Imkong Walling
Elected governments function under tremendous public scrutiny. Dispute and controversy becomes inevitable; only that the opposing voices get into the fight at a disadvantage and, in most cases, the government going on to prevail.
Back in 2018, there was a controversy over who should hold the post of the Director General of Police (DGP), Nagaland. It even saw a public campaign, unlike ever before in the state, opposing the replacement/transfer of the then police chief. The episode ended with the Nagaland government requisitioning and installing a Nagaland domicile IPS officer from the Chhattisgarh cadre as the state DGP.
As far as the rules were concerned, the campaigners seemed justified, but like most uneven contests, the decision of the government prevailed.
Four years on, the Nagaland state government has another controversy in its courtyard over the same post. This time, it is over retaining or extending the service of the same IPS officer, who was installed as the DGP under controversial circumstances, and whose service superannuated on August 31, 2022.
The government appears well within the law in recommending to the Central government the extension of service of the incumbent. In fact, it is not uncommon for police chiefs to fancy a chance at service extension. Nagaland actually has had bids made in the past, but ones, who were not as lucky, or rather, not as well placed.
It is permitted by the All India Service (AIS) rules, via which the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet can, on the recommendation of the state government, make exceptions to extend the services of AIS officers— DGPs and Chief Secretaries in the case of the states.
As far as the official version goes, they played by the AIS rule book, which allows room for exceptions, but only in special circumstances when public interest is held to be at stake. This was what the government purportedly did.
But law assumes such a shape that it possesses itself of self-regulatory values, which, in essence, seeks to plug circumvention under the guise of playing by the rules. The Doctrine of colourable legislation being one such applied concept.
The Doctrine relates to achieving a premeditated objective under the guise or “colour” of going by the guidelines; in other words, deceitfully exploiting law. It would be akin to circumventing the rules, to achieve a purpose, while outwardly projecting it to be legal, and a justifiable act, which it is not in actuality. By circumstance, that is the presumption in the instant case.
Whether the action of the government fits the notion of a ‘colourable’ act is for political philosophers to ruminate and the courts to decide. But one thing is certain— Policy-makers are expected of maintaining ethical conduct, alongwith transparency, in the execution of either a public service or appointments.
Transparency further demands the government publicly justifying, backed up by attestable evidence, the contributions of the incumbent as to warrant service extension, over and above superseding a senior officer in the Nagaland IPS hierarchy.
The writer is a Principal Correspondent at The Morung Express. Comments can be sent to imkongwalls@gmail.com
