POWER, ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRUE MEANING OF PUBLIC SERVANT

POWER, ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRUE MEANING OF PUBLIC SERVANT

14-JULY-ENG 15

RAJIV NAYAN AGRAWAL

ARA-------------------------The true meaning of a 'public servant' is not authority, but accountability. This editorial raises serious questions regarding the double standards within the administrative system, the accountability of government officials, constitutional values, democracy, transparency, and the necessity of good governance.

'Public servant' is not merely a job title; it represents the most significant ethical and constitutional identity within the Indian governance system. It signifies, quite simply, responsibility. The power vested in an official belongs to the public; the official is not the owner of that power but its guardian. Their authority stems from the law and is governed by it. They may enforce discipline, but not by acting outside the law; they may issue orders, but only within the constitutional framework. In short, while an official can hold others accountable, they cannot evade their own responsibility. This is precisely where the most critical question regarding the administrative system arises. What is the situation in offices today? If a junior staff member or assistant makes a mistake, departmental disciplinary action is swiftly taken against them. Yet, there is no accountability for high-level lapses—such as files languishing for months, unjustified delays in decision-making, or general lethargy in work. When accountability is strict for those at the bottom but lenient for those at the top, the system inevitably faces scrutiny. Such an attitude not only demoralizes junior employees but also casts a serious shadow over the impartiality of the administration.

It is often argued that if employees speak out, it will tarnish the 'government's image.' But is a government's image shaped solely by statements? Certainly not. A government's true image is defined by the pace at which the administration functions: Are the rules applied equally to everyone? What is the common citizen's experience in government offices? How much trust do people place in the system? If a government employee's speech tarnishes the government's reputation, then bureaucratic lethargy, delays in decision-making, and deteriorating public amenities also damage its image. These matters should be weighed on the same scale.

In a democracy, responsibility can never be one-sided. A fundamental tenet of democracy is that authority must be accompanied by accountability. When all power is concentrated at the top while all accountability is shifted to those lower down, it ceases to be 'public service' and transforms into a culture of 'dominance' (or authoritarianism). Our Constitution neither envisioned nor accepted such a system. Today, the most critical question is not what government employees can or cannot say.

The real question is whether the administration itself is prepared to uphold the same standard of accountability it expects from its subordinates. The answer to this question will determine whether our system operates in the true spirit of the Constitution or continues to be governed by the 'colonial mindset' inherited from the British era.