In a first for Kerala, disciplinary proceedings against IAS officer to be recorded and streamed

Thiruvananthapuram: For the first time in the state, a disciplinary hearing against an IAS officer will be audio-visually recorded and streamed, marking a significant step towards transparency in bureaucratic proceedings. State govt agreed to this unprecedented move following a request by IAS officer N Prasanth, currently under suspension, who will face a personal hearing on April 16 in connection with disciplinary proceedings against him.
What sets this case apart is not just the recording and streaming of the proceedings, but the fact that the hearing will be conducted by the chief secretary herself. It's an unusual departure from the norm, where a govt-appointed designated officer presides over such matters. Chief secretary's direct involvement signals the gravity and sensitivity of the case.
Prasanth, a 2007-batch IAS officer, earlier raised strong objections to the manner in which the disciplinary process was being handled. In a detailed advance hearing note submitted to the chief secretary on April 7, he thanked govt for honouring his request to ensure transparency through audio-visual documentation and public access. He argued that the case involved critical questions about constitutional rights, whistleblower protection and administrative fairness.
According to Prasanth, the disciplinary action stems from social media interactions between individuals and doesn't involve any violation of conduct rules. He maintains that charges against him are vague, based on unverified digital records and lack the support of any formal complaint. In his submissions, he claimed that no personal harm was alleged by anyone and that the disciplinary authority initiated proceedings on its own, allegedly under the influence of senior bureaucrats with whom he had differences.
Prasanth alleged that his right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution was being curtailed through the chargesheet, and described the suspension order as procedurally and legally flawed. He accused two senior officers —A Jayathilak and Gopalakrishnan— of orchestrating the proceedings against him out of personal vendetta, calling them names associated with maladministration and corruption.
Citing examples from the judiciary, including the Supreme Court's adoption of live-streaming in cases of constitutional importance, Prasanth argued that such transparency must extend to disciplinary matters too. He pointed to state govt's own decision to live-stream official meetings under the ‘VELICHAM' initiative as a policy precedent.
Govt's acceptance of his demand could set a new benchmark in administrative accountability, especially within the All India Services framework. Prasanth said he had no objection to the public viewing the proceedings and demanded that a copy of the full recording be made available to him as part of procedural fairness.