rank within the organization, yet the lack of clarity surrounding these extensions raises eyebrows.

As we witness these rules being adjusted, it becomes evident that power dynamics often dictate bureaucratic decisions, leading to a situation where the ACC refers to it as relaxation, while many see it as a display of bureaucratic flexibility.

Kerala's Bureaucratic Turmoil

In Kerala, the bureaucratic landscape resembles a reality show, filled with public disputes and social media controversies. IAS officer N. Prasanth, known as 'Collector Bro' for his online presence, is currently suspended after accusing senior officials A. Jayathilak and K. Gopalakrishnan of corruption and conspiracy. He claims his suspension is retaliation for exposing corruption, a serious allegation that demands attention.

Gopalakrishnan, on the other hand, faced suspension for allegedly forming a religion-based WhatsApp group, which is against service rules. Prasanth's suspension followed his public criticism of Jayathilak, which the government deemed a breach of conduct. This public feud highlights the fractures within Kerala's disciplined administrative system.

This conflict is not merely about personal grievances; it reveals deeper issues within the bureaucratic framework. The public nature of these disputes, especially on social media, threatens the integrity of civil services and diminishes public trust, diverting attention from essential governance.

The Transparency Dilemma in Madhya Pradesh

In Madhya Pradesh, a quiet discontent simmers among bureaucrats. While IAS, IPS, and IFS officers are required to disclose their immovable assets annually, ministers have evaded this obligation for over 15 years. This stark contrast raises questions about fairness and accountability.

The General Administration Department has reiterated that all state employees must submit detailed property disclosures, including information on both ancestral and self-acquired properties. Failure to comply could lead to withheld salaries or delayed promotions, a harsh penalty for bureaucrats.

Conversely, many ministers have not consistently disclosed their property details, despite previous commitments to transparency. This ongoing issue reflects a double standard, where bureaucrats face strict scrutiny while political leaders operate with relative freedom.

The lack of ministerial transparency undermines accountability and good governance principles. For a truly transparent administration, it is crucial for ministers to adhere to the same disclosure standards imposed on bureaucrats. Until this happens, bureaucrats will continue to file their disclosures in silent protest, observing their political superiors evade accountability.

Conclusion

By Dilip Cherian