Valid reasons

It is unfortunate that the government has rejected a suggestion made by the Election Commission to bar top level bureaucrats of the central services from joining politics or contesting elections for a suitable period after their retirement.

The commission had written to the government early this year to impose such a cooling off period on senior officials between leaving their jobs and joining a political party, in order to ensure that civil servants do not favour parties while in service and to ensure the free and fair nature of elections. The government rejected the suggestion on the basis of the opinion given by the attorney-general that such a bar, even for limited period, would violate the constitutional right of citizens to contest elections. But there are valid reasons to further explore the possibility of implementing the suggestion by amending  service rules or by legislation.

The trend of government officials contesting elections immediately after retirement is increasing in the country. There are also some who quit  government service to actively work for political parties and to join the electoral fray. This is because of the increasing politicisation of the bureaucracy. It is well-known that politicians play favourites with bureaucrats and some officials become identified with particular politicians or parties.

There is a possibility of officials misusing their powers to favour parties, individual politicians or particular constituencies if they are free to join politics immediately after leaving their jobs. Such a cooling off period exists in the case of government officials accepting private jobs after retirement. This is one year now though it used to be three years till a decade ago. The right to livelihood is also guaranteed by the constitution. If this is not violated by the short term bar on private employment, an embargo on contesting elections cannot also be deemed unconstitutional.  The attorney-general is of the view that the bar on immediate employment is meant to protect the independence and neutrality of officials and to protect the interest of the government in decision-making. But public interest is also involved in the commission’s suggestion. What is being asked for is not a permanent ban but a temporary bar.

Three key ministries of law, home and personnel had originally supported the proposal though they had suggested different ways of implementing it. Instead of rejecting it the government could have referred the matter to the Supreme Court. The Election Commission on its own can still do that.