Behind every successful scam, there is a supporting cast of civil servants. They might be standing in deep background but their role cannot be underestimated. They wear the badge of obedience and their classic excuse when challenged is that they were “just following orders”, which has earned the nickname — Nuremberg defence.
In legal parlance, this surrender of mind is euphemistically called “non-application of mind” or “extraneous considerations”. In a judgment last week, the Supreme Court used this expression to criticise top officers of the Union Territory of Chandigarh who illegally took over the land of farmers for a private IT project (Surinder Singh vs Union of India).
Criticising the land acquisition officer for blindly following orders from above, the court said: “If he had shown the courage of acting independently and made recommendation against the acquisition of land, he would have surely been shifted from that post and his career would have been jeopardised. In the system of governance which we have today, junior officers in the administration cannot even think of, what to say of, acting against the wishes/dictates of their superiors. One who violates this unwritten code of conduct does so at his own peril and is described as a foolhardy.”
Even those constituting higher strata of services follow the path of least resistance and find it most convenient to tow the line of their superiors, the judgment said. The special secretary, finance and the adviser to the administrator also failed to follow the rules of acquisition. “They could not muster courage of expressing an independent opinion. The special secretary virtually reproduced what the UT administrator had mentioned in his letter. The adviser went a step further. He merely appended his signatures on the notes prepared by the special secretary… It seems that the officers were overawed by the view expressed by the administrator and the instinct of self-preservation prompted them not to go against the wishes of the administrator who wanted that additional land be acquired and allotted to a private developer.” The land acquisition was ultimately quashed.
It requires exceptional courage for a civil servant to defy wrong orders from his superiors, who themselves are “just following orders” of the political rulers or authority figures. Obedience to authority is hard-wired into our heads at a young age by parents, teachers or priests. In a famous Yale University study (Milgram experiments), it was shown that even while the ears of the controlled group rang with the screams of victims, the grim voice of authority won more often than not. That is the stark reality in times of war and riots.
The syndrome can be detected even in less severe situations.
Three years ago, the Supreme Court reopened a tax assessment because it suspected that the officer concerned had acted under pressure from her superiors (CIT vs Greenwood Corporation). She accepted the returns filed by the Himachal Pradesh company, and wrote extensively, in an attached note, that she did so according to instructions from the commissioner. She seemed to have carried her obedience to excess, as she described the commissioner “worthy” several times in her note. That officer was soon transferred, and the new incumbent found a long list of improprieties unworthy of a commissioner.
In another case of 2001, Tarlochan Singh vs State of Punjab, the elected president of a municipal council was removed from his post by an order of the principal secretary to the state government. Striking down the government’s order, the Supreme Court said: “In the system of Indian democratic governance as contemplated by the Constitution, senior officers occupying key positions such as secretaries are not supposed to mortgage their own discretion, volition and decision-making authority and be prepared to give way or being pushed back or pressed ahead at the behest of politicians for carrying out commands having no sanctity in law. The Conduct Rules of the Central Government Services command the civil servants to maintain at all times absolute integrity and devotion to duty and do nothing which is unbecoming of a government servant. No government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of power conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment.”
In a 2008 case, the order of the chief minister to grant a stage-carriage permit to a party apparatchik was struck down by the Supreme Court in Prachan Chand vs Himachal Pradesh. The transport commissioner’s powers could not be usurped by the chief minister. In the case, Purtabpur Company vs Cane Commissioner of Bihar, the court prevented interference of the government in the power exclusively conferred on the cane commissioner. “While exercising that power he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of anyone — not even in favour of the state government or the chief minister.”
