New Delhi. Frustrated with the fact that there were IAS officers who continued to act against various irregularities in the departments they were posted at even though wrongdoings and scams were routine things in most departments, the government has decided to bring a legislation to rein in such errant officers.
“Being honest is a good thing, but one has to be pragmatic and practical,” Law Minister Salman Khurshid claimed, “What we are witnessing are sporadic cases of ‘absolute honesty’ that some officers are hell bent on practicing. This is neither advisable nor reasonable.”
Khurshid especially pointed out cases like those of Haryana IAS officer Ashok Khemka, who, despite being transferred over 40 times in his 21 years long career, was still trying to run the system in an ideal and perfect way.
“Who in his right frame of mind would order an inquiry into deals between DLF and Robert Vadra after the Law Minister and Finance Minister of the country openly defended Vadra?” a candid Salman asked, “This is not honesty, this is madness.”
Sources indicate that Justice Katju, who supports reasonable restrictions on Free Speech and comes up with totally batshit crazy ideas once in a while, could be asked to frame a set of comprehensive clauses that will put reasonable restrictions on honesty of public officers and private citizens.
“Khemka is pushing the limits and misusing his right to be honest,” he explained.
In order to rein in officers like Khemka and other whistleblowers, the government will amend the constitution to put “reasonable restrictions” on honesty, Union Law Minister announced.
“Just like we have put reasonable restrictions on Freedom of Expression and Free Speech, we will put similar restrictions on honesty,” Mr. Khurshid announced.
Sources say that these reasonable restrictions on honesty could be similar to those put on Free Speech through the first amendment of the constitution, so that they pass the test of law and legacy.
Faking News understands that post this constitutional amendment, a government official would be allowed to be honest unless there is an instance of a) threat to national security, b) threat to public order, c) incitement to an offence, d) defamation, e) offense to sentiments of a community, f) indecency and immorality.
“If honesty of a public officer, e.g. an IAS officer exposing a casteist or communal leader, is feared to cause rioting by that particular leader’s supporters, the officer would be expected to dump his honesty in favor of public order,” an expert explained the future of honesty after the constitutional amendment.
“He would also be expected not to be honest as it may hurt the sentiments of the community that the corrupt politician may belong to,” the expert explained the “reasonable restrictions” on honesty, “Similarly, if there is a sex scandal involving a leader, the officer would be expected to cover up the scandal in favor of decency and morality.”
The government hopes that corruption cases would come down drastically if these “reasonable restrictions” are placed on honesty of some officers.