Lateral entry into high profile jobs inappropriate
Hell bent upon saffronising every aspect of the public life and government machinery, the Narendra Modi headed NDA government has decided to open up lateral entry to various high profile posts in various fields such as Agriculture, economic sector and infrastructure among the others.
This has opened doors of opportunity to 10 posts of joint secretaries, to experts working in private sector. This has given rise to a lot of mixed reactions in political and social spaces. While some feel this is a good move, the others are not very comfortable with this idea.
The government has called applications for these posts through advertisements in staff and training advertisement manuals of central government on June 10. Experts over 40 years of age, with 15 years of work experience in private sector or MNCs can apply for the job of joint secretary.
The corporate sector has welcome this move with great enthusiasm stating this is one way of changing the dynamics of work ethics within government offices. This move of lateral entry is not a new one. The first administrative reforms committee had, in fact, recommended this way back in 1965. However, this was not implemented. Recruitments of Montek Singh Ahluwalia, Vijay Kelkar, Arvind Subramanya among others were made under extraordinary and rare circumstances.
Defence for this kind of appointment is that this would help improve the style of administration in government offices, and that of government itself. This step has been taken owing to the fact that work is not progressing adequately enough by the current workforce to match pace with liberalization and the changes it has brought.
This decision of lateral entry has given rise to another controversy for Modi government especially at the time when the government is facing rumours of increasing saffronisation, and high interference by Sangh Parivar. The opposition parties have spared no time in criticizing this, without making a sound argument against it. There is no proper reasoning to this criticism and hence the central government is bound to ignore this. And this is a concerning factor. Hence, general public are not too convinced about the negativity of this measure.
The government has explained its case well, even if a bit far from the truth that there is no efficient workforce at the execution level of the government machinery. Hence professionalism needs to be brought in through various players from private sector who come with great work ethics. That does not necessarily mean all those who worked in private sector have shown exemplary commitment to work. Though the reason is not far from the truth, it is not entirely true either.
All those who showed great efficiency in their private sector role does not mean they will bring the same value when they enter the government set up. They may not even have same level of responsibility and security as those who have been appointed by the formal mode. However, one cannot ignore the undisclosed underlying plan in this step, that’s not evident right now.
These appointments may be as good as the negative effects of hasty and unplanned execution of demonetization and GST. It will not be a huge surprise if the government made these appointments to cover up its lacunae and resort to these gimmicks for the time being. Lateral entry recruitments are not a joke. They impact the lives of all 130 crore Indians.
Though we cannot be sure of all the administrative officers being totally pro-people through their works, they are a lot better than the experts from private sector who have no experience in public facing jobs. There is no guarantee about their work commitment either.
But having people occupy vantage positions in the government would mean the secrets of this government remain within the corridors of power. Except for science and technology, other government departments have been using the expertise of IAS or equivalent officers from centre and states. Though their power-asserting conduct has not been exactly desirable, their expertise has often helped people. They have been elevated on the basis of their work experience and they have contributed significantly to the administrative machinery during their tenure.
But, who will the private sector experts who enter the government machinery through lateral entry mechanism will have to pledge their loyalty to? Would they be loyal to the party that appoints them or to the company that gave them the expertise and growth during their stay in corridors of power? Among the appointments made by the Modi government to research institutions, higher education institutions and universities, the most common factor has been that all those people had shown unflinching dedication to their Sangh background. That was the sole qualifying factor too.
One need not be surprised about the same parameter in place to appoint people to high posts. Modi government is known for its capitalist favouring stances. It is rather obvious that those people who would be appointed to high offices will stay loyal to their bosses – Ambani, Adani among the ‘close ones’. All the decisions such officers make will be in the interest of capitalists and not the urban or poor or any other deserving category. The damage that would be meted out when people favoured by Advani/Adani etc sit in high offices. Ever since it came into power, the Modi government has made no bones about the preferences. This apart economic liberty has been long compromised with safeguarding corporate interests.
