The Election Commission of India (EC) has taken two very different stands in handling police appointments in the poll-bound states of Jharkhand and Maharashtra, reflecting its distinct approaches to maintaining election integrity.
In Jharkhand, the EC has directed the removal of acting director general of police (DGP) Anurag Gupta, appointed in July 2024. This decision follows a history of complaints lodged against him during previous elections, which raised concerns about his ability to remain impartial. The Jharkhand government has been asked to submit a panel of senior IPS officers, and Ajay Kumar Singh is expected to be reappointed as DGP. The move is seen as an effort by the EC to ensure neutrality and fairness in the state’s electoral process.
In contrast, the EC rejected calls from the Maharashtra Congress to remove DGP Rashmi Shukla. Opposition leader Nana Patole had claimed that Ms Shukla’s extension beyond her retirement date violated the Maharashtra Police Act and would unfairly benefit the ruling alliance. However, the EC clarified that her appointment had been cleared by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) through the standard procedure, emphasising that her position would remain unchanged during the election period.
The EC’s differing decisions in these two states highlight a perplexing inconsistency in handling what is essentially the same issue, fuelling speculation and allegations of favouritism from the Opposition. In Jharkhand, the leadership change aims to sidestep potential controversies, while Maharashtra remains steadfast in its procedural approach, leaving its top police post unchanged. This stark contrast raises questions about the EC’s commitment to electoral integrity and feeds the rumour mill, suggesting that political biases may influence administrative fairness across different states.
Twist in Haryana’s top babu appointments
Rajesh Khullar’s recent appointment as chief principal secretary to Haryana chief minister Nayab Singh Saini seemed like a routine move, but it took an unexpected turn when the decision was abruptly put on hold just hours later. While Mr Khullar’s initial appointment didn’t raise eyebrows, the sudden reversal certainly did, and it left many wondering what was going on behind the scenes.
Mr Khullar, who had previously represented India and its neighbours at the World Bank, was recalled to Haryana ahead of his term’s completion and seemed a natural choice for the top administrative post. However, political insiders hint that internal groups within the ruling party may have played a role in delaying the finalisation of his appointment.
The timing couldn’t be more interesting, as chief secretary T.V.S.N. Prasad is set to retire at the end of the month. Naturally, there’s been speculation over who will replace him.
There is talk that the Centre might follow a familiar pattern, where top Union secretaries are repatriated to their home cadres to take over as state chief secretaries. We’ve seen this happen in Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, and Rajasthan recently. As Mr Prasad’s retirement looms, DoPT Secretary Vivek Joshi, who still has a fair amount of service left, is being tipped as a potential successor.
With uncertainty lingering over key appointments, all eyes are on Haryana’s leadership to see how these administrative decisions unfold in the coming days.
Gujarat IAS vs IPS: a phone policy divide
There’s a notable rift among IAS and IPS officers in Gujarat regarding mobile phone policies during meetings, as revealed by a recent survey from Gujarat Samachar Digital. On the one hand, we have the IAS officers, who generally allow visitors to keep their phones. They champion transparency and accessibility, which is fantastic. On the other hand, some IPS officers insist that visitors surrender their devices, fearing unauthorised recordings of sensitive information.
This clash of perspectives became particularly evident during an encounter between Congress MLA Jignesh Mevani and ADG Rajkumar Pandian. During a meeting intended to discuss issues facing the Dalit community, Mr Pandian asked Mr Mevani to leave his phone outside. Unsurprisingly, this didn’t go over well, and it sparked a bigger conversation about how different branches of government handle such situations.
Every single IAS collector surveyed was on the same page: they don’t make visitors leave their phones outside. One collector even stated, “We’re government officials. If someone records in our office, so be it! We’ll take calls at odd hours for public concerns.” It’s encouraging to see such an openness to dialogue and accountability.
Conversely, some IPS officers voiced concerns about the potential misuse of recordings. They highlighted the importance of preventing misinformation and protecting sensitive discussions, particularly in serious situations. One SP pointed out that while they don’t have a strict rule about phones, they might request them to be left outside based on the circumstances. It’s a mixed bag, and that lack of uniformity raises eyebrows.
S.D. Sharma, the joint secretary of the Central government’s personnel and training department, added that there’s no Central order about mobile phone policies in government offices, allowing IAS and IPS officers to adapt their rules as needed.
The survey also revealed a rising trend of officials using WhatsApp calls for both government and personal matters, likely driven by concerns over call recordings. Balancing transparency with security is essential. It’s time for IAS and IPS to align on this issue for everyone’s benefit. Surely, there are more substantive issues to deal with.