UP reshuffle sparks talk of pre-poll ‘administrative fencing’

After transferring 10 senior IAS officers on 20 September and 34 the next day, the Uttar Pradesh government late on 22 September moved 18 senior IPS officers. With more reshuffles reportedly in the works, the exercise is being seen in some quarters as ‘administrative fencing’ ahead of the Assembly elections. Attention is now on the next round of transfers.

Ministers have long complained about bureaucrats, but with the elections approaching and the Centre becoming increasingly active in Lucknow, the discontent appears to have become more pronounced.

At a recent coordination meeting in Lucknow, some MLAs reportedly expressed their anger so forcefully that one person is said to have broken down. Others viewed the episode as political pressure, the effects of which soon became visible in the form of rapid transfers.

Several ministers have also reportedly complained that principal secretaries do not listen to them. Energy minister A.K. Sharma has often been said to be unhappy with one such officer, while panchayati raj minister Om Prakash Rajbhar was reportedly at odds with a secretary. Two senior officials in the state secretariat had allegedly fallen foul of both deputy chief ministers, while an officer nearing retirement was said to be out of step with deputy chief minister Brajesh Pathak.

Former IPS officer A.K. Verma believes the government has, ahead of the polls, opened the familiar window of transferring officers to address ministerial grievances. But he says the moves should be viewed less as an attempt to placate individuals and more as an effort to position the bureaucracy favourably for the election.

The timing is crucial. The Assembly elections are only months away, but several smaller elections are scheduled in the interim, each bringing its own model code of conduct. During such periods, transfers of district magistrates, who also function as returning officers, are generally not possible, while changes involving additional district magistrates and station house officers also become difficult.

The revision of electoral rolls will further narrow the window. Once the final voter list process begins, transfers face restrictions until it is completed. By the time the Assembly election is announced and the model code comes into force — potentially around January — the government could have little scope for major administrative changes. Even where transfers are possible, officers would have limited time to settle into new postings.

Senior journalist Parvez Ahmed, who tracks Uttar Pradesh politics and the bureaucracy, says the government would have little time left to make such changes or for transferred officers to establish themselves. “In such a short period, neither will the government have enough time to decide the right moves, nor will the pieces be able to show their impact so quickly,” he says.

A senior BJP leader points out that the reported anger among MLAs in the latest meeting with BJP national general-secretary B.L. Santosh is not unprecedented. Santosh was also present at a 2021 coordination meeting in Lucknow when BJP legislators had reportedly raised similar complaints. Yogi Adityanath was chief minister then as well.

The complaints were familiar: bureaucrats allegedly did not listen to MLAs, elected representatives had little say in administration, people’s work was not getting done and coordination between the government and organisation was weak. Similar concerns resurfaced after the 2024 Lok Sabha elections at another Santosh-led meeting attended by Adityanath, Keshav Prasad Maurya and Brajesh Pathak.

Senior journalist and political analyst Utkarsh Sinha says such periodic outbursts are not unusual under BJP governments but argues that the latest discontent reflects a wider problem. “Under BJP governments, complaints about the discontent and anger of MLAs keep surfacing from time to time and are usually dealt with easily. But this time, the issue is not limited to that,” Sinha says.

He argues that the government, nearing a decade in power, has struggled to fulfil its promises and increasingly appears to fall back on the Hindu-Muslim binary. “The fact is that ordinary people are now tired of all this, and even the ‘devotee (bhakt) class’ has started asking questions openly,” he says.

The BJP is completing its second consecutive five-year term in Uttar Pradesh, but coordination between the government, party organisation and elected representatives has remained a recurring fault line.

Complaints have ranged from perceived caste preferences and ministers and MLAs not being heard to reports of friction between deputy chief ministers and the bureaucracy. During the government’s first term, MLAs had even staged a protest over what they saw as the growing influence of a particular power centre.

The latest reshuffle also comes against a changing public mood. The government and BJP are conscious of growing dissatisfaction on the ground, while the recent rise of Gen Z activism has sharpened that awareness.

For ordinary citizens, the more immediate concerns remain broken roads, inadequate drainage and problems accessing basic services such as ration. By moving officials who deal directly with the public, the government may also be seeking to signal that it is responding to such grievances.

Whether that message reaches the ground — and how it is received — will become clear with time.

Bureaucracy vs elected representatives: old fault lines

Clashes between bureaucrats and elected representatives are hardly new in Uttar Pradesh. In July 2024, BJP MLA Nand Kishor Gurjar complained at a meeting of elected representatives about the conduct of the police commissioner and the withdrawal of his security. A DCP was subsequently removed.

In Aligarh, an inspector’s alleged failure to salute a BJP MLA became a protocol issue, with the officer later sent to the police lines. In Banda, an SDM was transferred after seizing overloaded sand trucks, reportedly angering the local MLA. That case, however, also involved allegations concerning the mining mafia and an ensuing administrative confrontation.

Other recurring complaints include officials not answering or returning MLAs’ calls, alleged discourtesy, legislators being excluded from government programmes, former legislators being given preference and politicians’ names being omitted from foundation stones.

Similar grievances surfaced during B.L. Santosh’s latest review of government functioning and the performance of elected representatives, held in the presence of the chief minister and both deputy chief ministers.

The issue had also reached the Assembly in February, when speaker Satish Mahana directed officials to ensure proper behaviour and protocol towards MLAs. Importantly, legislators from both the ruling party and Opposition had raised such complaints.

The issue, however, goes beyond protocol. MLAs have argued that the conduct of officials at district, tehsil and police-station levels prevents them from effectively intervening in matters concerning constituents.

Political commentator Siddharth Raju says it would be premature to conclude that the latest transfers were primarily intended to placate disgruntled MLAs. But, he adds, it would be equally difficult to dismiss political discontent as a factor.

The transfers therefore need to be viewed on two levels: as a response to long-standing tensions between elected representatives and the bureaucracy, and as part of the government’s effort to position its administrative machinery ahead of the Assembly elections.