Navagunjara: Public Relations in the Age of AI

Nine Forms, One Purpose - The Emerging Identity of Public Relations

Y Babji, Editor, Public Relations Voice

The 48th All-India Public Relations Conference of the Public Relations Society of India, being held from 25 to 27 December 2026 at Bhubaneswar, Odisha, carries an evocative theme: “Navagunjara: Public Relations in the Age of AI – Tradition + Technology + Transformation.” Conceived by Dr Ajit Pathak, National President, PRSI, the theme draws inspiration from one of the most fascinating forms in Indian mythology - the Navagunjara.

Navagunjara is depicted as a mythical composite form comprising nine different beings brought together as one. At first sight, its appearance may seem unusual and even contradictory. Yet, that very combination creates a harmonious whole: each component retains its individual identity while contributing to something larger and more meaningful. For contemporary public relations, Navagunjara is more than a mythological metaphor; it is a compelling representation of what the profession has become and what it is rapidly becoming in the age of artificial intelligence.

The Odisha Connection

Navagunjara is a distinctive mythological and artistic form deeply rooted in Odisha’s cultural tradition, most famously narrated in the 15th-century Sarala Mahabharata of Sarala Das. It is described as a wondrous composite being incorporating features of several creatures and appearing before Arjuna during his penance. When Arjuna initially prepares to confront the mysterious creature, he eventually recognises the divine presence of Krishna in this extraordinary form.

The Navagunjara tradition subsequently became an important part of Odisha’s religious and artistic heritage, particularly in connection with the Jagannath tradition and Pattachitra art. The creature is traditionally represented with features drawn from different beings, including the peacock or rooster, bull, lion, elephant, tiger, deer or horse, human form and serpent. Its enduring appeal lies in the idea that diverse and seemingly contrasting forms can coexist harmoniously within a single, meaningful whole.

This symbolism offers an unusually appropriate metaphor for public relations today. Just as the many elements of Navagunjara combine to create one unified form, modern PR brings together strategy, storytelling, media relations, technology, data, creativity, ethics, stakeholder engagement and artificial intelligence. Each has its own character and function, yet none can independently represent the entire profession.

From Publicity to a Multifaceted Profession

Public relations was once largely understood through familiar functions such as media relations, publicity, press releases, events and public information. The profession has travelled a long distance since then.

Today, a PR professional may begin the morning analysing stakeholder data, develop a communication strategy, engage with journalists and digital creators, work on a crisis-response plan, advise management, monitor online conversations and conclude the day experimenting with an AI-powered communication tool.

PR has therefore ceased to be a single-discipline activity. It has become a convergence of several capabilities. Like Navagunjara, modern PR has many forms but one essential purpose: building understanding and sustaining relationships between organisations and their publics.

Nine Dimensions of Contemporary PR

The nine elements of Navagunjara can be viewed metaphorically as representing the many dimensions that now constitute professional public relations.

Strategy provides direction. Communication without strategy can become a collection of disconnected activities. The PR professional must understand organisational objectives, anticipate challenges and connect communication with larger institutional goals.

Storytelling gives strategy a human voice. Facts may inform, but stories help people understand, remember and relate. In an age of information abundance, authentic and meaningful storytelling has become increasingly important.

Media relations remains fundamental. Although the media ecosystem has expanded enormously, credible journalism continues to influence public understanding. PR professionals must cultivate professional relationships with journalists while respecting editorial independence.

Technology has transformed the speed and scale of communication. Digital platforms have made every organisation potentially a publisher and every stakeholder potentially a broadcaster.

Data and analytics provide another essential dimension. Modern PR increasingly requires evidence of what people are saying, where conversations are occurring, how audiences are responding and what communication is achieving.

Creativity prevents communication from becoming mechanical. Even sophisticated technology cannot replace an original idea, an insightful concept or an emotionally resonant message.

