How the CA debated technocracy vs social justice

‘Service law’ is a subject that is not taught in most law schools -- even the prestigious ones. Yet, it is practically bread-and-butter for lawyers practising in the High Courts and the Supreme Court. It ranges from understanding the mind-numbingly boring particulars of conditions of service of public servants all the way to serious constitutional debates on ensuring social justice in their recruitment. It is not just one for judges and lawyers (and, of course, public servants) to argue over, but something that is fundamental to constitutional governance.

The Constitution has 14 articles contained in Part XIV dedicated only to services under the Union and the states. It even gives constitutional status to the bodies overseeing such services -- the UPSC and the state Public Service Commissions. Their functions and responsibilities, outlined in Article 320, range from conducting examinations for recruitment to being consulted by state and Union governments on matters of appointments, disciplinary proceedings and pension of public servants.

This arcane Article was the subject of some furious debates in the Constituent Assembly (CA). Opening the salvo against Article 320 was P S Deshmukh, a student of the Satya Shodhak Samaj and temple entry activist, and later India’s first Agriculture Minister. Backing him up was Sardar Nagappa, a Dalit member from Kurnool.

Deshmukh objected to the PSCs’ proposed role of overseeing examinations for public services. He pointed out how such examinations tended to inevitably favour the sections that had already benefited from higher education -- namely the Brahmins -- to the exclusion of pretty much everyone else. In an impassioned speech, he linked the need to have a representative bureaucracy with the goals of the independence movement and social justice. His fear was, primarily, that a body such as the PSC could override the Union and state legislatures’ attempts at improving representation of all sections in the public services. He wanted firm guarantees in the Constitution that they wouldn’t.

If Deshmukh spoke about principles, Nagappa focused on the practical. In an angry speech, he pointed out how even the few Dalits fortunate enough to get higher education were being kept out of public service by dubious means by the incumbents. His biggest grouse was with the interview process, where prejudice prevailed, and upper caste members found ways to keep those less privileged out of public service. So vehement was Nagappa in his criticism of the way existing Service Commissions worked that he even earned a rebuke from Rajendra Prasad.

The most detailed response to this came from Ananthasayanam Ayyangar from Madras and Pandit H N Kunzru of the then United Provinces. Neither fundamentally disagreed with the premise or goals espoused by Deshmukh or Nagappa. Rather, they pointed out that other parts of the Constitution already allowed for legislatures’ powers to create reservations in public jobs and in no way would the PSCs be allowed to override them. Further, they also pointed out that while representation of all classes was a worthy goal, it would be better suited for the legislature, where constituencies could be reserved for Dalits and Adivasis, rather than in the public services, where a certain level of technical and managerial ability was also necessary.

Curiously, B R Ambedkar himself did not have much to add, except to largely agree with Ayyangar and Kunzru and offer a couple of minor clarifications. The provision passed as is. Perhaps what Deshmukh and Nagappa were really looking for was reassurance on the social justice goals of the Constitution.

Many other members of the CA also took part in this debate which, 70-odd years later, still sparkles with its deeply insightful takes on an important issue. It is an interesting debate -- the speakers did not seek to choose between technocracy and social justice in the design of India’s bureaucracy but tried to find the right balance between the two. It is a debate that is ongoing as states try to balance the need for an efficient and effective executive with social justice.

What the members of the CA did not foresee was how the courts (dominated by privileged upper caste men) would stymie such social justice measures for years. It is only in the last couple of decades perhaps that one can say that the courts’ thinking has caught up with the progressive vision of the framers of the Constitution. However, we are still some way from true equality of opportunity in public services, which Deshmukh and Nagappa had hoped for.

Check out the latest videos from DH: