‘JOBS for the boys’ is one of the more engaging films in the delightful TV serial Yes, Minister. It shows the civil servant, Sir Humphrey Appleby, negotiating over lunch with a banker Sir Desmond Glazebrook over his appointment as chairman of a Quango after his retirement from the bank, in return for an investment in a project which Appleby had goofed up. Quangos are Quasi-Autono­mous Non-Governmental Organisations.

There were 8,000 paid appointments at a cost to the taxpayer of £5 million a year. Such trade-offs are par for the course in India; especially at the time of ministry formation.

Everyone cannot be accommodated in the Council of Ministers and some who are left out can pose a threat to the political stability of the government. They are bought off with chairmanships of state corporations, or public-sector undertakings as they are called — at great cost to the taxpayer.

Modi is out to suborn the autonomy of statutory bodies.

The job fetches a fat salary, car, accommodation perks and power. There are besides memberships of governing boards of such bodies. Less rewarding financially, yet a patent source of income, influence and power.

Over the decades, this practice has acquired the sanction of hallowed tradition cutting across political divisions. Not a single political party is innocent. Besides corrupt motives, governments have sought to put in influential posts people who share their political outlook.

The Modi government has taken this to disturbing extremes. It is out to saffronise the Indian polity and suborn the independence of statutory and autonomous bodies.

One example will suffice. Sharmila Tagore emerged as a respected public figure, after a distinguished career in acting. She lent prestige and dignity to the post of chairperson of the Central Board of Film Censors (CBFC) established under the Cinemato­graph Act, 1952. The very width of the power is surely circumscribed by the nature of the post which is at the apex of a quasi-judicial body.

Shortly after the Modi government came to power, the incumbent chairperson, Leela Samson, a distinguished figure, and members of the panels set up by the act were obliged to resign. The government appointed as CBFC chairman a Hindi film producer Pahlaj Nihalani. He lost no time in proclaiming “I am proud to be a BJP man, and Narendra Modi is my action hero”.

A person who flaunts credentials such as these declares his own unfitness for a statutory post which requires its holder to act impartially in a quasi-judicial office.

During the parliamentary elections last year, Nihalani made a campaign film with the traditional Hindu greeting Har Har Mahadev to project communal appeal in violation of the election law. The Modi government’s predecessors were not free from the taint of partisanship. It is, however, the calculated infusion of ideology which marks this government; especially a divisive ideology of hate.

A film producer, Rakesh Sharma, pointed out: “This is the first time since the board was constituted that every single person on it is from the BJP or is linked to it in some manner. There is no semblance of balance on this board.”

A pattern has been set, with brazen disregard for proprieties. Another Modi admirer, one Zafar Sareshwala, was appointed chancellor of the prestigious Maulana Azad Urdu University at Hyderabad. The National Book Trust in New Delhi acquired a new chairman, Baldev Sharma, who was once editor of the rabid RSS Hindi weekly Panchajanya which spews communal venom in issue after issue. The incumbent was ousted without cause.

Last month the Indian Council of Historical Research was reconstituted with 18 fresh appointees. They included members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-backed Akhil Bhar­atiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana. It was a purge. One of the new members holds that “Hindus suffered at the hands of their Islamic conquerors”, a view shared by Narendra Modi who, in his first speech to parliament, spoke of “1,000 years of slavery”.

Sir B.N. Rau, adviser to the constituent assembly of India, had drawn up an instrument of instructions for the president, requiring him to set up an advisory board elected by MPs. He was enjoined to consult it in making appointments to certain statutory posts. It was rejected.

That was an encroachment on the prime minister’s power. But there can be no objection to a smaller panel comprising, among others, the opposition leader whom the government should be obligated to consult before making such appointments.

Over the years, administrative law has expanded to curb the government’s discretion in dealing with state property. It is time the principle is extended to the courts to control abuse of power in making appointments to statutory or public positions which, while allowing for a margin of discretion, are manifestly improper or motivated by extraneous considerations.

The writer is an author and a lawyer based in Mumbai.

Published in Dawn, March 14th, 2015

On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play