Ethics provides the moral foundation. Accuracy, transparency, accountability, privacy and respect for stakeholders cannot be outsourced to algorithms. The greater the technological power available to communicators, the greater becomes the responsibility to use it ethically.

Stakeholder engagement reminds PR professionals that communication is not simply about sending messages. It is about listening, understanding expectations, resolving concerns and building relationships.

And finally comes artificial intelligence, the new and rapidly expanding dimension that is transforming virtually every other component of communication.

AI: The New Member of the PR Team

Artificial intelligence can generate text, analyse large volumes of information, identify patterns, translate languages, summarise documents, monitor conversations, create images and assist in developing communication strategies. For PR professionals, this can mean greater speed, efficiency and analytical capability. But AI is a tool, not the relationship itself.

A machine can analyse sentiment, but it does not possess human empathy. It can generate a response, but it does not necessarily understand the consequences of that response. It can reproduce information at extraordinary speed, but speed does not guarantee truth.

The future PR professional will therefore not merely be someone who knows how to use AI. The professional advantage will increasingly belong to those who know when to use AI, how to use it, how to verify its output and when human judgement must prevail.

The Human Element Cannot Be Automated

Public relations ultimately deals with people. Trust cannot be generated by an algorithm alone. Reputation cannot be manufactured merely through technology. Relationships require listening, sensitivity, credibility and consistency.

AI may help a communicator identify what stakeholders are saying, but it cannot automatically determine what they are feeling. It may suggest several possible responses to a crisis, but deciding which response is ethically appropriate requires human judgement.

This is where the Navagunjara metaphor becomes particularly relevant. Its nine components are different, but they function as one. Similarly, technology, data, creativity, strategy and human relationships must not operate as isolated compartments. They must come together under professional judgement.

The challenge before PR is therefore not human versus machine. It is human intelligence working with artificial intelligence.

Trust in the Age of Synthetic Communication

The AI era is also likely to make trust more valuable. When words, photographs, videos, voices and even apparently authentic conversations can be generated or manipulated through technology, audiences will increasingly ask: Is this genuine? Is this verified? Who is behind it? Can I trust it?

For PR, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The profession must become a guardian of credibility. Fact-checking, disclosure, verification, responsible use of AI-generated content and transparent communication will become increasingly important.

The old principles of public relations therefore acquire new relevance in a technologically transformed environment. Technology changes. Trust does not.

The PR Professional of Tomorrow

The PR professional of the future will need to be part strategist, storyteller, analyst, communicator, technologist, listener, counsellor and ethical gatekeeper.

This does not mean that every PR practitioner must become a programmer or data scientist. It means that professionals must become sufficiently AI-literate to understand both the opportunities and limitations of the technology.

At the same time, they must strengthen the distinctly human capabilities that technology cannot easily replicate: judgement, empathy, imagination, ethical reasoning, cultural sensitivity and relationship-building. The profession may acquire new tools, but its fundamental responsibility remains unchanged.

Nine Forms, One Profession

Navagunjara offers a powerful way of understanding this transformation. Its strength does not lie in any single component. Its uniqueness emerges from the integration of many different elements into one harmonious form. That is precisely the journey of public relations.

From press releases to podcasts, from newsrooms to social media, from stakeholder meetings to data dashboards, and now from human-generated content to artificial intelligence, the tools and techniques of communication continue to evolve.

But beneath all these changes lies the enduring purpose of PR: to create understanding, nurture relationships and build trust between organisations and their publics.

The 48th All-India PR Conference, with its Navagunjara theme, therefore invites the profession to look beyond AI as merely another technological development. It points towards a larger transformation, the emergence of a profession that is increasingly integrated, interdisciplinary and intelligent.

The future may belong to artificial intelligence. But the future of public relations will depend on how wisely human intelligence guides it.

Navagunjara reminds us that many forms can coexist within one identity. In the same way, the future of PR will be neither purely human nor purely technological. It will be a thoughtful fusion of both - nine dimensions, many capabilities, but one enduring purpose i.e. building relationships based on understanding and trust.

