IMPERIALIST he was, but Lord Curzon is acknowledged to be one of the ablest viceroys the subcontinent has seen. With a talent for elegant noting on official files, he wrote in May 1902: “Round and round, like the divinal revolution of the earth, went the file, stately, solemn sure and slow; and now, in due season, it has completed its orbit.”

The remarks are remembered; not so his concern for their sanctity. Respect for the integrity for the file is a sure indicator of the quality of governance. Both have been under challenge for a few years. Two recent incident rightly raised eyebrows. On Dec 27, 2013 a sting operation by a TV channel recorded government files being destroyed in Delhi government offices.

Responsibility for preserving the files devolves on the keepers of the files; particularly the cabinet secretary at the centre and the chief secretaries in the states. But the independence and integrity of the civil servants themselves have been undermined. Not many have the guts to read the rules on the file to the minister who flouts them. A few become accomplices.

The other incident concerns a Union minister who resigned in January. No wrongdoing was alleged. But nearly 350 files were found to have been held back — 180 of them were returned from the minister’s residence unsigned. A responsible daily reported that 119 were signed files which were still held back by the minister, while another 50 signed ones were retained by the staff.

What needs to be brought home to all is that in law an official file is state property; not the property of the government of the day. Copyright on its contents vests in the state. The government can only deal with files in accordance with the constitutionally sanctioned rules of business and other pertinent rules.

The practice of ministers giving oral orders to civil servants has been deprecated by judges. Interpolations on files and their disappearances are other forms of abuse. The rules require that whenever a file moves out of a particular department or even in the department from one officer to another, there is always an endorsement reading ‘uoi’, meaning ‘unofficial issue’ with the date thereon and a corresponding receipt of the addressee reading ‘uor’ ‘unofficial receipt’. The movement of the file must be ‘diaried’ in detail.

The rules as to the contents of the file have been flouted as merrily as those regarding its movements. Special assistants and oral orders have ensured that.

On Aug 1, 1978 the Union home ministry issued a direction that “there shall be on record a written direction from the authority under whose order the relevant decision or action is taken. Where action is taken in accordance with the directions of the minister, it would be the responsibility of the secretary to obtain such direction in writing before action is taken”; or, in case of urgency, “immediately thereafter”.

But, then such politicians ensure that no civil servant makes such a demand in a case that matters. Hence, the need for institutional safeguards. Hence, also, the need for collective effort by the civil servants to organise themselves and revive their esprit de corps.

Former ministers and retired civil servants need permission from the government of the day to quote from documents they wrote while in the service of the state.

A committee of privy counsellors on ministerial memoirs, headed by Lord Radcliffe, accurately stated the legal position and the current practice in its report submitted in December 1975.

When ministers relinquish office, “they are asked not to take away with them any cabinet or cabinet committee papers or minutes or copies of other official documents.” Not only documents but “all information obtained by virtue of office is regarded as held for the state, not for the benefit of the office holder or of the interested reader”.

Even while he serves, it is not open to a minister to call for any file or document irrespective of its bearing on his work.

For instance, testifying before the select committee on parliamentary questions on Feb 4, 1972, Sir William Armstrong, head of the home civil service, referred to the “well- known rule that ministers of a current government are not entitled to see the papers of a previous administration. It is occasionally necessary for civil servants to draw the attention of ministers to this self-denying ordinance they have imposed on themselves. If a request, notwithstanding that, is made, the civil servant has the right to refuse”.

The rule is clear. Civil servants and ministers must not abuse official files for partisan ends against political opponents and must ensure that they accurately reflect the process of governance.

The writer is an author and lawyer based in Mumbai.