Every decision taken by this union government is aimed at protecting the interest if corporate companies. The same agenda may work in this condition too. Most of the experts appointed into high offices by Modi government would naturally nurse soft corner about the ruling party. Almost all of them will come from upper class/caste and will also share Sangh Parivar background. One needs to think about the impact of having such people occupy high offices. People and organisations with social concern need to oppose such lateral appointments.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
CJI calls for 'unified judicial policy', use of technology to converge practices across courts
Jaisalmer (PTI): Pushing for a "unified judicial policy", Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Saturday said technology can help align standards and practices across courts, creating a "seamless experience" for citizens, regardless of their location.
He said high courts -- due to the federal structure -- have had their own practices and technological capacities, and "regional barriers" can be broken down with technology to create a more unified judicial ecosystem.
Delivering the keynote address at the West Zone Regional Conference in Jaisalmer, Kant proposed the idea of a "national judicial ecosystem" and called for an overhaul of India's judicial system with the integration of technology.
"Today, as technology reduces geographical barriers and enables convergence, it invites us to think of justice not as regional systems operating in parallel, but as one national ecosystem with shared standards, seamless interfaces, and coordinated goals," he said.
He emphasised how the role of technology in the judiciary has evolved over time.
"Technology is no longer merely an administrative convenience. It has evolved into a constitutional instrument that strengthens equality before the law, expands access to justice, and enhances institutional efficiency," he said, highlighting how digital tools can bridge gaps in the judicial system.
Kant pointed out that technology enables the judiciary to overcome the limitations of physical distance and bureaucratic hurdles.
"It allows the judiciary to transcend physical barriers and bureaucratic rigidities to deliver outcomes that are timely, transparent and principled," he said, adding that the effective use of technology can modernise the delivery of justice and make it more accessible to citizens across the country.
The CJI called for implementing a "unified judicial policy".
He said India's judicial system has long been shaped by its federal structure, and different high courts have their own practices and technological capacities.
"India's vast diversity has led to different high courts evolving their own practices, administrative priorities and technological capacities. This variation, though natural in a federal democracy, has resulted in uneven experiences for litigants across the country," he said.
Kant underscored that predictability is crucial for building trust in the judicial system.
"A core expectation citizens place upon the courts is predictability," he said, adding that citizens should not only expect fair treatment but also consistency in how cases are handled across the country.
He pointed to the potential of technology in improving predictability.
"Technology enables us to track systemic delays and make problems visible rather than concealed," he said.
By identifying areas where delays occur, such as in bail matters or cases involving certain types of disputes, courts can take targeted action to address these issues and improve efficiency, Kant said.
The CJI explained that data-driven tools could identify the reasons behind delays or bottlenecks, allowing for faster, more focused solutions.
"Technology enables prioritisation by flagging sensitive case categories, monitoring pendency in real time and ensuring transparent listing protocols," he said.
Justice Surya Kant also discussed the importance of prioritising urgent cases where delays could result in significant harm. He highlighted his recent administrative order that ensures urgent cases, such as bail petitions or habeas corpus cases, are listed within two days of curing defects.
"Where delay causes deep harm, the system must respond with urgency," he stated, explaining that technology can help courts identify and expedite such cases.
Kant also raised the issue of the clarity of judicial decisions.
He noted that many litigants, despite winning cases, often struggle to understand the terms of their judgment due to complex legal language.
"Although the orders had gone in their favour, they remained unsure of what relief they had actually secured because the language was too technical, vague or evasive to understand," he said.
He advocated for more uniformity in how judgments are written.
"A unified judicial approach must therefore extend to how we communicate outcomes," he said.
The CJI also discussed the role of AI and digital tools in improving case management. He pointed to the potential of AI-based research assistants and digital case management systems to streamline judicial processes.
"Emerging technological tools are now capable of performing once-unthinkable functions. They can highlight missing precedent references, cluster similar legal questions, and simplify factual narration," he said, explaining how these technologies can help judges make more consistent decisions.
He also highlighted tools like the National Judicial Data Grid and e-courts, which are already helping to standardise processes like case filings and tracking.
Kant reiterated that the integration of technology into the judicial process is not just about improving efficiency but about upholding the integrity of the system and strengthening public trust.
"The measure of innovation is not the complexity of the software we deploy, but the simplicity with which a citizen understands the outcome of their case and believes that justice has been served," he said.
