Jump to content

T. S. R. Subramanian v. Union of India

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

T.S.R. Subramanian v. Union of India
CourtSupreme Court of India
Full case name T. S. R. Subramanian & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors.
Decided31 October 2013
CitationsW. P. (C) No. 82 of 2011
D. No. 4750-2011
Case opinions
Decision byK. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan

T. S. R. Subramanian & Ors. versus Union of India and Ors., was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India in which the Court ruled that civil servants were not bound to follow oral directives. The case began with a public interest civil writ petition filed before the Supreme Court of India and was decided in October 2013.[1][2][3]

Premise

[edit]
Building of the Supreme Court of India.
Building of the Supreme Court of India

The case was filed as a public interest civil writ petition by T. S. R. Subramanian, retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer and former Cabinet Secretary; T. S. Krishnamurthy, retired IAS officer and former Chief Election Commissioner; N. Gopalaswami, retired IAS officer and former Chief Election Commissioner; Abid Hussain, retired IAS officer and former Indian ambassador to the United States; Ved Prakash Marwah, retired Indian Police Service (IPS) officer and former Manipur governor; Joginder Singh, retired IPS officer and former director of the Central Bureau of Investigation, and 77 others in 2011.[1] It was heard by a division bench comprising justices K. S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Pinaki Chandra Ghose from 2011 to 2013.[4][5]

The petitioners were retired top civil servants from—among others—the IAS and the IPS. They sought mandatory court injunctions to support the independence of the various Indian civil services and their freedom from political interference, by requiring the Indian federal and state governments to implement the recommendations made by several commissions of review (including the Hota Commission): that oral instructions given by politicians to civil servants must be recorded in writing, that senior civil service appointments should be made for a fixed term, and that civil services boards should be established to advise on postings. In addition, politicians in state government were seen to have been transferring civil servants repeatedly.[6][7][8][9]

Judgment

[edit]
The judgement of the Supreme Court of India

Major rulings in the case included:

Reaction

[edit]

The supreme court decision received a mostly-positive reaction and was considered a "major reform".[1][2][12][16][17]

Indian Administrative Service Association secretary Sanjay Bhoosreddy said, "[we] support the judgement. It vindicates our stand. It will help in good governance across the country".[3] According to Indian Forest Service Association president A. R. Chadha, the ruling would check arbitrary transfers and suspensions.[3] A Bharatiya Janata Party secretary-general, Dharmendra Pradhan, said that it would "help bring greater transparency in [sic] the system". Pradhan added that the "decision should not hamper government functioning, especially development work being carried out by the government".[3]

An Indian National Congress spokesperson, P. C. Chacko, disagreed: "[t]o discharge the responsibilities of the executive effectively, the power of transfer and posting of the officials should be with the government. For effective administration, the discretion should be with the political authority. Any infringement of this authority will not be good for the country,".[3] The president of the Centre for Policy Research tweeted, "[o]n the face of it, supreme court is continuing its constitutional usurpation; and many orders are practically unworkable".[3]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d Venkatesan, J. (31 October 2018). "In major reform, SC orders fixed tenure for bureaucrats". The Hindu. New Delhi. ISSN 0971-751X. OCLC 13119119. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  2. ^ a b c Balaji, R. (1 November 2013). "Chance to say 'No, minister'". The Telegraph. New Delhi. OCLC 271717941. Retrieved 6 September 2019.
  3. ^ a b c d e f Monalisa (31 October 2013). "Supreme Court seeks to unshackle bureaucracy". Live Mint. New Delhi: HT Media Ltd. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
  4. ^ T. S. R. Subramanian & Ors. versus Union of India & Ors., W. P. (C) No. 82 of 2011 (Supreme Court of India), Text.
  5. ^ "'The Civil Servants Cannot Function On The Basis Of Verbal Or Oral Instructions". Outlook. New Delhi. 1 November 2018. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
  6. ^ Banik, Dan (1 June 2001). "The transfer raj: Indian civil servants on the move". The European Journal of Development Research. 13 (1): 106–134. doi:10.1080/09578810108426783. ISSN 0957-8811. OCLC 55042966. S2CID 154680293 – via Palgrave Macmillan.
  7. ^ Saxena, Vaishali (2003). Bureaucracy on Wheels: Trauma of Transfers in the Indian Administrative Service. Jaipur: Aalekh Publishers. ISBN 978-8187359210. OCLC 191202280.
  8. ^ "Haryana moves IAS officer Khemka again: 47th transfer in 25 years". Hindustan Times. Indo-Asian News Service. 8 April 2016. ISSN 0972-0243. OCLC 231696742. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  9. ^ Sehgal, Manjeet (12 April 2017). "Chandigarh: Haryana IAS officer Pradeep Kasni transferred for 68th time in 33 years". India Today. Chandigarh: Aroon Purie. ISSN 0254-8399. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  10. ^ Venkatesan, J. (1 November 2013). "Oral instructions undermine accountability: Supreme Court". The Hindu. New Delhi: N. Ram. ISSN 0971-751X. OCLC 13119119. Retrieved 8 September 2018.
  11. ^ Nagpal, Deepak (31 October 2013). "IAS officers will no more act on oral orders: Supreme Court". Zee News. New Delhi: Zee Media Corporation Limited. Retrieved 8 September 2018.
  12. ^ a b "Fix bureaucrats' tenure, free them from political influence: SC". Firstpost. New Delhi. 1 November 2013. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
  13. ^ Jain, Bharti (31 January 2014). "2-year fixed postings for IAS, IPS and forest service". The Times of India. New Delhi: Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. OCLC 23379369. Retrieved 8 September 2018.
  14. ^ Chhibber, Maneesh (31 January 2014). "Centre notifies 2-yr tenure for IAS, IPS, Forest Service officers". The Indian Express. New Delhi: Indian Express Group. OCLC 70274541. Retrieved 8 September 2018.
  15. ^ "Civil services board to oversee officers' postings". The Hindu. Thiruvananthapuram: N. Ram. 1 May 2014. ISSN 0971-751X. OCLC 13119119. Retrieved 8 September 2018.
  16. ^ "SC seeks to protect civil servants from their political bosses". Business Standard. New Delhi: Business Standard Ltd. B. S. Reporter. 1 November 2013. OCLC 496280002. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
  17. ^ "Year-end Special: 10 landmark judgments of 2013". Rediff.com. 20 December 2013. Retrieved 21 February 2018.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T._S._R._Subramanian_v._Union_of_India&oldid=1204757126"