Reinstatement of Senkumar and after

The recent Supreme Court order reinstating Senkumar, a Kerala-cadre Indian Police Service officer as Director General and head of the state police is a welcome shot in the arm for good governance.

The court’s stipulations that changes at the top can only be for valid reasons and on the basis of materials on record, provides effective restraints on the unbridled power exercised by the political executive over higher bureaucracy. By reinstating Senkumar, the state escaped the contempt charge but was slapped with a fine.

Two questions arise from this case: (a) why is the bureaucracy supine?; and, (b) why are officers belonging to the all-India services keen to throw in the towel and kow-tow the whims of political masters? The answers lie in the total hold which the political executive has come to exercise over  administration in terms of transfers, postings and supercession in top posts.

In the Prakash Singh case, the Supreme Court directed the states to provide minimum tenures for police officials, including the DGP, if necessary, by amending the State Police Act. In May 2016, after the advent of the new Left Front government in Kerala, the incumbent DGP (Senkumar) was transferred in the middle of his tenure, because he had ‘lost the confidence of the government’ and ‘mishandling’ of the law and order and crime situations.

This averment of the government did not cut ice with the Supreme Court which ruled that the actions of the government must be on the basis of materials on record and on objective considerations alone.

The reinstatement of Senkumar was not without drama. The state government came out in very poor light by stating, in a subsequent petition before the Supreme Court, that Senkumar was never appointed as “Head of the Police Force” but only “Head of the Police” and that he was “ineligible” to hold office.

On his part, the officer filed a contempt case against the chief secretary charging that she had deliberately delayed in complying with the court order, because of past animus against him. She was mainly responsible, he said, for the action taken by the government, to remove him from office. With his reinstatement, and unconditional apology from the chief secretary, the contempt petition was dropped by the court.

Officers of the state governments, no matter what positions they occupy, dread that their postings can be cut short if they fall foul of political bosses. Politicians expect that officers should do as per their bidding — a common malaise across all political levels. The bureaucracy does not possess countervailing powers to checkmate politicians. It is common to find officers trying their best to please their political masters, including acting as accomplices.

Conscientious officers, who value self-respect, are forced to accept inconspicuous posts, or turn a Nelson’s eye to the wrong doings of the political masters.

Even in respect of the all India service officers at the state level, continuance in office is contingent upon “the pleasure” of the political executive. Divergent opinions from that of the political executive have to be exercised cautiously and, far better, if not held at all ! The more powerful the politicians, higher the costs to officialdom in not being subservient!

The political executive exercise their will through supercessions. The seniority principle is usually the norm in appointments to top positions of chief secretary and DGP. Those senior most in the services, without serious blemish, can expect to be appointed to top posts.

It is not uncommon for state governments to appoint an officer, other than the senior most, to the top positions. In Karnataka, supercession has occurred many times for the post of chief secretary, with officers of capacity bypassed by the government. Recently, an officer with excellent service record was shown the door. A cabinet minister remarked that the superseded officer “though competent, was too rigid”.

Sent packing
Prescribing of tenures alone are not enough as they are not respected by the governments. Not long ago, the Government of India sent the foreign secretary packing when she still had tenure left.
Unbridled transfers and supercessions have destroyed the morale of the services and succeeded in introducing servility among officers. This is reinforced by the current day politicians who, unlike their predecessors, are contemptuous of restraint in exercising power.

These politicians brook no restraint or heed to any moderating counsel. They expect officers to toe their line. There are of course some honourable exceptions but they are exceptions nevertheless.
In the wake of this dismal scenario, the Senkumar order of the Supreme Court provides a silver lining for the system. It is a caution to politicians against wanton exercise of their power in appointments to the top positions. Senkumar deserves kudos for taking on the system and proving a point. Right thinking people should salute his courage in the face of severe odds.

(The writer is former Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka)