Civil Services Conduct Rules, 1964 are provided for a civil servant to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to duty, and political neutrality. Few rules, however, prohibit criticism on the part of government servant.

For example, Rule 9 restricts any public servant from publishing “in his own name or anonymously or pseudonymously or in the name of any other person” any “statement of fact or opinion which has the effect of an adverse criticism of any current or recent policy or action of the Central Government or a State Government.”

Why prohibition of criticism of government is contentious?

• Democracy is based on fair criticism of government and its policies.
• In the famous Kameswar Prasad v. State of Bihar case the apex court held that “as Article 19 applies to all citizens, government servants in common with all other citizens enjoy the protection of all fundamental rights.”
• The assumption that any criticism of government is an act of indiscipline is far-fetched.
• Rules were framed when our democracy was still new but it has matured over decades and constructive criticism can be accepted.

These rules have an element of colonial hangover suited to an authoritarian regime but not a democratic polity.

Why such rule is needed

• Anonymity is basic to the culture of civil services and should not be compromised at any cost. Expression of views on matters unrelated to job may compromise this aspect.
• Prevents politicization of criticism as it can be lapped up by political parties for government bashing.
• Ensures neutrality and impartiality of Civil Servants to continue to aid, advise and execute decisions without coming into spotlight.
• Helps to maintain cogent relationship with political masters and work without being concerned about political party in power.
• This leads to continuity in policy making.
• Criticism of policies will reduce trust of public in government itself.

Hence, conduct rules may need reform but outright rejection of prohibition is unwarranted. In this regard following steps can be taken:

• It can be replaced with a broad set of “code of ethics”, as suggested by the 2ND ARC.
• An internal mechanism can be devised where officials can express their dissent on policy, which must be taken into account by the government.
• A difference must be made between criticism of the policy and the government/minister. While the first can be allowed if made as private citizen, latter can be regulated.
• A general principle of collective responsibility must be ensured so that a decision once taken is implemented without questioning the policy again.
• Ideological criticisms in garb of freedom of expression also erode the trust of people in the government as well civil servant. As such, these must also be avoided. However, a blanket ban on such criticisms may amount to civil servants becoming mute spectators to blatant violation of principles of natural justice.

GS PAPER IV Ethics UPSC Mains Question

“A blanket prohibition of criticism of the policies of the Government is invalid and void, and it makes no difference if the person criticizing happens to be a government servant.” Critically discuss in the context of Civil Service Conduct Rules, 1964.

Approach:

• Write brief introduction about the Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
• Mention the rule which prohibits criticism of government policies.
• Provide reasons why strict prohibition of criticism of Government policies by civil servants is not desirable in a democracy.
• Also, provide arguments for the need of the rules.
• Conclude by suggesting a way ahead.

Click here for > ETHICS