Democracy rests on four foundational pillars: the Legislature, the Executive, the Judiciary, and the Media. It is a lesson most of us first encounter in school civics textbooks. While I do not claim expertise in every sphere, I have spent enough years observing two of these institutions—the Executive and the Media—to speak about them with some conviction.
Having covered the bureaucracy for a significant part of my journalistic career, I can say without hesitation that few officers have earned the reputation for integrity and professionalism that IAS officer Sanjay Prasad has. It is therefore deeply troubling to witness him being drawn into controversy over what appears, at least on the face of it, to be a procedural matter relating to the registration of an FIR.
The obvious question is one of accountability. Matters concerning law and order, police functioning, and criminal investigations are ordinarily handled within the domain of the police hierarchy, led by the Director General of Police. If procedural lapses have occurred, responsibility should be determined through established administrative and legal mechanisms. Extending accountability upwards selectively raises legitimate questions. If the shortcomings of a subordinate can be attributed to a senior bureaucrat, where does such a principle end? Does it eventually encompass ministers, chief ministers, or even higher constitutional authorities? These are questions that deserve careful consideration rather than emotional reactions.
Equally concerning is the role being played by sections of the media. Journalism was once guided by a commitment to balance, restraint, and public interest. Reporters were expected to verify facts, present multiple perspectives, and resist the temptation of sensationalism. Today, however, parts of the profession appear increasingly driven by spectacle, conjecture, and predetermined narratives. In the rush to break news and generate outrage, the principles of fairness and objectivity often become casualties.
The recent developments in Uttar Pradesh have brought into sharp focus the delicate relationship between judicial and administrative institutions. The involvement of Hon’ble High Court judges and the issuance of notices to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) have generated considerable public discussion and, in many quarters, confusion.
Two fundamental principles must remain clear.
First, issues relating to law and order, FIR registration, and police investigations fall within the operational jurisdiction of the police and the relevant executive authorities. Any complaint or allegation must be addressed through due process, judicial scrutiny, and established procedures—not through public pressure or institutional overreach.
Second, no individual, regardless of position, should be subjected to scrutiny or adverse action without clear reasons, credible evidence, and a fair investigation. If there is a case against Sanjay Prasad, it should proceed strictly on the basis of facts and law. If not, speculation and innuendo have no place in a constitutional democracy.
It is also important to recognize the damage that can be caused by rumor and selective interpretation. Attempts to revive old files or reference decisions from previous administrative tenures without proper context and examination risk undermining both the credibility of institutions and public confidence in the justice system. Reputations built over decades should not be placed at the mercy of unverified claims or politically charged narratives.
In the interest of transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity, the following principles should guide the way forward:
* Any action against Sanjay Prasad should be preceded by a transparent, independent, and time-bound inquiry.
* If notices have been issued as part of a legal or administrative process, the grounds and procedural basis should be clearly articulated to dispel ambiguity and speculation.
* Public discourse, particularly in the media, must remain anchored in verified facts rather than assumptions, leaks, or rumors.
* Constitutional boundaries between the judiciary and the executive must be respected to preserve institutional balance and public trust.
The strength of a democracy lies not merely in the powers exercised by its institutions, but in the restraint with which those powers are used. Transparency and accountability are essential, but so too are fairness and due process. If wrongdoing is established, the law must take its course. If it is not, then the reputation and dignity of an individual should not become collateral damage in a larger institutional contest.
At a time when public trust in institutions is increasingly fragile, wisdom, restraint, and adherence to due process are more important than ever.
