Talk:T. S. R. Subramanian v. Union of India

What is the content of the petition?

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)

Exactly. How the hell did this end up on the front page without giving at least a succinct statement of what exactly this case was about? 192.31.106.35 (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Nobody at DYK or the review process seemed to take that into account. It just passed the checklist and was mindlessly promoted to the main page. I'm still not clear what this article is actually about. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I wonder if something like this would do:

"The petitioners were retired civil servants. They sought mandatory court injunctions to support the independence of the Indian civil service and its freedom from political interference, by requiring the Indian national 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 Board should be established to advise on postings."

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)

• @HaEr48 and The Rambling Man: first, finding the petition is very difficult as the SC doesn't keep a record of that. Second, I can add a bit of background, that's no problem, also, what 213.205.240.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) suggested pretty much sums it up very well. But, if I were to make something of it, it would be more in the lines of:

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.

Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 00:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:PSTS, ideally we shouldn't have to dig into what the Supreme Court actually said, but instead we should use secondary sources (e.g. what the media says about what the petition is about). But anyway, even if you think it's difficult to find, it doesn't mean that the clearly incomplete article should appear in the main page. HaEr48 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I am fully aware of WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY; what I was insinuating is that, it'd be difficult to find even primary sources. Also, as for the line, "But anyway, even if you think it's difficult to find, it doesn't mean that the clearly incomplete article should appear in the main page.", that is a DYK reviewer's job, so, it is of little-to-no concern to me.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 12:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• By definition, the court decision is indepdendent of the petition, and I would argue that its recitation of the background facts and the contents of the petition is a secondary source for that. It is reporting what someone else said. The court decision is also the definitive source for the result. We could quote extracts if necessary.

But anyway, among the cited sources we already have, are:

• "In major reform, SC orders fixed tenure for bureaucrats".
• "Chance to say 'No, minister'".
• "Supreme Court seeks to unshackle bureaucracy".
• 'The Civil Servants Cannot Function On The Basis Of Verbal Or Oral Instructions".
• "Oral instructions undermine accountability: Supreme Court".
• "IAS officers will no more act on oral orders: Supreme Court".
• "Fix bureaucrats' tenure, free them from political influence: SC".
• "2-year fixed postings for IAS, IPS and forest service".

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)

213.205.240.154 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) yes, there's a background to it, and, yes, the issue has been covered in journals and books. See: Indian Administrative Service#Political influence for more info. In fact, I am thinking of copying some of the section over here.
Regards, SshibumXZ (Talk) (Contributions). 12:09, 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)