Open Forum
New Delhi, 22 May 2008
Pay Commission
Award
DESERVING BEFORE
DESIRING
By Ashok Kapur, IAS
(Retd)
The recent award proposed by the Central Pay Commission has
raised a controversy which was entirely avoidable. The IPS Association in
particular, has raised open objection at having been denied ‘parity’ with the
IAS, as widely reported in the media. The issue needs to be viewed in the right
perspective lest the Government is pressured to rush to a hasty judgment, which
may eventually impact the rule of law, a ‘basic feature’ of the Constitution.
The issue is not merely want of parity between the two All-India
Services but raises basic questions about the working of the Constitution in a
democracy. It is not a question of traditional rivalry coming to the fore as
erroneously projected in some sections of the media.
The Commission was headed by a respected judge of the
Supreme Court. It deliberated for almost two years before submitting its
report. Each service including the IPS was offered an opportunity to submit its
case before the Commission. It is presumed that the IPS Association’s views
were duly taken into consideration before the final award. There is a certain
sanctity in such awards which if substantially tinkered with at this stage,
will upset the fine working balance not only amongst all-India but central
services too.
No service, including the IPS is a ‘stand alone’ entity. All
are a part of the larger overall bureaucracy of the State. These work within a
finely balanced structure of the State. Undeniably, both IAS and IPS are
all-India services but the similarity--quite superficial-- ends there. It is a
matter of common knowledge that the more meritorious amongst the successful
candidates in the combined all-India examination join the IAS and those who
cannot make it join the IPS and other central services. The question of parity,
therefore, does not arise as otherwise it would tantamount to rewarding
failure, in a manner of speaking.
The Constitutional role of the two services admits of no comparison
whatsoever. The reported stand of the IPS Association glosses over the fact
that the IAS is a trained magistracy, exercising the powers of executive
magistrates under the Criminal Code of the nation. The police role is mainly
investigation and related law & order duties under the said Code. It
reports to the civil magistracy under more than a dozen chapters of the Code
even after the separation of the Executive from the Judiciary.
The first posting of an IAS officer is that of a
Sub-Divisional Magistrate who is the head of the sub-district and a
representative of the State Government. He is expected to have familiarity with
and is responsible for implementation of almost four dozen laws, including revenue,
environmental, election, land, food and socio-economic legislation.
The first posting of an IPS officer is a sub-divisional
police officer whose role is limited mainly to a single piece of legislation
that is the Criminal Code. Even under the latter statute, the sub-divisional
police officer reports to the sub-divisional magistrate under various chapters,
including investigation and crime prevention.
The multi-functional IAS is basically trained to work the
Constitution in a supervisory and decision making capacity. In the field, it
works in local as well as ‘Panchayat’ institutions, local bodies and
municipalities and the State Government. It is trained and equipped to man more
than 60 departments and ministries of the Union Government. Its basic role is
supervisory. Before an IAS officer is considered for a Central posting, he is
expected to familiarize himself with the working of the Constitution in a
majority of 200-plus subjects in the Union,
State and the Concurrent Lists in the Constitution.
The uni-functional IPS, on the other hand has no
Constitutional role. It has no involvement in any decision-making capacity or
any role under the Lists of the subjects either in the Union,
State or Concurrent List. Its expertise is limited just to the sphere of law
and order duties, mainly under the Criminal Code. In the field, the police
report to civilian magistrates in the discharge of their lawful duties even
during the formal investigation stage.
It is also reported that the IPS Association has approached
some extra-Constitutional authorities to push their case for parity. This is
not only a grave impropriety but is also in violation of the letter and spirit
of the Conduct Rules governing all-India services. Pay and perquisites are
conditions of service. To bring political pressure to further their service
conditions is regrettable.
It is further reported that the IPS Association has
approached the ruling Chief Minister of a north Indian State
to bring additional pressure on the Union Government. The obvious needs to be emphasized
here. The conditions of service of the all-India services are determined by the
Government of India and not by the State Governments. The choice of the
particular Chief Minister, who is not exactly eulogized for her sense of Constitutional
propriety, was entirely avoidable. Reportedly, the Chief Minister pushed the
case with alacrity. This is mischievous and not without serious attendant
risks.
After all, the Chief Minister, like all Chief Ministers is a
politician. If the Union Government were to somehow succumb to her pressure,
the police officials at least in her State would be definitely beholden to her.
This would only strengthen the politician-police nexus in the long run.
Incidentally, a number of senior IPS officers had earlier petitioned the
Supreme Court for implementing the suggestions of the defunct National Police
Commission. The ostensible reason advanced in the court was to break the
politician-police nexus. By such unseemly lobbying, they are merely exposing
themselves to long term politicization.
Unfortunately, the Pay Commission has done the damage. It
has recommended equating the post of the Director-General of Police with the
Union Home Secretary. This betrays a complete innocence of the role of the two
services and the way the Union Government is organized. The Home Secretary is
the permanent head of the controlling Ministry, whereas the Director-General of
Police heads a subordinate Directorate.
The Union Ministries and departments supervise the directorates.
There is only one Home Secretary, a trained magistrate from the IAS. There are
more than half a dozen directorates of police, headed by IPS officers each whom
reports to the Home Ministry, one of the most sensitive ministries in the
Government. To equate a directorate with the controlling ministry would
eventually damage and destroy all controls and accountability.
‘Control of police’ is a basic ingredient of the rule of
law, according to the recent Constitutional Review Commission headed by a
former Chief Justice of India. It comprised some of the most eminent jurists of
India,
including two former Attorneys-General. The Constitutional Commission has
recorded, incidentally, that 80% of the arrests being made by the police all
over India
are “unnecessary”. Evidently, control on the police is lax if not non-existent.
As stated, the IPS is trained to man a single directorate of
a single ministry under the Union Government. If the Directors General of
Police, merely the heads of directorates are placed in the same scale as the
Home Secretary, the permanent head of the controlling ministry, it will distort
all accountability mechanism in the Government. This is already happening. Long
after the implementation of the last but one Pay Commission report, the police
officers succeeded in upsetting the fine inter-service balance even before the
Sixth Pay Commission was constituted.
There can be no comparison between incomparables. To equate
the police (IPS) with the civil magistracy (IAS) would be an attribute of a
police state not of a functioning civilian democracy. ---- INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|