References / Sources:

Sarala Mahabharata of Sarala Das (15th century); B. N. Patnaik, Towards Understanding Jagannath Worship; “The Navagunjara Motif of Odisha,” The New Indian Express (15 February 2022); “Ecological Consciousness and the Tale of the Nabagunjara from Folk Odisha,” Fundamatics; Government of Odisha, Orissa Review; Public Relations Society of India, official information on the 48th All India Public Relations Conference – 2026; PRSI Bhubaneswar Chapter, official conference brochure and related releases.

Pic Courtesy: Navagunjara in Kalamkari by K. Lakshminarayanan

Y Babji, Legal Practitioner

Corruption and Vigilance

The Role of RWAs in Clean Urban Governance

“Corruption grows in silence; vigilance begins when citizens ask questions.”

Corruption is not merely a financial crime; it is a denial of citizens' rights and a distortion of governance. It occurs when public authority is converted into private advantage. For the ordinary citizen, corruption is experienced not in textbooks but while seeking building permissions, municipal services, utility connections, police assistance, certificates, grievance redressal or action against unauthorised constructions. Resident Welfare Associations, therefore, have an important role in promoting transparency and vigilance in urban governance.

Law provides the framework; citizens provide the vigilance

India has a substantial legal and institutional framework to combat corruption. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended, criminalises various forms of bribery and corrupt conduct involving public servants and provides for investigation and trial through the statutory mechanism.

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 provides for the Lokpal at the Union level and Lokayuktas in the States to inquire into allegations of corruption against specified public functionaries. In Telangana, the Lokayukta mechanism extends beyond a narrow concept of bribery. Complaints may concern abuse of position, failure to discharge official functions, improper or corrupt motive, undue delay, maladministration and lack of integrity.

For citizens, the Right to Information Act, 2005 is perhaps one of the most powerful instruments of preventive vigilance. It promotes transparency and accountability and enables an informed citizenry to keep watch over government functioning.

The Central Vigilance Commission, Lokpal/Lokayukta institutions, Anti-Corruption Bureaux, departmental vigilance mechanisms and the courts together form the wider accountability architecture. Whistle-blower protection is another important component of the anti-corruption framework, although effective protection of persons who expose wrongdoing remains an important governance challenge.

In Telangana, the Anti-Corruption Bureau is particularly relevant where allegations involve bribery and corruption in public administration. Citizens should use the competent statutory mechanism rather than attempting to negotiate or privately settle an allegation of corruption.

RWAs: the first line of civic vigilance

An RWA is not merely an organisation concerned with maintenance, parking, security and neighbourhood amenities. It can become an institution of participatory urban governance. In fact, there is a genuine claim to recognise RWAs as the 4^th Tier of governance.

A single resident may struggle to pursue a civic issue. An organised RWA can document the facts, seek information, submit representations, obtain acknowledgement and monitor the action taken.

RWAs can promote preventive vigilance by: (1) maintaining proper records of complaints and representations; (2) using RTI wherever appropriate to obtain public information; (3) seeking file numbers and written decisions; (4) monitoring prescribed time limits; (5) questioning unexplained delays; (6) documenting suspected irregularities; (7) reporting genuine corruption to the appropriate authority; (8) avoiding cash dealings and insisting upon prescribed fees and receipts; and (9) collectively following up legitimate civic grievances.

The original principle remains important: vigilance must be responsible as well as persistent. A complaint should be based on facts and documents, not rumours, personal disputes or political considerations.

Preventive vigilance is better than post-facto punishment

The traditional approach is reactive: a bribe is demanded, a complaint is made, an investigation follows and punishment may eventually result. A better approach is preventive vigilance.

Why does a citizen have to visit an office repeatedly? Why is a file not traceable? Why is an inspection undocumented? Why are responsibilities divided between several authorities? Why is a decision not communicated in writing? These are not merely administrative questions. They are vigilance questions.

