Case Context:

During a public grievance redressal meeting in Kaithal, Haryana, a disagreement arose between the state’s Energy Minister and the Superintendent of Police (SP). The minister publicly asked the officer to “get up if you have no power,” raising concerns regarding decorum, authority, and ethical conduct in public administration. The incident reflects tensions that can arise between the political executive and the permanent executive, particularly in high-pressure governance settings.

Stakeholders Involved:

• • • The Energy Minister (Political Executive)
    • Superintendent of Police (Permanent Executive)
    • Citizens present at the grievance redressal meeting
    • State Administration
    • Public institutions and democratic governance mechanisms
    • The general public (whose trust in governance may be affected)

Ethical Issues Involved:

• • • Abuse or misuse of authority in public office
    • Violation of professional dignity and mutual respect
    • Lack of emotional intelligence in public interactions
    • Conflict between political oversight and administrative autonomy
    • Public perception of institutional discord
    • Impact on morale within the civil services
    • Erosion of public trust in governance systems

Values in Conflict: Political Executive vs Permanent Executive

Conflicts between the political and permanent executive arise from differences in their roles and sources of legitimacy:

• • • Democratic Accountability vs Administrative Neutrality: Ministers are accountable to the electorate and focus on responsiveness, whereas civil servants must remain politically neutral and adhere to constitutional norms.
    • Political Mandate vs Rule-Based Governance: Political leaders prioritise the implementation of electoral promises, often requiring flexibility, while bureaucrats must follow established rules and due process to ensure legality and fairness.
    • Decisiveness vs Procedural Propriety: The political executive may seek quick decisions to maintain public confidence, whereas civil servants are bound by procedural safeguards that may require time for verification and compliance.
    • Authority vs Professional Integrity: While ministers exercise political authority, civil servants are guided by professional integrity, which obliges them to provide objective advice—even if it contradicts political preferences.

Ethical Analysis:

• • • Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean: The minister’s public reprimand may reflect excessive assertiveness, whereas ethical governance demands moderation in conduct.
    • Dharma (Indian Ethical Tradition): Public functionaries are expected to exercise restraint and propriety in official conduct.
    • Emotional Intelligence: Measured communication is essential for conflict resolution and maintaining institutional harmony.
    • Max Weber’s Bureaucratic Ethics: Civil servants are bound by rational-legal authority, requiring respect for procedural norms.

Possible Course of Action:

• • • Maintain professionalism and composure during public interactions.
    • Address disagreements through institutional channels rather than public confrontation.
    • Reinforce training in emotional intelligence and ethical leadership for both executives.
    • Promote structured communication protocols in public meetings.
    • Encourage mutual respect between political leadership and civil servants.

Way Forward:

• • • Institutionalise ethics training for public officials.
    • Strengthen codes of conduct for public office bearers.
    • Foster collaborative governance models.
    • Develop conflict-resolution mechanisms within administrative frameworks.

Conclusion:

• • • The Kaithal incident highlights the importance of ethical conduct, restraint, and professionalism in public administration. While disagreements between the political and permanent executive are inevitable, the manner in which they are handled determines institutional credibility.
    • Ethical governance requires balancing authority with humility, decisiveness with restraint, and political oversight with administrative autonomy, ensuring that public trust in democratic institutions remains intact.
    • As rightly observed by Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Leadership is the art of getting someone else to do something you want done because he wants to do it.” Ethical governance is not merely about exercising authority but about inspiring cooperation through respect, restraint, and institutional integrity.
    • In public administration, disagreements between the political and permanent executive are inevitable; however, their resolution must be guided by emotional intelligence, mutual dignity, and constitutional morality. As Kautilya emphasised in the Arthashastra, the strength of governance lies not in coercion but in righteous conduct (dharma).
    • Ultimately, democracy thrives when authority is tempered with humility, dialogue replaces confrontation, and public office is exercised as a moral responsibility rather than a display of power.