🏛️ When the Custodian Becomes the Saboteur: How the Cabinet Secretariat of India Is Undermining Democracy

Author: Rajnish Ratnakar Constitutional Activist | RTI Strategist | Doctrinal Innovator

🔍 Introduction: The Illusion of Governance

The Cabinet Secretariat, empowered under Article 77(3) of the Constitution, is responsible for allocating business among ministries via the Allocation of Business Rules, 1961. It is presumed to be the supervisory brain of the executive. But my RTI investigation reveals a grave truth: this custodian has abdicated its supervisory role, failing to enforce statutory duties under the RTI Act, the Public Records Act, and even the Contempt of Courts Act. This is not bureaucratic oversight—it is constitutional sabotage.

📜 RTI Act: The Collapse of Proactive Disclosure

Under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act, the Cabinet Secretariat must proactively disclose:

• (ii) Powers and duties of officers
• (iii) Procedures followed in decision-making
• (iv) Norms for discharge of functions

Yet its disclosures are vague, non-audit compliant, and structurally evasive. There is:

• No custodianship mapping
• No SOPs for monitoring ministries
• No performance benchmarks

Under Section 4(1)(c), it must disclose relevant facts while formulating policies. But the absence of norms itself becomes a hidden policy, and no justification is provided.

Under Section 4(1)(d), it must provide reasons for administrative decisions. But the decision to not act is treated as non-decision—a doctrinal fraud.

🗃️ Public Records Act, 1993: The Custodianship Black Hole

This Act mandates:

• Section 4: Every records-creating agency must nominate a Records Officer.
• Section 5: Records must be preserved and catalogued.
• Section 6: No public record shall be destroyed except as per law.

The Cabinet Secretariat, as apex coordinator, must ensure ministries:

• Appoint Records Officers
• Maintain certified records
• Comply with retention schedules

Under Section 4(1)(b)(iii) of the RTI Act, it must disclose the procedure it follows to ensure this compliance. Under Section 4(1)(b)(iv), it must disclose the norms guiding this supervisory function.

Reality: No such procedures or norms are disclosed. This enables:

• Destruction of grievance-linked records
• Evasion of certified copy duties under RTI
• Institutional invisibilization of public accountability

This is not just administrative failure—it is democratic sabotage by custodianship collapse.

⚖️ Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: The Unmonitored Threat

This Act penalizes:

• Civil contempt: Wilful disobedience of court orders
• Criminal contempt: Acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the judiciary

When ministries ignore High Court or Supreme Court orders, or fail to comply with judicial directions in RTI or grievance matters, it constitutes contempt.

The Cabinet Secretariat must:

• Monitor implementation of judicial orders
• Ensure ministries do not defy court-mandated disclosures
• Escalate non-compliance to legal scrutiny

Under Section 4(1)(b)(iii), it must disclose the procedure it follows to enforce judicial compliance. Under Section 4(1)(b)(iv), it must disclose the norms guiding this enforcement.

Reality: No such procedures or norms are disclosed. This enables:

• Routine defiance of court orders
• Erosion of judicial authority
• Collapse of constitutional remedies

In effect, the Cabinet Secretariat becomes a silent enabler of contempt, sabotaging the judiciary’s role in protecting democracy.

🧨 Constitutional Fallout: Democracy Without Architecture

When the Cabinet Secretariat fails to:

• Monitor ministries under Allocation of Business Rules
• Enforce custodianship under Public Records Act
• Prevent contempt under Contempt of Courts Act
• Disclose procedures and norms under RTI Act

It creates a governance vacuum. Ministries operate without oversight. Records vanish. Court orders are defied. Citizens are denied remedies. Democracy becomes a ritual without architecture.

🛡️ My RTI: A Constitutional Intervention

I have filed RTIs demanding:

• Certified copies of supervisory norms
• Disclosure of hidden policies
• Reasoned justification for omissions
• Custodianship mapping under Public Records Act
• Monitoring protocols for judicial compliance

If evaded, these RTIs will escalate into Second Appeals and writ petitions, converting silence into judicial scrutiny.

📣 Conclusion: The Cabinet Secretariat Must Be Audited

Democracy cannot survive when its custodian refuses to act, refuses to disclose, and refuses to justify. The Cabinet Secretariat must be:

• Statutorily audited
• Judicially scrutinized
• Publicly exposed

Only then can grievance-proof governance be restored.