Digitisation, online applications, transparent file tracking, prescribed fees, time-bound services, automatic acknowledgements and disclosure of decisions can reduce opportunities for corruption. But technology alone cannot guarantee integrity. A corrupt process can simply become a digitised corrupt process unless accountability accompanies it.

Corruption is not every case of bad administration

An important distinction must be maintained between corruption, maladministration, negligence, inefficiency, arbitrariness and an unfavourable administrative decision. Every rejected application is not corruption. Every delay is not necessarily bribery. Every building violation is not proof of official collusion.

Therefore, RWAs must distinguish between a civic grievance, an administrative grievance and a corruption allegation and approach the appropriate forum.

Similarly, Alternative Dispute Resolution can be useful for many neighbourhood and civil disputes, but it is not a substitute for statutory action in cases involving corruption, criminal conduct or misuse of public office. Corruption is not simply a private dispute between two parties capable of being compromised.

From adjustment to accountability

Perhaps the greatest challenge is social. Corruption survives when society normalises it—when a bribe is described as a “service charge” or when citizens say, “Otherwise the file will not move.” This culture must change.

The citizen who refuses to pay a bribe, the official who refuses to demand one, the RWA that documents an irregularity, the RTI applicant who seeks transparency, the whistle-blower who exposes wrongdoing and the vigilance agency that acts upon credible information are all part of the same anti-corruption ecosystem.

The objective should not merely be to catch corrupt individuals. It should be to design systems in which corruption becomes difficult to commit, easy to detect and costly to conceal.

A partnership for clean urban governance

Government cannot fight corruption alone, nor can citizens do it alone. Government must provide transparent procedures, accountable officials, accessible grievance mechanisms and effective enforcement. Citizens must provide accurate information, lawful cooperation and responsible vigilance. RWAs can become the bridge between individual residents and public institutions.

A vigilant citizen is not an enemy of government; a vigilant citizen is an asset to good government. The ultimate test of vigilance is therefore not how many complaints are filed, but whether public administration becomes more transparent, responsive and accountable.

The fight against corruption will not be won by laws alone. It will be won when an honest public servant, an informed citizen and an organised RWA stand together on the side of public interest. 

PANCHAYATS TO PROFESSIONAL RESOLUTIONS

Y Babji, Legal Practitioner

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is no longer merely an alternative to courts. It has become an important part of India's Justice-delivery system, offering parties a quicker, less expensive and more flexible way of resolving disputes. Arbitration, Mediation, Conciliation, Negotiation, Lok Adalats and Permanent Lok Adalats now operate alongside the formal Judicial system.

From Panchayats to Statutory ADR

The roots of ADR in India are much older than the modern courts. Village panchayats traditionally resolved local disputes through discussion, compromise and community wisdom. The formal judicial system introduced during the colonial period gradually displaced many of these informal mechanisms. Arbitration subsequently received statutory recognition through the Arbitration Act, 1899, provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and later the Arbitration Act, 1940.

After Independence, India progressively constructed a broader ADR framework. The Family Courts Act, 1984, emphasised conciliation and settlement in matrimonial and family disputes. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 gave statutory recognition to Lok Adalats and institutionalised free legal services. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, substantially based on the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) model, modernised arbitration and conciliation and sought to make Indian arbitration more efficient and internationally compatible.

The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and later the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, introduced mediation mechanisms for consumer disputes. The Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008, sought to take inexpensive justice closer to rural communities, while the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 gave considerable importance to pre-institution mediation in commercial disputes. The Mediation Act, 2023 is the latest major development, providing a statutory framework for mediation, including pre-litigation, institutional, community and online mediation and enforceability of mediated settlements.

Lok Adalat: The Numbers Tell the Story

Among all ADR mechanisms, Lok Adalats have produced the most spectacular numerical results. Established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 they settle both pending court cases and pre-litigation disputes. Under Section 21, a Lok Adalat award is treated as a decree of a civil court, is final and binding and ordinarily cannot be appealed.

