For my Substack readers: I’m embedding below the link to my just-published op-ed in The Print, one of India’s leading digital news platforms. The article uses the now-viral Kaithal episode—where Haryana minister Anil Vij publicly berated the district SP—as a lens to examine a larger institutional question: the fragile boundary between democratic oversight and operational policing at the district level.
What the piece is really about
The immediate controversy, including the passing reference to a “Zero FIR”, is not the real focus. The deeper concern is the growing normalisation of verbal operational directions issued by political executives in open forums and then treated as binding commands, often reinforced by public threats. When such directions are delivered on camera and in real time, policing risks being pushed away from record, legality and reasoned discretion towards optics and performative compliance.
Rule 3: best judgement, and the discipline of written directions
The governing framework for understanding this tension is Rule 3 of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, applicable across the All India Services and therefore equally relevant to IAS and IPS officers. Rule 3’s operational core is clear: while performing official duties or exercising statutory powers, an officer must act according to her best judgement, except when acting under the direction of an official superior. Crucially, the rule contemplates that such directions should ordinarily be in writing, and if initially given orally, should be confirmed in writing promptly.
This insistence on the written word is not procedural nit-picking. It is the architecture of accountable governance. Written directions fix responsibility, compel clarity and create an auditable record. They protect citizens, shield officers from arbitrary scapegoating, and ultimately protect the state when its actions are tested in court. At the same time, “best judgement” is not an excuse for evasion; officers cannot seek unnecessary cover where the law expects them to decide. The balance is deliberate: independent judgement as the norm, recorded direction as the exception.
Why open-meeting directions corrode policing
The article also explains why verbal directions in open meetings are uniquely corrosive. Once cameras are involved, instruction turns into theatre. The minister performs authority; the officer is cornered into instant compliance; nuance and procedural caution become liabilities. Public rebukes risk signalling to the entire district police that “compliance is safer than correctness”, thereby incentivising self-protective rather than lawful policing.
The way forward
The proposed fixes are practical. Grievance forums should operate under clear protocols: ministers may demand explanations, timelines and performance, but operational police directions must be routed formally and recorded. Home Departments and police leadership must explicitly protect officers who insist on written directions, treating that insistence as compliance with service rules rather than defiance. Training, too, must prepare officers to handle verbal pressure professionally—placing their position on record, seeking written confirmation where required, complying with lawful directions and documenting disagreement where necessary.
Bottom line
The rule of law in district policing depends on one discipline: judgement first, direction only when necessary, and direction, as far as possible, in writing.