Universities and Central Civil Service Rules
The following is a report on Central Civil Service Rules, its usage to endanger academic freedom in university spaces and how similar codes of ethics are invoked in order to act against faculty members presented by Nivedita Menon at a public meeting, “Report Card on Academic Freedom” organised by IAFN on 06 April 2024 at Jawahar Bhawan.
1. Central Civil Service (Conduct Rules) were sought to be implemented for Central Universities in 2017 by UGC. On this I will share with you some excerpts from JNUTA’s document that was prepared at the time, and it outlines the exact problems with putting teachers under CCS Rules.
Extracts from JNUTA document: (1)
On May 1 2018, the UGC-MHRD vide circular F No 22-9/2017(CU) instructed universities ‘such time that the concerned University formulates its Statutes, Ordinances, and Regulations, for service matters, the University should follow the Govt of India rules/ orders as applicable to Central Govt. Civilian employees. This symbolizes the most extreme form of state control of universities, and is a declaration of an internal emergency in universities.
There have been two responses by compliant administrations in different Central Universities. The first is to issue a circular mandating compliance with CCS Conduct Rules, the second is to adopt the conduct rules in university statutes on the grounds that this is mandated by the UGC. Universities such as Visva Bharati issued a circular mandating compliance with the MHRDUGC’s directive to adopt CCS Rules. While other Universities such as the Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, Amarkantak have adopted the conduct rules in their Ordinances. JNU was at the time in the process of adopting this latter route, despite protest by the overwhelming mass of teachers.
The “conduct rules” regime aims to obstruct academics from doing their academic work. The freedom to reason, profess, argue, dialogue, critique, debate and disagree is a professional requirement for an academia to flourish. For one has to be critical of tradition or method to find newness and create or discover innovation. Such a regime prevents teachers from contributing to democratic processes as citizens and curtails their constitutional rights comprehensively.
Rule 5 bars all political participation and activity beyond voting by the teacher and his Family.
Effects: Academics must, in order to preserve their jobs, renounce political subscription to political parties, any organization that takes part in politics, political movements or activities. Any critique, whether academic, philosophic or empirical, will be seen as failing to demonstrate loyalty to the government, UGC or the University. To banish critique is to banish reflexivity, research and discourse from academic life. The new task of academics will be to glorify every state policy whether or not their research findings substantiate the policy as robust.
For many backward sections, particularly SCs, STs, OBCs, employment in education provide the necessary social and economic capital for entry into public life. This rule therefore amounts to shunting out academics from the task of building cultures of constitutionalism and equality.
Rule 6 allows university administrations to define what is prejudicial and contrary to the interest of national interest, public order, decency or morality. It states that ‘no employee, teaching or non-teaching of the University ‘shall join or continue to be a member of an association, the object or activities of which are prejudicial to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, decency or morality’.
Effects: Universities are breeding grounds for social reform, where social change is incubated. However, armed with this rule, even a faculty member part of a women’s collective who writes a joint representation against gender based discrimination could be treated as misconduct
Rule 7 categorically bans dissent of all kinds – from those that are perceived to be contrary to interests of sovereignty to those demonstrations, which offend morality. It states that no employee shall ‘engage himself or participate in any demonstration or strike which is prejudicial to the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with the foreign states, public order, morality, decency or which involves contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence’.
Effects: The participation of Dalit academics in movements for dignity and equality for Dalits could potentially be misconduct today. The feminist academics in the national movement to change the rape law in 2013 could amount to an act of misconduct in 2018. A demonstration on behalf of discrimination to another colleagues would also amount to misconduct
Rules 8 and 9 will bring research and teaching to a grinding halt, particularly in the social sciences. Rule 8 (i) “No employee shall, except with the previous sanction of the University, own wholly or in part, or conduct, or participate in the editing or management of any newspaper or other periodical”. Rule 8 (ii) prohibits the publication of books and articles save for a purely scientific or literary character. Rule (9) makes it clear that all such intervention must not be of a nature that “has the effect of an adverse criticism of the Government” or embarrass relations with the Union or with any foreign government.
Effect: With these rules in place, Indian academia will neither be able to teach or research those areas that are not in consonance with govt policy.
Indian academics will not be able to fulfil their professional goals — editorships and membership of editorial boards are honours in many disciplines, but they will not be allowed to accept them without prior sanction.
Rule 10 bans teachers from giving any sort of public testimony and expert opinion in people’s tribunals, jan sunwais.