The scale is extraordinary. National Lok Adalats settled 4.19 crore cases in 2022, 8.53 crore in 2023, 10.45 crore in 2024 and 14.84 crore in 2025. Of the 2025 figure, approximately 12.66 crore were pre-litigation matters and 2.18 crore were pending court cases. Permanent Lok Adalats, which principally deal with disputes relating to public utility services, disposed of 1.18 lakh cases in 2021-22, 1.71 lakh in 2022-23, 2.33 lakh in 2023-24 and 2.38 lakh in 2024-25.

These figures establish that ADR is no longer a peripheral experiment. It is dealing with disputes on a scale capable of significantly reducing the burden on conventional courts.

Mediation: Settlement Without Judgment

Mediation represents a different philosophy of justice. A mediator does not decide who is right or wrong and cannot impose a judgment. The mediator facilitates communication and helps the parties themselves arrive at an acceptable settlement. This makes mediation particularly valuable where the relationship between the parties needs to continue, whether in family, business, employment or community disputes.

The Mediation Act, 2023 seeks to make this process more structured, accessible and enforceable. Yet comprehensive nationwide statistics on mediation remain difficult to compile because mediation is conducted through courts, institutions and private practitioners and complete data on privately initiated ADR is not maintained.

Commercial disputes provide an encouraging indication of its growth. Applications for commercial pre-institution mediation increased from 3,680 during July 2018–March 2019 to 59,568 in 2024-25. During 2024-25, 52,730 applications were settled. For 2025-26 up to September 2025, 47,218 applications had been received and 30,353 had resulted in settlement.

Who Can Become a Mediator, Conciliator or Arbitrator?

An important misconception is that ADR is exclusively the domain of advocates or retired judges. The statutory framework is considerably broader. Being an advocate is not, by itself, a compulsory qualification for all three roles.

Under Section 8 of the Mediation Act, 2023, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, a person of any nationality may be appointed as a mediator. The Act does not prescribe that a mediator must necessarily be a lawyer, judge, advocate or even a graduate. However, professional mediation requires appropriate training, competence and where applicable, certification, registration and empanelment under the standards prescribed by the Mediation Council of India or the concerned mediation institution.

The position regarding arbitrators is similarly broad. Section 11(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, states that a person of any nationality may be an arbitrator unless otherwise agreed by the parties. An arbitrator therefore need not necessarily be a lawyer or judge. Depending upon the nature of the dispute, the parties may choose an advocate, retired judge, chartered accountant, company secretary, engineer, architect, scientist, industry professional or other domain expert.

There is also a common misunderstanding regarding the requirement of ten years' professional experience. The Eighth Schedule of the Arbitration Act, which had prescribed qualifications including ten years' experience for certain professionals, was omitted in 2021. Section 43J now provides for qualifications, experience and accreditation norms through regulations. Thus, there is no universal statutory requirement that every arbitrator must have ten years' professional experience, although arbitral institutions and parties may prescribe their own standards and generally prefer experienced professionals.

Conciliation under Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is closer to mediation than arbitration. A conciliator assists the parties in reaching an amicable settlement but does not adjudicate the dispute. The Act does not require the conciliator to be a lawyer or judicial officer, although institutional rules may prescribe qualifications for empanelment.

The Crucial Difference

The simplest way to understand the three professions is this: the mediator facilitates, the conciliator promotes settlement and the arbitrator adjudicates. A mediator or conciliator helps the parties decide their dispute; an arbitrator decides it. The arbitrator therefore requires greater adjudicatory, legal, technical or subject-matter competence because the process culminates in an enforceable award.

A retired government officer, engineer, revenue officer, banker, police officer or other experienced professional is not automatically disqualified from becoming a mediator or arbitrator. Subject to applicable institutional rules, conflict-of-interest requirements and accreditation or empanelment conditions, professional and domain expertise can be a valuable asset in ADR.

