Madhya Pradesh has set a disturbing precedent that goes against the very spirit of constitutional governance. On December 1, Deputy Chief Minister Jagdish Devda and Minister of State Gautam Tetwal began a new practice: sitting in the state BJP office for two hours daily to hear and resolve the grievances of party workers.
Other ministers will follow on a rotational basis, effectively institutionalising a system where government authority is exercised from a party premises rather than the state secretariat. The arrangement may appear harmless, even efficient, to those who believe political workers deserve special access.
But the implications are far more serious. In communist regimes, the party secretary routinely overshadowed ministries and even prime ministers. Governance flowed from party headquarters, not constitutional offices. India, however, is founded on a different principle.
Ministers may come to power through political parties, but, once sworn in, they pledge to uphold the Constitution “without fear or favour”. Their allegiance must shift from the party to the people—all the people, including those who did not vote for them.
A minister’s responsibility is unambiguous: to serve the state, uphold the law and ensure fairness. He has no constitutional obligation to solve the problems of party cadres. On the contrary, he is duty-bound to avoid favouritism.
When ministers sit in party offices and handle matters that span multiple departments, the line between government and party blurs alarmingly. It signals that access to governance depends on party affiliation, not citizenship.
The danger does not end in Madhya Pradesh. If this practice is normalised, why should CPM ministers in Kerala, DMK ministers in Tamil Nadu, Trinamool ministers in West Bengal or Congress ministers in Karnataka not replicate it? What will remain of administrative neutrality if governments across India begin functioning from partisan spaces under the watchful eye of party bosses?
The BJP argues that the initiative is merely an informal platform for workers who struggle to meet ministers. Yet, ministers already have official chambers where any citizen can seek redress. That is precisely where grievances should be heard—under the gaze of the Constitution, not the party flag.
If systems of public access are failing, they must be strengthened, not bypassed through a partisan shortcut. This trend must be nipped in the bud. From the Prime Minister downwards, constitutional functionaries are expected to rise above party considerations when they discharge their duties.
Anyone may visit a minister in his official office and seek legitimate help. It is his obligation to respond within the framework of law—nothing more, nothing less. Governance cannot be outsourced to party offices. India’s democracy depends on keeping the roles of party and state clearly, firmly, and visibly separate.
