Civil servants joining RSS could harm public trust: Policy body calls for reinstating ban

The People’s Commission on Public Sector and Public Services, a policy consultation body, has appealed to President Droupadi Murmu to reinstate the ban that prevents civil servants and government officials from affiliating with the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) or any politically aligned organisation.

The commission argues that the removal of this restriction could jeopardise the democratic and constitutional fabric of India by fostering partisan bias within the civil services.

In a detailed letter to the President, the commission highlighted the significance of political neutrality within the civil service, emphasising its role in upholding democratic principles enshrined in the Constitution. The commission expressed concerns that without such neutrality, the administration risks being perceived as biased, thereby undermining public trust in its impartiality.

The organisation stressed that senior administrators, as key implementers of government policies, must remain insulated from political influence to ensure fairness and consistency in governance.

The commission outlined the civil service's constitutional obligation to function independently of political affiliations, citing Articles 309 to 311 of the Indian Constitution. These provisions are designed to ensure that civil servants operate without fear of political retribution, thereby separating state functions from party politics. It warned that allowing civil servants to affiliate with organisations like the RSS could set a precedent for other political parties to encourage similar practices, leading to a systemic erosion of neutrality in governance.

The letter described the RSS as a de facto political entity with a deeply entrenched influence in shaping political discourse and policies, particularly through its association with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The commission noted that the RSS’s objectives, as outlined on its official platforms, extend beyond cultural and social reform to encompass explicit political ambitions. It argued that the organisation’s actions and rhetoric often appear to conflict with constitutional principles such as equality, secularism, and the rule of law.

Highlighting the RSS’s historical and ongoing role in shaping the BJP’s agenda, the commission characterised the BJP as an extension of the RSS. It asserted that this relationship undermines the independence of the civil service, as officials affiliated with the RSS could inadvertently or deliberately align their administrative decisions with the organisation’s ideological goals. This, the commission argued, would blur the lines between governance and political advocacy, thereby compromising the foundational principles of democracy.

The commission further proposed a mandatory cooling-off period for senior officials, judges, and regulators after retirement, suggesting a three-year interval before they can assume roles in politically affiliated organisations. This measure, it argued, would prevent conflicts of interest and preserve the integrity of democratic institutions. It pointed out instances where retired judges and officials joined politically aligned organisations shortly after leaving public service, raising concerns about the credibility and independence of the judiciary and administrative bodies.

The letter underscored that the RSS, despite its legal status as a cultural organisation, functions effectively as a political super-entity, shaping public opinion and influencing electoral outcomes through its extensive network. The commission provided examples of the RSS’s involvement in political movements, including its active participation in campaigns such as the Ram Janmabhoomi agitation, which have significantly contributed to the BJP’s political capital.

Moreover, the commission highlighted the practice of appointing RSS ideologues to influential positions in public enterprises and educational institutions when the BJP is in power. It described this trend as detrimental to democratic governance, as it erodes the separation of state and party, a principle integral to India’s constitutional framework.

The commission also raised broader concerns about the implications of removing the ban. It warned that allowing civil servants to affiliate with political organisations could lead to a chaotic situation where partisan interests dictate administrative decisions. This, it argued, would not only weaken the public’s faith in government institutions but also disrupt the delicate balance of India’s democratic structure.

Additionally, the letter proposed extending the ban to all public functionaries, including members of the judiciary, to reinforce the principle of political neutrality across all branches of governance. The commission argued that any deviation from this principle would erode public confidence in the fairness and impartiality of democratic institutions, ultimately threatening the country’s unity and integrity.

The commission concluded its appeal by urging the government to prioritise the protection of democratic values over political expediency. It called on the Supreme Court to intervene if necessary, to reverse the decision to lift the ban. The letter framed this issue as critical to safeguarding India’s identity as a diverse and democratic nation, asserting that the integrity of the civil service is essential to preserving the country’s unity.

The letter also noted that banning outright the RSS or any other organisation with political affiliations would be unconstitutional, but stressed that allowing their members to occupy key government positions jeopardises the core principles of governance. It reiterated the need for stringent measures to maintain the apolitical nature of the civil service, as this is fundamental to the functioning of a healthy democracy.

The People’s Commission concluded with an earnest appeal to President Murmu to act decisively, invoking her constitutional duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. The commission warned that failing to address this issue could undermine India’s democratic achievements and weaken its status as a model of unity in diversity.