The Promise and the Pitfalls

ADR offers speed, flexibility, confidentiality, lower costs and the possibility of preserving relationships. Arbitration allows parties to choose a neutral decision-maker and is particularly useful for complex technical and commercial disputes. Lok Adalats make settlement accessible to economically weaker sections and can substantially reduce court congestion.

Yet ADR is not a magic solution. Arbitration can itself become expensive and prolonged. Mediation can fail where parties are unwilling to compromise. There is also a danger that weaker parties may feel compelled to accept settlements simply because they cannot afford prolonged litigation. Most importantly, disposal should not become more important than justice. A settlement statistic is meaningful only when it represents a genuine and fair resolution.

The Road Ahead

India has travelled a long distance - from the informal wisdom of village panchayats to a sophisticated statutory ADR system involving arbitration, conciliation, mediation, Lok Adalats, Permanent Lok Adalats and court-annexed settlement mechanisms. The extraordinary Lok Adalat figures show the potential of this system, while the growth of mediation points towards its next phase.

The challenge now is not merely quantity but quality: competent and independent neutrals, professional training, ethical standards, affordable proceedings, institutional credibility, digital accessibility and reliable national data. ADR should not be regarded as “justice outside the courts.” It is another legitimate pathway to justice. The future Indian justice system should neither be entirely court-centric nor entirely ADR-centric. Courts should adjudicate what must be adjudicated, while disputes capable of settlement should be resolved early, fairly, economically and consensually.

Mobile Phones in Govt Offices

Y Babji, Legal Practitioner

A Notice Is Not Necessarily a Law

Walk into a Municipal office, Police station, Revenue office, Registration office, Transport office or any Public utility office and one may encounter a familiar instruction: “Mobile Phones and Cameras Not Allowed.” Sometimes the phone is required to be deposited at the entrance; sometimes the citizen is simply told to switch it off; and occasionally an official objects even when the citizen merely has the phone in his pocket.

But an important legal question is often overlooked: Under what law?

There is no general Indian law which makes it an offence for a citizen to carry a mobile phone or camera into every government office. A government office does not acquire unlimited powers merely because it is government property. An office notice is an administrative instruction; it does not automatically become a criminal law.

The distinction between carrying a device and using it is therefore fundamental.

Carrying Is Not Recording

A citizen carrying a smartphone is not necessarily photographing, recording or interfering with official work. A mobile phone today is not merely a telephone. It is a means of communication, digital identification, online access, digital payment, document storage, emergency contact and access to government services.

An authority may reasonably regulate its use, for example, prohibiting calls during a hearing, meeting or official proceeding. It may also prohibit photography or videography where confidentiality, privacy, security or orderly administration requires it.

But a blanket prohibition against merely possessing a phone requires a stronger justification.

Public Office Does Not Mean Unlimited Right to Record

The opposite proposition is equally wrong. The fact that an office is public does not mean that everything inside it can be photographed or recorded.

Government files may contain personal data, medical information, Aadhaar details, telephone numbers, financial information, investigation records and confidential correspondence. Recording such material may violate privacy or other statutory protections.

The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India recognised privacy as a fundamental right and laid down the importance of legality, legitimate State purpose and proportionality when State action restricts protected rights.

Thus, “It is a public office, so I can record anything” is no more correct than “It is a government office, so I cannot carry a phone.”

Municipalities and Municipal Corporations

In a Municipality or Municipal Corporation, citizens ordinarily visit to submit applications, pay taxes, obtain permissions, pursue grievances or meet public officials. Such offices are fundamentally citizen-service institutions.

A restriction on photography or recording may be justified in particular circumstances, for example, where confidential personal information is involved or where recording disrupts proceedings. But a blanket prohibition on carrying a mobile phone throughout an ordinary municipal office should have an identifiable administrative or legal basis.

If a citizen is told, “Phones are prohibited,” the simple question is: “May I know the Government Order, circular or office order under which this prohibition has been imposed?”

