Did the comments of India’s envoy to Ireland breach IFS service rules?

What did Ambassador Akhilesh Mishra say?

After the Dublin-based The Irish Times said in an editorial published on April 11 that under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India’s “democratic credentials have been severely tarnished”, Mishra sent a rejoinder to the paper, describing its view as “highly biased and prejudiced”.

ln the letter, titled “Modi enjoys unprecedented popularity”, Ambassador Mishra appeared to be taking a jibe at the Nehru-Gandhi family, saying that the Prime Minister did not belong to an “elite political family”, and it was for this reason that “his personal life inspires millions of ordinary people”.

Ambassador @AkhileshIFS’s rejoinder to @IrishTimes‘ highly biased & prejudiced editorial [Modi tightens his grip” April 11, 2024)], casting aspersion on Prime Minister of India, Shri @narendramodi, Indian democracy, law enforcement institutions & “Hindu-majority” people of India. pic.twitter.com/Oh5rFly92Z

— India in Ireland (Embassy of India, Dublin) (@IndiainIreland) April 15, 2024

He also said that “The fight against the deeply entrenched ecosystem of corruption (created by the 55-year rule, including the first 30 years, by a single dynastic party in India) is a major factor behind Mr Modi’s ever-growing popularity.”

In response, the Congress party’s communications in-charge Jairam Ramesh said the Ambassador’s reaction was like that of “a party apparatchik”, and that he should be “sacked right away” for breaching service rules.

Defending the Government of India is one thing and is to be expected. But to attack Opposition parties openly in thus manner like a party apparatchik is not expected from an Ambassador even if he be a political appointment. This is unprofessional and disgraceful behaviour on his… https://t.co/t0YQSKZSLQ

— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) April 16, 2024

Did the Amabassador indeed violate IFS service rules?

“Maintaining political neutrality” is enshrined in the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, framed by the central government’s Department of Personnel and Training.

This is among other general guidelines in the Rules, such as “uphold[ing] the supremacy of the Constitution and democratic values”, “defend[ing] and uphold[ing] the sovereignty and integrity of India”, and “maintain[ing] accountability and transparency”.

Officers of the central civil services are required to be aware of the country’s laws and regulations, and to operate in the best interests of the nation, according to the Rules. They are also expected to preserve their integrity, fearlessness, and independence in order for the parliamentary system to function well.

According to several senior officials, the Ambassador’s comments may be seen as being in poor taste, improper, or unbecoming of a representative of India in a foreign country. As Jairam Ramesh himself said, this “is not expected from an Ambassador even if he is a political appointment”.

However, it may not, the senior officials said, be considered as an actionable breach of service Rules.

How did the service rules for India’s civil servants evolve?

In order to sustain the integrity and discipline of civil servants, multiple reform committees have made a range of recommendations from time to time. These include the Santhanam Committee (1964), Hota Committee (2004), and the Second Administrative Reforms Committee Report of 2005.

The first set of “Conduct Rules”, a compilation of guidelines with “do’s and don’ts,” was released in the 1930s. The All India Services Rules, which were adopted in 1955, divided the compilation into separate regulations. The 1964 version of these regulations, which are applicable now, was the outcome of the recommendations of the Santhanam Committee. These are essentially general behavioural standards.

In 2007, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions prepared a draft “Public Service Bill” to establish a set of statutory standards of civil servants known as “values”, which stressed on the need for “apolitical functioning”.

Have there been similar episodes involving IFS officers earlier?

The best known controversy involved Ronen Sen, India’s Ambassador to the United States at the time, who was summoned by the Privileges Committee of Parliament in 2007 for making remarks that were seen as lowering the dignity of the House. However, beyond the fact that Sen too was an IFS officer, that case does not have much in common with the present one.

In an interview published in August 2007, Sen, who was then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s key man seeking to take forward the civil nuclear deal with the United States, was quoted as saying that MPs who were opposing the agreement were like “headless chickens”, and that “the Parliamentarians don’t even seem to be aware of what they are saying, the import of what they are saying.”

Then External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said in the House that although “the Correspondent has also misquoted our Ambassador in several respects, I have asked our Ambassador to issue a clarification.” Mukherjee said that the comments, “if made by our Ambassador, and reported correctly, are totally unwarranted and unacceptable… [and] I regret the alleged comments which have hurt the feelings of Hon. Members…”

Sen extended an unqualified apology to Parliament. While exonerating him, the Privileges Committee noted that “this matter could well serve as an advisory on what ought not to be done by a diplomat”.