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)