Police Stations

A police station is different from an ordinary municipal office. It is a place of investigation, complaint registration, interrogation, statement recording and handling of sensitive information. Reasonable restrictions on photography or recording may therefore be necessary. But carrying a mobile phone into a police station is not, merely by itself, a criminal offence.

Recording a police officer performing an official act and recording a victim, child, witness, confidential case file or investigation material are legally different situations. The circumstances, purpose and consequences of the recording matter.

Nor does an ordinary prohibition sign automatically confer unlimited power upon a police officer to confiscate a citizen's phone.

Revenue Offices

Collectorates, RDO offices and MRO/Tahsildar offices deal with land records, mutations, certificates, disputes, enquiries and other matters involving substantial personal and property interests.

A citizen may legitimately wish to document an official interaction, particularly where there is a dispute concerning submission of an application or acknowledgement. Nevertheless, recording should not obstruct proceedings or expose confidential information belonging to another person.

A blanket prohibition on carrying phones should therefore be distinguished from a legitimate prohibition on recording particular proceedings or documents.

Registration Offices

Sub-Registrar offices handle property transactions and documents containing extensive personal and financial information. Restrictions may legitimately be imposed to protect confidential information, prevent disruption or maintain orderly functioning.

However, the mere fact that registration documents contain sensitive information does not automatically mean that every visitor loses the right to carry a mobile phone into the premises.

Transport Offices and Public Utilities

The same principle applies to RTA/Transport offices and citizen-facing public utilities such as electricity, water and other service offices.

Officials may regulate photography, recording and phone use where necessary to prevent disruption, protect personal information or maintain security. But administrative convenience cannot automatically be converted into a blanket prohibition on citizens carrying their phones.

Security-Sensitive Premises Are Different

There are, of course, places where stringent restrictions are entirely justified - defence establishments, prisons, sensitive police facilities, courts, examination centres, intelligence establishments and other protected premises.

In such places, prohibition of cameras and electronic devices may be an essential security measure. The law therefore does not demand identical rules for a defence installation and a municipal tax office. The nature of the premises matters.

Can the Phone Be Seized?

A citizen should distinguish between depositing a phone under an established security procedure and seizure or confiscation.

A security guard or government employee cannot automatically acquire unlimited power to seize private property merely because a notice says “Mobile Phones Prohibited.” If a phone is taken, the citizen may ask for the legal authority, the identity of the officer, a receipt or seizure memo and the provision under which the device is being retained.

A citizen should never physically resist a lawful search or seizure. The appropriate remedy is to challenge the action through lawful channels.

What Can a Citizen Do?

A citizen confronted with a mobile-phone prohibition in a public office should remain courteous but assertive.

First, ask whether the prohibition is on carrying, using, photographing or recording.

Second, ask for the specific rule, Government Order, circular or office order supporting the prohibition.

Third, ask whether the order applies to the entire premises or only to specified sensitive areas.

Fourth, if the phone is required to be deposited, ask for a proper receipt and safe-custody procedure.

Fifth, if recording is stopped, ask politely for the reason and the legal/administrative authority.

Sixth, do not obstruct officials or physically resist security personnel.

Seventh, where the authority refuses to disclose the basis of the prohibition, seek the relevant order and related information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Finally, if an arbitrary restriction or seizure is imposed, the citizen can pursue an appropriate administrative, departmental or judicial remedy depending upon the circumstances.

The Bottom Line

The issue is not whether a government office can ever prohibit mobile phones or cameras. It can, in appropriate circumstances. The real question is whether the prohibition is lawful, authorised, reasonable, necessary and proportionate.

A citizen does not surrender constitutional rights merely by walking through the door of a government office. At the same time, the right to transparency does not become a licence to violate privacy, confidentiality, security or orderly administration.

The guiding principle should therefore be: “Show me the rule, state the reason, limit the restriction.”

A public office exists to serve the public. Security is legitimate; secrecy without authority is not. Discipline is necessary; arbitrary power is not.