Initially Civil Services in India were designed to achieve the goals of neutrality and effectiveness, which seems to be lacking in the present context. Do you agree with the view that drastic reforms are required in Civil Services? Comment.

Sardar Patel envisioned the civil services as a politically neutral, effective steel frame binding the Union. Seven decades on, both founding values stand eroded, lending force to the demand for deep reform.

Where Neutrality and Effectiveness Have Eroded

• Politicisation: transfers and postings used as reward and punishment breed a committed rather than neutral bureaucracy; average district tenures in many States run below a year.
• Corruption and rent-seeking sap public trust, while risk aversion — the fear of CBI, CVC and CAG scrutiny — produces decision paralysis.
• Generalist dominance sits uneasily with technology-heavy governance; annual confidential reports reward seniority over outcomes, and exit for non-performers is rare.

Are Drastic Reforms Required?

• Largely yes — incrementalism has not fixed structural incentives. The 2nd ARC (Refurbishing of Personnel Administration) urged fixed tenures, lateral entry, outcome-based appraisal and easier removal of the deadwood.
• In T.S.R. Subramanian v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court directed fixed minimum tenures, Civil Services Boards for transfers, and written (not oral) instructions — implementation remains patchy, which itself signals the depth of the problem.
• Steps already taken point the way: lateral entry at joint secretary and director levels since 2018, Mission Karmayogi (2020) for competency-based capacity building, 360-degree appraisal for empanelment, e-office and DBT reducing discretion, and FR 56(j) reviews for premature retirement of the inefficient.

Reform should be drastic in incentives, not destructive of institutional strengths: statutory protection of tenure, specialist tracks with mid-career lateral flows, measurable performance contracts, and citizen-facing accountability through charters and social audit. Equally, Article 311 safeguards must endure so that reform does not become an instrument of intimidation. A service that is professionally secure yet answerable for outcomes can recover both neutrality and effectiveness that the founders intended.