Open letter to PM Modi: Extensions to chief of SEBI and TRAI are antithesis of disruption

Successive extensions to officers manning key posts lead one to believe ‘status quoism’ has overcome your policy of disruption and a ‘chalne do’ fatigue has taken over.

By Ajay Agnihotri

Dear Prime Minister,

The theory of disruptive innovation, introduced by Harvard Business Review in 1993, was perhaps a model for businesses, but your success in 2014 extended this model of game-changing disruption to Indian politics. It was a move away from the ‘status quoist’ who had been entrenched in the political system at the Centre. Successive innovations bolstered the impression that you do not play by the rule-book. The so-called Occam’s razor was proven right in most path-breaking measures, be it Swachh Bharat or Saubhagya. Sadly, the past is now overtaking, and, in the words of George Lucas, ‘The Empire Strikes Back’.

Successive extensions to officers manning key posts lead one to believe ‘status quoism’ has overcome your policy of disruption and a ‘chalne do’ fatigue has taken over. How else is one to construe extensions to members in CBDT and CBIC! Extensions to chairman, SEBI and TRAI, are antithesis of disruption. A government works on the basic premise that everyone is expendable, and yet there is continuity in government. To give extensions means playing favourites which, unfortunately, was the bane of Indian bureaucracy for years: good posting/bad posting categorisations.

The other more mundane issue is the denial of opportunity to subordinates by such extensions. Judiciary and defence services do not have this indispensable tag and, hence, are more professional than civil servants. Promotions are by rote, postings on whims of bosses. Retirement is at 60, and for a blue-eyed boy, another year or so. This is the hallmark of well-entrenched bureaucracies.

Why should promotions happen naturally? Why not an exam or interview to assess suitability? In a small way, this has begun for selection as members for both the Revenue Boards. The Committee of Secretaries now interviews prospective candidates before recommending to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet. Why shouldn’t such a process not be followed for all services, including All India Services? Second, why not eliminate deadwood at earlier ages, just as defence services do?

Another area of disruption is the number of regulators and attendant tribunals. Retiring secretaries have made these a parking slot post-retirement, and continue to milk the government. Regulators and tribunals are now entrenched in the government. There are certain sectors that are overburdened by such bodies. Civil aviation has four bodies overseeing the sector, power sector has three bodies, and so on.

The raison d’être for the existence of the Central Administrative Tribunal was lost long ago, but it continues to be a sinecure for retirees desiring ‘gaadi and makaan’. The existence of tribunals was set at naught by the Supreme Court in L Chandrakumar v. Union of India which laid down that:

(i) The powers of judicial review on legislative action are vested in the Supreme Court and High Court under Art.32 and 226 from part of the basic structure of the Constitution;
(ii) The power of High Courts under Art.227 to exercise superintendence on all courts and tribunals under their jurisdiction is also basic to the Constitution and, therefore, even if tribunals are allowed the power to perform judicial review, they may do it in a supplementary role and not as substitutes to the High Courts;
(iii) Though tribunals may act as courts of first instance for the areas they are dealing with, they are subject to the appeal jurisdiction of a Division Bench of the High Court under whose jurisdiction they fall.

(iv) Though tribunals can examine the Constitutionality of statutes, the power does not extend to the parent statute under which they are constituted.

A similar position exists for all other regulators and tribunals. Perhaps an audit of these supernumerary organisations is necessary. Having worked in the power and telecom sectors, I can support the contention that the system of the Central Electricity Authority according techno-economic clearance was far superior to the present dispensation. Similarly, TRAI decisions have, at best, been whimsical and contrary to best practices. The existing Telecom Commission can decide issues more pragmatically.

The system of excessive regulation by regulatory bodies has more to do with appearing relevant than the sector’s need for regulation. They are more believers in Parkinson’s Law, and hence occupy spaces to fulfil the basic requirement of the law, that “work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion.”

The time has come to clean up the Augean stables. The country is overburdened by persons whose salaries are demanding a large chunk of resources of the government. The lockdown period caused by the pandemic has exposed the truth about the requirement of the excess staff in the government. The persons who were required for running the country were present and working in the strictest period of the lockdown.

All monies realised from revenue-raising exercises are swallowed up by the never-ending demands of the battalions of surplus staff. It is not just the staff, even the infrastructure required to house and maintain means initial and recurring expenditure. In the 60 years of my stay in Delhi, I have yet to see a new government hospital, but 4-5 major bhavans to house ministries have come up. The AIIMS was the last government hospital built by the central government, but crores have been spent on the likes of Shastri Bhawan, Nirman Bhawan, etc. The revamping of Central Vista will only exaggerate needless expenditure.

The time is ripe for a major disruption, and this time within the government. Covid-19 is an opportunity to relook at the priorities of citizens. They need healthcare and education, and not more regulators and attendant tribunals. It is high time that the regulatory powers revert to the government.

There are, of course, government servants (government servants, though, think that they are officers/masters) who are committed to well-being of the country and strive to do their best in this direction. But a much larger number of employees underperform either due to lack of skills or are functioning in a culture of time-pass. A programme is required for realigning the available manpower towards meaningful works, thereby giving them a cause to feel that they are part of a critical mission rather routine 9-5 jobs. Of course, this will end up eliminating poor performers, but disruptions cause pangs. The VRS has worked for MTNL, and a similar scheme is required for government employees. A lighter government will mean better performance, more efficiency and lower cost. This disruption would lead to better performance, increased productivity, and improved public service.

“The conditions of our modern industrial world will bring about the death of bureaucracy,” wrote leadership scholar Warren Bennis in 1966.

Unfortunately, it has worked to the opposite effect in India. The entrenched systems are too well-ensconced in the ‘no-change mode’. The emergence of the era of disruption has broad implications for the order of life in the community, the private world and the government bureaucracy. Efforts to accelerate bureaucratic reform will face obstacles since bureaucracy feels safe and comfortable in a stable position. Unless this stability is shaken, there is little chance of progress percolating downwards. Perhaps a beginning can be made by eliminating the excess manpower in the prime minister’s own office. Kibitzing is fraught with exercising power without responsibility.

Yours faithfully,
Ajay Agnihotri

The author, a former IRS officer, is an advocate