Rule 11 prohibits faculty from sharing unauthorized information with other colleagues and the public except when ordered to do so,
Effects: The historical role in society that university academics have played in society, as concerned citizens and public intellectuals, will now constitute misconduct.
University enclaves are part of the government but they are a part of society — speaking up and acting for justice, reform, democratisation, and change is the role that academics must play if they are to give back to the society that created a space for learning and the imagination.
The important fact is that two years before 2017, there was a court ruling that CCS Rules are not applicable to teachers. In 2015, the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Dr. Suchitra Mitra and Anr. v. Union of India observed: “The professors of the university are neither members of a service nor do they hold a civil post under the union nor are they in the service of local or other authority. CCS(CCA) rules would, therefore, have no application to a central university.”
2. Even where CCS Rules unequivocally apply, as to government employees, there is room for interpretation when placed alongside Constitutional values. For example in a judgement in 2019, the Tripura High Court considered the case of a UDC in Fisheries dept who was suspended for violating Rule 5 of the Tripura Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1988 by directly taking part in a political rally organized/ campaigned by a particular party and while working as a UDC the petitioner had canvassed against a political party by making defamatory and indecent comments against political leaders who were contesting election from a recognized political party in the Assembly Election of 2018. (on Facebook)
Court set aside the suspension stating:
“As a Government servant the petitioner is not devoid of her right of free speech, a fundamental right which can be curtailed only by a valid law. She was entitled to hold her own beliefs and express them in the manner she desired of course subject to not crossing the borders laid down in sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 of the Conduct Rules. Once I find that the petitioner’s Facebook post had no element of canvassing for or against any political party, second limb of the allegation of breach of Rule 5(4) of the Conduct Rules also must fail.”
Rule 5 (4) prohibits proposing or seconding by a Government servant of a candidate for election, as such action would constitute “taking part in an election” within the meaning of rule 5 (4), proposing or seconding being an essential preliminary to an election.
Of course, under the umbrella of such rules, individuals would be forced to go to court case by case but the point is that even under CCS Rules, exercising constitutional rights as citizens is protected.
3. Given the massive protest nation-wide against CCS Rules in universities, the HRD said that adoption of CCS Rules was optional, which still leaves each university having to fight it out. JNU announced it would not be adopting the CCS Rules, in the wake of the HRD clarification.
In 2023, IISER Mohali invoked CCS Rules against Dr Ritajyoti Bandhopadhyaya citing prior approval of the Competent Authority being required for opinion and comment on government policies. Dr Bandhopadhyaya supposedly violated this provision by signing a petition addressed to the Director IIS, and an earlier “infraction” was signing a petition against the CAA. However eventually the petition was withdrawn and he was issued a “strong warning”. This victory can be attributed to his own courageous and principled stand and widespread support from the academic community.
4. From the point of view of academic freedom, it is important not to focus only on CCS Rules because even without these, faculty can be gagged and controlled. For example the Delhi University Code of Professional Ethics 2014 has provisions such as:
Teachers should adhere to a responsible pattern of conduct and demeanour expected of them by the community; manage their private affairs in a manner consistent with the dignity of the profession; refrain from lodging unsubstantiated allegations against colleagues to higher authorities; refrain from taking part in or subscribing to or assisting in any way activities which tend to promote feeling of hatred or enmity among different communities, religions or linguistic groups.
The experience especially over the past ten years has shown that such provisions are invariably invoked against those who challenge majoritarianism, casteism and patriarchy.
There was also a move to impose the Essential Services Maintenance Act on Delhi University, which was withdrawn due to opposition.
Another instance is the case of charge sheets against 48 teachers of JNU by the JNU Administration invoking CCS Rules against a protest march on campus. The Delhi High Court stayed the charge sheets but in practice, the JNU Administration continues to hold up promotions, pensions, gratuity and administrative positions such as Dean and Chair to charge-sheeted faculty. Each affected faculty member then has to go to court and inevitably win, but as they say, the process is the punishment.
A third instance of gagging of academic freedom without recourse to CCS Rules is the suspension of a teacher from J&K (Zahoor Ahmed Bhatt) for testifying against abrogation of Article 370. CCS Rules were not invoked, just that “he files too many legal petitions.” The suspension was revoked after the Supreme Court took note of the matter.
