WhatsApp logo.
Credit: Reuters Photo
The recent controversy surrounding a WhatsApp group titled ‘Mallu Hindu Officers’, allegedly created on October 31 and administered by a 2013 batch IAS officer in Kerala, has stirred a complex debate on personal freedom, professional responsibilities, and the fine line civil servants must tread between the two. After a day, a ‘Muslim officers’ group mysteriously emerged from the same device.
While the officer claimed that his phone was hacked and that he did not create the group, the incident raises important questions about civil servants’ rights to association, as well as the pressures they face to maintain an image of neutrality, even in their personal lives. Based on a police complaint, the phone has been handed over four days after the incident and a police complaint has been filed, but after formatting the device.
At its core, the officer’s participation in or creation of a group exclusively for Hindu officers does not, in itself, violate any conduct rules. The Constitution, under Article 25, grants every citizen the “freedom of conscience and the right to freely profess, practice, and propagate religion.” This fundamental right applies to civil servants as well. The officer, therefore, is within his constitutional rights to associate with others who share his religious beliefs, as long as it does not interfere with his professional duties.
The freedom to form groups or associations based on shared cultural, religious, or even community values is a natural extension of this right. From a constitutional standpoint, creating a WhatsApp group for Hindu officers (or for officers of another religion) does not infringe on bureaucratic principles, provided that it remains a personal choice and does not influence the officer’s impartiality.
Yet, the officer’s quick response — distancing himself and claiming his phone was hacked — reflects a much deeper issue. This incident points to the immense pressure civil servants face to avoid even the appearance of cultural or religious association, especially in states like Kerala with a highly diverse and secular ethos. In such an environment, civil servants often feel compelled to separate their private beliefs and associations from their professional lives to an almost impossible degree, often to avoid any potential scrutiny or controversy.
The All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968, require civil servants to avoid political affiliations and maintain impartiality in their professional roles. However, these rules do not prohibit officers from practicing their religion or associating with cultural groups, so long as these affiliations do not affect their official duties. The aim is not to strip civil servants of their identities but to ensure they execute their duties impartially. Civil servants, as citizens, are entitled to private beliefs and affiliations, and as long as these do not translate into professional bias, their personal choices should remain their own.
Associations based on shared identities are commonplace among civil servants. Across India, civil servants participate in a variety of informal groups based on caste, community, and regional affiliations. Such groups often serve as networks for support, mentorship, and cultural continuity, and are usually understood as part of the human need for belonging. While the existence of these groups is rarely questioned, their purpose and scope remain largely personal and benign. In this context, a group for officers of a specific religion should not be singled out or viewed as an automatic threat to secular governance.
What this incident highlights, however, is the need for transparency and courage among civil servants. The true quality of a civil servant lies not in concealing personal affiliations out of fear, but in standing up and being truthful about them.
In fact, only an officer who has the courage to stand up for their own constitutional rights can be expected to stand up for the rights of others. Shielding or disguising one’s personal beliefs out of fear not only undermines trust in public servants but also weakens their capacity to act with integrity.
The reaction to this incident reflects a broader societal double standard. Had the group been caste-based or part of an association tied to another cultural or regional identity, it’s likely that it would not have raised the same level of scrutiny.
Civil servants in Kerala, for instance, have long been involved in organisations like the Purogamana Kala Sahitya Sangham (PuKaSa) and the Deshabhimani Study Circle, both of which align with progressive and Marxist ideologies. Similarly, officers have been affiliated with NGOs that promote values reflecting certain political, ideological, and religious stance. Adding to this complexity, state funds have often been directed to support NGOs and cultural bodies with political and religious affiliations, blurring the lines between cultural patronage and political influence.
Yet, these affiliations are rarely questioned to the same extent, underscoring a selective sensitivity to religious identities. Those who see this perspective might, in jest, explain away the group as one erroneously created to wish Diwali, or as a group created for the readers of The Hindu newspaper!
What society should truly be concerned with is not an officer’s participation in an identity-based group, but rather their ability to perform their duties with transparency and intellectual honesty. An officer’s competence and commitment to fairness matter far more than the personal affiliations they hold. The real threat to bureaucratic impartiality is not open participation in a WhatsApp group, but the hidden biases and political pressures that are far more difficult to detect. Promotions and transfers, used as tools of political patronage, can reward loyalty to certain agendas over merit, quietly undermining governance from within.
In today’s digital age, where platforms such as WhatsApp, Telegram, and Instagram bring individuals together in both transparent and anonymous ways, drawing a hard line between personal and professional associations is increasingly complex. The officer’s explanation that his phone was hacked only underscores how vulnerable digital communication can be, and how easily private affiliations can be sensationalised. Instead of attempting to control or monitor these affiliations, the focus should be on fostering a culture where civil servants feel secure in exercising their rights openly.
Ultimately, the incident calls for a reassessment of what we expect from our civil servants. The goal of neutrality should not strip civil servants of their constitutional freedoms. A balance between personal freedom and professional impartiality is essential to upholding the integrity of the civil service.
The public’s trust in bureaucracy is best served not by forcing civil servants to conceal their identities, but by ensuring they remain true to the principles of transparency and fairness. Society should value a civil servant who openly acknowledges their beliefs and maintains professional integrity, rather than one who hides affiliations out of fear.
India needs to foster a civil service that is truly impartial, free from both overt and covert political influence, is respectful of individual freedoms enshrined in the Constitution, and is courageous and conscientious.
(Prasanth Nair is a civil servant and author. X: @PrasanthIAS.)
Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.