"Prolonged Suspension: A Crime Against the Republic, Cloaked in Disciplinary Farce"

<meta name="description" content="Explore the suspension saga of IAS officer N. Prasanth — a deep dive into bureaucratic ethics, cyber defamation, and the paradox of subsistence justice in Kerala’s administrative theatre. A thought-provoking Malayalam commentary by Adv. C.V. Manuvilsan.">
✍๐Ÿป By Adv. C.V. Manuvilsan
๐Ÿ“† July 2025
๐Ÿ“Œ Topics: Constitutional Governance, Public Accountability, Bureaucratic Abuse, Fiscal Ethics, Right to Service


---

๐Ÿงจ The Prelude to a Manufactured Punishment

In a nation that prides itself on democratic transparency, bureaucratic integrity, and responsible governance, nothing stings deeper than watching public money bleed to protect egos.
The case of IAS officer N. Prasanth is no longer an administrative issue — it is a symbol of a systemic sickness, where “discipline” is used as a smokescreen for punitive pettiness, and the public exchequer is weaponized to silence dissent.


---

⚖️ A Weaponized Suspension

On November 11, 2024, IAS officer N. Prasanth was suspended from service on allegations of “publicly insulting” senior officers, primarily via social media.
Yes — words, not weapons.
Posts, not protests.
Criticism, not corruption.

His statements questioning senior bureaucrats and highlighting issues in the Unnathi project were branded as misconduct. Instead of allowing lawful criticism to be addressed institutionally, the State invoked the most lethal bureaucratic weapon: indefinite suspension.

But here’s the constitutional problem:

> ๐Ÿ”ฅ Suspension is not a punishment. It is a temporary mechanism to facilitate fair investigation.
Yet in this case, no charges have been conclusively proven, and no criminal case exists. But the punishment continues — like a medieval exile wrapped in bureaucratic protocol.




---

๐Ÿงพ The Economics of Ego: Subsistence Allowance and Silent Loss

While Mr. Prasanth sits at home, the government pays him 50–75% of his salary as subsistence allowance.
That’s public money. That’s your money.

๐Ÿ’ฐ Hundreds of thousands of rupees are being spent — not to serve the public, but to punish a man for speaking his mind.
๐Ÿ’ฐ He cannot work. He cannot serve. He cannot resign. He is suspended but fed.

Let us be clear:

> ✅ The government is funding its own inefficiency,
✅ rewarding administrative paralysis,
✅ and weaponizing fiscal power for ego-satisfaction.



This is not discipline.
This is fraudulence in governance.


---

๐Ÿ“‰ The Collapse of Constitutional Morality

When a bureaucracy begins to fear dissent more than corruption, we have already lost the war for good governance.

This prolonged suspension:

Violates Article 14 – Equality before law. Others with serious charges walk free while he faces financial exile for speech.

Violates Article 19(1)(a) – Freedom of expression. No government can suspend this fundamental right by invoking conduct rules that weren’t designed for silencing truth.

Violates Article 21 – Right to life with dignity. The prolonged suspension, without timely inquiry, is a form of institutional torture.


It’s not an administrative procedure anymore. It’s a constitutional wrong.


---

๐Ÿšจ Who Pays the Price?

While departments function without their officers, and the burden falls on junior staff, this drama continues.
The government is using public funds to finance a punishment, without due process, without judicial oversight, and without accountability.

Every extension of suspension — without inquiry, without trial — is a civil offence against governance.

This is a crime against the Republic.


---

๐Ÿ“ฃ What Needs to Happen Now?

1. Immediate revocation of prolonged suspensions unless disciplinary proceedings are concluded within 180 days.


2. Accountability of officers who authorize suspensions for personal vendetta.


3. Audit by CAG into the financial cost of suspension-driven salaries without productive output.


4. Judicial remedy: A PIL on arbitrary suspension practices should be filed to set guidelines preventing such misuse.




---

๐Ÿ•ฏ️ Final Word: From Silence to Surveillance

If an IAS officer can be silenced like this, what chance does a whistleblower in a village panchayat have?
What we are witnessing is not service discipline, but the institutionalisation of fear.

And fear — when funded by public money — becomes State-sponsored injustice.


---
Meta SEO : Explore the suspension saga of IAS officer N. Prasanth — a deep dive into bureaucratic ethics, cyber defamation, and the paradox of subsistence justice in Kerala’s administrative theatre. A thought-provoking Malayalam commentary by Adv. C.V. Manuvilsan.

๐Ÿ“ข Read, Share & Raise a Voice for Accountability.  
#SuspensionFarce #PublicAccountability #KeralaBureaucracy #CVManuvilsan


Comments

  1. Yes, I agree with you.There is a tedency among Secreteriate staff not to act according to the High Court Orders. They give less value the orders of the Costitutional Court. If the Constitutional Courts strengthens the Contempt Court Proceedures the problem will be solved.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Who will bell the cat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. เด† เดฌെเดฒ്เดฒ് เดชൊเดŸ്เดŸി เดชൂเดš്เดšเดฏുเดŸെ เด‰เดš്เดšിเดฏിเตฝ เดคเดจ്เดจെ เดตീเดดเดŸ്เดŸേ

      Delete
  3. The post exposes how bureaucratic machinery can be weaponised against dissent made in the system. Prolonged suspensions without due process not only is a hindrance to the governance system but also betray a taxpayer's trust. If the issues of dissent is not properly channelised, it can lead to 'guerrilla governance'.
    The constitutional bench of Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishore v State of Uttar Pradesh, held that government restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression including those for public officials and civil servants like IAS officers can only be imposed on the grounds listed under Article 19(2) of the Constitution. Any attempt to broaden these restrictions through service rules or administrative regulations must strictly adhere to constitutional principles. No additional restrictions beyond those enumerated in Article 19(2) can be justified. It effectively limits permissible disciplinary action solely to constitutionally valid ground.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Due Process of Law: เด•ുเดฑ്เดฑം เดธเดฎ്เดฎเดคിเดš്เดšാเดฒും เดจീเดคി เด•ാเดค്เดคിเดฐിเด•്เด•เดฃം

เดšാംเดฌเดฑിเดฒാเดฏിเดฐിเด•്เด•เดฃം — เดซോเตบ เดตเดดിเดฏเดฒ്เดฒ | Supreme Court Advisory for Lawyers | Malayalam Legal Blog

เดคാเดฎ്เดชൂเดฒเดค്เดคിเดจ്เดฑെ เดฐเดนเดธ്เดฏം: เดตിเดœเดฏം เดจേเดŸുเดจ്เดจ เดจാเดฒു เดฐเดนเดธ്เดฏเด˜เดŸเด•เด™്เด™เตพ