Innumerable examples of teachers being suspended or disciplined in other ways on the basis of complaints by ABVP or other RSS linked bodies. Here a striking example is that of Prof Tejaswinin Desai from Kolhapur Institute of Technology’s College of Engineering.
According to a report in Newslaundry, Desai had been assigned to teach a class on human values and professional ethics after the previous lecturer resigned. The lecture on June 8 began quietly enough, she told Newslaundry. The class of around 50 students told her they’d previously had a group discussion on discrimination. Desai suggested a discussion on gender discrimination, but it was shot down.
“Some students demanded to have a discussion on religious discrimination,” she said. “I agreed to their request.”
The discussion had been on the Kolhapur violence that occurred on June 7. Some students allegedly shared instances of Muslim acquaintances posting WhatsApp statuses about Aurangzeb on Chhatrapati Shivaji’s coronation anniversary. This led to some students eventually accusing Muslims of “being rapists and never getting punished for their crimes”.
Desai told Newslaundry, “Some students said Hindus never ever engaged in riots and Babri Masjid was demolished on the orders of the Supreme Court.”....
Newslaundry contacted Avinash Mane, an assistant police inspector at Gokul Shirgaon police station, to ask why they went to the college that day. Mane said, “We came to know about the video through Twitter. We took cognisance of it and went to the college to conduct an inquiry about it.”…
Desai said the college management “supported her” but also asked that she issue an apology....
Desai communicated her decision not to apologize to Mohan Vanrott, the director of Kolhapur Institute of Technology. She was allegedly “sent on forced leave as a disciplinary action” for 14 days. She said, “College authorities are very supportive and they didn't have any intent to take any action against me. But you can understand how much pressure they must be dealing with.” (2)
Private universities have not required CCS rules to act against faculty for
a) an academic paper that cast doubt on the conduct of elections (Ashoka University, in the wake of the controversy the author Dr Sabyasachi Das resigned)
b) for taking a stand for Palestine (Dr Sameena Dalwai, Jindal University. Dr Dalwai’s presentation at this IAFN meeting is available here)
South Asia University claims immunity from the laws of India as an international organization and so faculty members of SAU suspended for among other “accusations”, running a Marxist Study Circle, and for “inciting students’ agitations” against fee hikes, are struggling to appeal their suspension in court.
None of these charges holds up under the law of the land but SAU claims immunity. However, it is also important to note that the SAU Administration is entirely Indian now and evidently following the lead set by the GoI. (Update in July 2024 - a senior non- Indian faculty member was harassed into resigning because the Administration disapproved of a research topic taken up by a PhD student working under this faculty member’s supervision).
Conclusion
CCS Rules are unacceptable but authoritarianism and gagging of academic freedom do not need invocation of CCS Rules.
The only way out is unified and collective resistance.
In conclusion, here is an institutional statement on academic freedom (from International Centre for Theoretical Sciences-Tata Institute for Fundamental Research) which it is inspiring to end with:
ICTS-TIFR is committed to the protection of academic freedom. Both academic and non-academic members of ICTS-TIFR are free to explore and express diverse ideas in the pursuit of human knowledge, as interpreted in the broadest terms. They are free to participate in public discussions on such ideas. All members of ICTS-TIFR retain their fundamental right to freedom of expression as guaranteed in the Constitution. This includes the freedom to publicly articulate views that might be critical of those in positions of authority, whether at the Centre or elsewhere.
It is understood, by default, that the views of an individual member do not reflect the official position of the Centre (3).
Nivedita Menon is Professor at Centre for Comparative Politics and Political Theory, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Along with her scholarly work which has appeared in the form of monographs, articles in Indian and international journals, she is a regular commentator on contemporary issues on the collective blog kafila.online (of which she is one of the founders), and is active in democratic politics in India. She also translates fiction and non-fiction from Hindi and Malayalam to English.
Find the full statement here: JNU Faculty, ‘The Imposition of CCS Rules in Central Universities: Statement by JNU Faculty’, Kafila, 21 October 2018, https://kafila.online/2018/10/21/the-imposition-of-ccs-rules-in-central-universities-the-view-from-jnu/.
Prateek Goyal, ‘Kolhapur lecturer “forced” to go on leave for saying rapists “can be from any religion”’, Newslaundry, 30 June 2023, https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/06/30/kolhapur-lecturer-forced-to-go-on-leave-for-saying-rapists-can-be-from-any-religion.
Access link here: https://www.icts.res.in/academic-freedom
