Yes Minister! But not before you lend me your ears!

The widely reported differences in the electoral arena between the Prime Minister and the Chief Minister of West Bengal needn’t have got extended to an unseemly incident during the former’s recent visit to the state. What’s more worrisome is that it resulted in the Chief Secretary (CS) of the state government getting pulled into the controversy. While a lot has been published on the incident, let it first be said here that no government employee, not even somebody holding an apex level position as of the CS, can be held responsible for outcomes arising out of differences in style, approach and ideology of persons holding two of the highest positions of Constitutional authority in the country. A Chief Secretary could have only done what was expected of him as the Principal Advisor to the Chief Minister. Some of the options that would have been available to him have been explored by Pranab Dhal Samanta in his article “Alapan Bandyopadhyay: Why a Chief Secretary can’t make excuses”, published in these columns on June 5, 2021. These need further dilation in the light of what actually prevails in the upper reaches of administration and the rules that govern the All India Services, not just in the letter but also the spirit under which these were framed under Article 312 of the Constitution, famously attributed to no less a person than Sardar Patel himself.

Is there something the Chief Secretary was expected to but did not do to ensure that the visit of the PM to the state and the tour by the CM as per her programme went unhindered? Did the CS advise the CM, as is expected of him, of the range of options available to the latter and was he indeed overruled? He is after all the principal adviser to the Chief Minister, a role any number of politically appointed advisors and principal advisors cannot and should not be allowed to take away from him! The Madhya Pradesh Government’s Conduct of Business Rules, clearly lays down what role the Chief Secretary shall perform. When it comes to adherence to a rule-based environment in decision making it is primarily his duty to advise the Council of Ministers, which we all know is headed by the CM. Rules of Business in other states, including West Bengal cannot be any different, at the least in so far as those which form the foundational basis for the Cabinet system of governance.

The most elegant option in my opinion would have been for the Chief Secretary to stay back for the PM’s meeting. In this, I differ from Samanta who suggests that a senior officer of the rank of an additional chief secretary (ACS) could have been deputed to attend the meeting of the Prime Minister if the CS was indeed indispensable from the Chief Minister’s tour of the cyclone-affected districts. Not one person, in the cyclone-affected areas that CM was to visit, I dare say, was expecting the Chief Secretary to go meet them! Also since when do, Chief Secretaries have to necessarily accompany a Chief Minister on her tours.

During my tenure as CS, I rarely accompanied the CM on his tours. I did go along to a limited number of events that we both agreed I should attend. These included sometimes touring flood-affected districts, especially for aerial surveys and impromptu meetings with district officers. However, if the PM were to have visited the state in circumstances similar to those in West Bengal in May 2021, I would have preferred to stay behind, and I see no reason my then Chief Minister would have disagreed. Then too like in this instance the CM and the PM were from two different political parties. A problem might arise only if the CS is insecure and would not want to share with other senior officers physical proximity with CM! That would be ridiculous even to contemplate. But what if the CM overrules and insists that CS accompanies him. I would then have gone along with him on the tour. In all such cases are written submissions made and orders obtained on a file? Unfortunately, not! It doesn’t work this way most of the time, at least not any more in the present Indian context. A lot more depends on oral communication and consultation.

To probe further in the present matter shall amount to relying on the word of the CM on whether the CS performed his advisory role and made a suggestion that he stays back. The only documentary evidence available in the public domain is the letter the CM wrote to the PM on this. From its content and tenor, it is clear that she wanted the CS to accompany her rather than stay back for the PM’s meeting. Given this, it is unfortunate that the Department of Personnel and the NDMA, both central government entities, have acted in haste questioning the conduct of the Chief Secretary. Whatever role is assigned under the Disaster Management Act to the Chief Secretary is by virtue of the person first occupying the office of the CS, and not the other way round, and where he is bound by decisions taken by the CM, leaving him no recourse but to comply with priorities determined by her.

All in all, it is impossible to nail down the CS on any non-performance of duties in this case. The quality of advice rendered by him to the CM can certainly be debated but then again given the large element of subjectivity no one would know for sure of what actually transpired between them.

The manner in which assignment to the central government of an officer from one of the three All India Services, i.e. the IAS, the IPS and the Indian Forest Service, is done under para 6(1) of the relevant rules has already been dealt in detail by the former Cabinet Secretary, K.M. Chandrashekhar in these columns on June 1, 2021 in “State of Officers of the state……why consultation even consent is crucial” and needn’t be repeated. Sharing of personnel of the All India Services between the federal government and more than thirty states and union territories is an arrangement unique to India, with no parallel anywhere else in the world. It requires highest levels of sensitivity and adherence to not just the letter but the spirit in which Article 312 was conceived and included in the Constitution. What has, however, raised eyebrows in the case of Alapan Bandhyopadhyaya, was the alacrity with which the Department of Personnel moved and erred by not sticking to the laid down procedure.

Political probity and conduct of public policy in a democracy have to go hand in hand to ensure that people continue to have faith and confidence in the public representatives and civil servants elected and appointed for the purpose. This cause was ill-served by these recent happenings. We seem to lack administrative rigour to adhere to procedures and building a strong tradition to nurture best practices. The DoPT should take the lead in rectifying the anomalies and fill the gaps. Not every nuance that goes into administrative practice and every situation that throws up a different response can be codified. Even so, it can make a beginning by developing an empirically evidenced and situationally imagined Code of Practices to help minimise uncertainty and opportunistic behaviour.*(Parasuram, is a former member of the IAS. He retired as Chief Secretary, Government of Madhya Pradesh)