Service extensions

We have recently witnessed a trend of granting routine service extensions to senior bureaucrats, particularly State Chief Secretaries, Union Secretaries and other officials, beyond their superannuation, leaving aside officials of parastatal bodies. While governments often cite “administrative exigencies” and the need for continuity, the long-term institutional costs can outweigh the short-term benefits, particularly when no compelling administrative necessity exists. As constitutional heads have pointed out in public forums, extending the tenure of retiring officers can demoralise the administrative system and create an artificial bottleneck at the top, limiting the career progression of capable officers next in line. Keeping a select few officials in key positions for extended periods can also blur the line between professional administration and political alignment. There must be merit-based succession. Alternatively, if experience and continued public service are considered essential, the retirement age could be raised to 62.

Sanjoy Das Sarma,

Kolkata

Making dissent visible

The sparse media coverage of the CJP protests on October 2 raises a larger question about what the media chooses to make visible. The media must recognise that it is dealing with a Gen Z already showing signs of deep disillusionment with institutions and politics. When an important section of this generation takes to the streets, ignoring or underplaying it does not make the issue disappear. It can instead reinforce the perception that both the media and the government are indifferent to their concerns.

R. Narayanan,

Navi Mumbai