 |
Significance of Civil Servants and the Restrictions
imposed upon their Freedom
Their Lordships said that Civil Servants enjoy a special
position in a democratic society. As the servant or agent of the state he
enjoys special advantages and protections and correspondingly must submit to
certain restrictions. Various provisions of law grant them specific privileges
and restrictions relating to their freedom. The preservation of the
impartiality and neutrality of civil servants has long been recognised in
democratic societies as of importance in the preservation of public confidence
in the conduct of public affairs.
It was further said that:
“Along with these elements of neutrality and impartiality
their Lordships would associate an element of loyalty, in particular to the
Minister whom the civil servant has been appointed to serve. The importance of
these characteristics lies in the necessity of preserving public confidence in the
conduct of public affairs. That is at least one justification for some
restraint on the freedom of civil servants to participate in political matters
and is properly to be regarded as an important element in the proper
performance of their functions.”
The Privy Council did not agree with the Court of Appeal’s
reasoning that a Civil Servant’s expression of ridicule and contempt for his
Minister would not be tolerable in private sector employment if advanced by an
employee about his employer. Their Lordships said that a Minister is not an
employer of the Civil Servants; they are both servants of the State. More
importantly, the Minister is a politician and one necessarily and properly
exposed to public opinion.
The court also said that “the general proposition that
civil servants hold a unique status in a democratic society does not
necessarily justify a substantial invasion of their basic rights and freedoms.
A proper balance has to be struck between the freedom of expression and the
duty of a civil servant properly to fulfil his or her functions.”
The court cited three explanations for such a reasoning:
1. Our democratic system is deeply rooted in, and thrives
on, free and robust public discussion of public issues. As a general rule, all
members of society should be permitted, indeed encouraged, to participate in
that discussion.
2. Account must be taken of the growth in recent decades of
the public sector as an employer. A blanket prohibition against all public
discussion of all public issues by all public servants would, quite simply,
deny fundamental democratic rights to far too many people.
3. Common sense comes into play here. An absolute rule
prohibiting all public participation and discussion by all public servants
would prohibit activities which no sensible person in a democratic society
would want to prohibit.
Thus, the Court said that the restrictions imposed must be
reasonably justifiable in a democratic society [Section 12 of the Civil Service
Act] and must not contravene the provisions of the Constitution. They also must
be ‘reasonably required’ for the stated purpose under Section 12 of the Act.
To Be Continued....
To Be Continued....
No comments:
Post a Comment