'DM is not a facilitator of...': Former IAS officer slams centralised governance model

Former IAS officer TR Raghunandan has strongly criticised the continued concentration of administrative power in the hands of district magistrates, calling it “institutionally irrational” and a major hurdle in India’s development. In a sharply written article published in The Print, Raghunandan, who earlier served in the Karnataka cadre, argued that this outdated system needs urgent reform.

He wrote that the idea of giving so much power to one officer—the district collector—is no longer suitable in today’s India. According to him, the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) has promoted the belief that the collector is all-powerful and that citizens must be controlled, which he believes is wrong and harmful.

Raghunandan has made similar points in the past, and while many have agreed, some former IAS colleagues have criticised him. One officer even accused him of damaging the image of the service and compared his views unfavourably with the pride shown in the military. Raghunandan replied by saying he is proud to have been in the IAS, but that doesn’t mean he will blindly support everything about it. He believes honest criticism is necessary to bring real improvement.

Centralised Power Is Hurting Development
At the heart of Raghunandan’s argument is the continued dominance of the district collector, even after 30 years of economic reforms and constitutional efforts to give power to local governments. He described the current system as outdated, calling it a burden on the country’s progress.

He pointed out that in Andhra Pradesh and Assam, collectors were in charge of 50 and 43 committees, respectively. This shows how overburdened and centralised the system has become. He also recalled a forgotten reform in Karnataka between 1987 and 1992, when the district collector was made answerable to the elected Zilla Parishad head. Despite fears from IAS officers that chaos would follow, everything worked smoothly—until the IAS took control back in 1992.

Raghunandan accused the IAS of resisting real decentralisation. He argued that although IAS officers often blame politicians for blocking local governance, it is actually bureaucrats who write rules that keep power in their own hands. He gave the example of the Smart City Mission, where local elected bodies are ignored and IAS-led committees take decisions instead, reducing local accountability.

Responding to concerns about corruption in local bodies, he said that the IAS itself is an elite group that often stays silent when powerful political leaders are involved in corruption.

He ended his piece by saying the district collector’s role fits the current style of strong, centralised leadership in India. Unless there is a strong political will to empower local governments with real authority, he warned, development will continue to suffer.