This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
T. S. R. Subramanian v. Union of India article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Indian Administrative Service was copied or moved into T. S. R. Subramanian v. Union of India with this edit on 22:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC). The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
The article mentions who filed the case, and what the ruling was, but it never mentions what actually was the petition and the background for it? How are we supposed to make sense of the judgement and the reactions without knowing what was actually being pursued? For this reason I tagged it with {{ missing information}}, and I also fully agree with the {{ lead too short}} added by The Rambling Man. HaEr48 ( talk) 20:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I wonder if something like this would do:
That was based on my reading of the ruling and the cited sources, but perhaps the orginal author of the article could confirm whether it is a fair enough summary. In short, the apex court granted the petitions. 213.205.240.154 ( talk) 23:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
The petitioners were retired top civil servants from — among others — the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the Indian Police Service (IPS). They sought mandatory court injunctions to support the independence of the various Indian civil services and their freedom from union interference, by requiring the Indian federal (or Union) and state governments to implement the recommendations made by several commissions of review (including the Hota Commission): that oral instructions given by politicians to civil servants must be recorded in writing, that senior civil service appointments should be made for a fixed term, and that a civil services boards should be established to advise on postings.
But anyway, among the cited sources we already have, are:
That is, no oral instructions, fixed terms, freedom from political influence, etc. One of them must mention the CSB.
I think the words "national" (glossed as "federal" or "union" if you like) to qualify "government, and "political" to qualify "interference", are both quite important. Can we just get something on the background into the article, please?
It would be interesting to see something on the history leading up to the petition. What happened in the years before and after the Hota Commission? Why was it convened? Was there a groundswell of demand for action to implement the recommendations of the review commissions, which was being ignored or delayed by the respective governments? Was there any press comment or commentary in legal journals? Did any state government go ahead and implement some of the recommendations before the court case? 213.205.240.154 ( talk) 08:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
In the absence of any objection, or anything better, I've added the paragraph discussed above. 213.205.240.154 ( talk) 09:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)