IPS Tenure Flexibility and the Peculiar Incident of IPS Service Duration Adjustments, as Discussed by Dilip Cherian
In India, it's a common dance between policy and flexibility, and the IPS babus are no exception. Exhibit A: The recent extensions given to Sonia Narang and Abhishek Goyal, both senior IPS officers serving on Central deputation to the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Their tenures have been extended, which in babu-speak means they've been given a pass on the IPS tenure policy that usually doesn't allow for exceptions.
Take Narang, for instance. After a sudden exit from her ED post in early April, she's back in Delhi with a one-year extension, making our heads spin faster than a magic trick. She's handled some high-profile cases like the PFI, IFFCO, Vivo, Maoists, and even the glamorous Khan Market cash trail. One could say she's too valuable to let go. However, the unceremonious exit earlier raises some questions.
Goyal's extension is no less intriguing. Currently leading the HIU and handling the Northern Region, which includes the recently held Maharashtra elections, he too gets a one-year bonus round. Being where the political action is certainly helps his case.
It's worth mentioning that the post of special director is the second-highest rank in the ED hierarchy. With nine of them, it's a lot of "special" but not a lot of clarity in proceedings.
The Administrative Control Commission (ACC) has labeled this extension as "relaxation," while many others view it as a display of bureaucratic acrobatics. It's a dance of power, convenience, and rules that bend, twist, and politely look the other way.
In Kerala, the babudom seems to be experiencing its own reality TV moment, complete with public spats, social media drama, and allegations flying faster than monsoon winds. The face-off between IAS officer N. Prasanth, nicknamed "Collector Bro" for his social media skills, and senior bureaucrats A. Jayathilak and K. Gopalakrishnan, has exposed the cracks within Kerala's famously disciplined administrative set-up.
Public airing of such disputes undermines the integrity of the civil services and erodes public trust. In an era where transparency is paramount, it's high time for the babus to embrace openness and address internal conflicts through proper institutional channels. After all, the public deserves a civil service that's as accountable as it is efficient and less prone to drama worthy of an OTT platform.
Lastly, in Madhya Pradesh, babus are fighting a silent battle over transparency. While IAS, IPS, and IFS officers are mandated to disclose their immovable assets annually, ministers have largely avoided this scrutiny. This discrepancy fosters a sense of inequity among the bureaucrats and undermines the principles of accountability and good governance. For a truly transparent administration, it's essential that ministers lead by example and embrace the same disclosure standards imposed on bureaucrats.
The dance of power and flexibility in Indian administration extends to finance, as the recent tenure extensions for Sonia Narang and Abhishek Goyal, senior IPS officers serving in the Enforcement Directorate (ED), raise questions about business-related cases they've been handling. The extensions are a matter of debate, with some viewing them as general-news headlines and others as examples of bureaucratic acrobatics, even involving politics.
The unceremonious exits and extensions, along with public disputes in Kerala and the discrepancy in asset disclosure in Madhya Pradesh, call for more transparency and accountability in the civil services, affecting not only crime and justice but also the entire business world.
