“Democracy depends on a balance where elected legislators hold the executive accountable while civil servants implement policies impartially. When personal attacks and intimidation disrupt this dynamic, democratic institutions themselves bear the greatest damage.”
Democracy thrives on debate, accountability and the free exchange of ideas. Legislators are elected to question the executive, demand answers and hold the administration accountable. Equally, civil servants are duty-bound to implement laws and policies without fear or favour. When this balance is disturbed by personal attacks or public intimidation, democratic institutions—not individuals—become the biggest casualty. The recent reported altercation involving an MLA and Jammu and Kashmir Chief Secretary Atal Dulloo has once again raised an important question: Where should the line be drawn between legitimate criticism and unacceptable conduct? Public representatives have every right to question administrative decisions, highlight grievances and demand corrective action. But they also carry a responsibility to uphold the dignity of constitutional offices. Disagreement is part of governance; disrespect should never be. The office of the Chief Secretary is not merely occupied by an individual. It represents the highest level of the civil administration in the Union Territory, coordinating governance across departments and ensuring that government decisions are implemented effectively. Publicly humiliating or verbally confronting the holder of such an office does little to strengthen accountability. Instead, it risks eroding institutional respect and lowering the standards of public discourse. If an elected representative believes that an official has failed in his duties, there are established mechanisms to seek redress. Questions can be raised in the Legislative Assembly, complaints can be submitted to the government, discussions can be sought with ministers, and evidence can be placed before the appropriate authorities. These democratic tools exist precisely to resolve disagreements through due process rather than confrontation. Civil servants, too, are accountable. They are expected to remain accessible, responsive and transparent in addressing public concerns. Constructive criticism of bureaucratic functioning is both necessary and healthy. However, criticism must be directed at actions and decisions—not expressed through personal insults, intimidation or conduct that undermines the decorum of public institutions. Jammu and Kashmir is at a crucial stage of governance and development. It requires close coordination between elected representatives and the bureaucracy to deliver public services, execute infrastructure projects and address citizens’ concerns. A relationship built on confrontation rather than cooperation only delays decision-making and weakens public confidence in governance.
“While passionate debate and rigorous scrutiny are vital to a healthy democracy, they must not compromise constitutional responsibility or public dignity. Governance relies on mutual respect and restraint between elected officials and civil servants. True democratic accountability is built on adherence to the rule of law and civility, rather than confrontation.”
Chief Secretary Atal Dulloo has led the administration through challenging periods, coordinating development initiatives and disaster response while overseeing routine governance. Like any public official, his decisions can be questioned and debated. But any criticism should remain within the bounds of civility and institutional propriety. Respect for the office does not preclude accountability; rather, it strengthens it by ensuring that disagreements are resolved through established democratic processes. The conduct of public representatives is constantly watched by citizens. Every confrontation inside or outside government offices sends a message about the standards expected in public life. When those entrusted with lawmaking disregard institutional norms, it becomes increasingly difficult to expect ordinary citizens to respect public institutions. Political passion must never overshadow constitutional responsibility. Strong words, sharp debates and rigorous scrutiny are essential elements of democracy, but they should never descend into behaviour that diminishes the dignity of governance. Institutions endure only when those who serve within them and those who oversee them—respect one another’s constitutional roles. The issue, therefore, is larger than one incident or one individual. It is about safeguarding the culture of democratic governance. Elected representatives and civil servants may disagree, but they must do so with restraint, mutual respect and unwavering commitment to institutional dignity. In a mature democracy, accountability is strengthened not by confrontation, but by adherence to the rule of law, constitutional values and the civility that public office demands.
