-
31 Jul 2025
GS Paper 4
Case Studies
Day 40: Anita is a young IAS officer posted as the Director of the State Digital Governance Mission (SDGM). Her department has launched a major project integrating health, education, ration, land, and police data of citizens into a single digital identity system called "JanSuraksha ID". The objective is to streamline service delivery, reduce corruption, and ensure better targeting of welfare schemes.
However, concerns have been raised by civil liberties groups and data privacy advocates. They claim that the system lacks proper data protection mechanisms, citizen consent is unclear, and there is potential for misuse by law enforcement agencies and third-party contractors.
During an internal audit, Anita discovers that the private vendor managing data analytics has outsourced part of the project to a foreign subcontractor without informing the department. Moreover, preliminary findings suggest that some citizen data is being monetized indirectly for predictive analytics to be sold to commercial companies for targeted advertising.
When Anita raises this with her seniors, she is told not to rock the boat, as the project has political backing and is being hailed as a "game-changer" in governance. She is under pressure to give the project a clean chit before the assembly elections
A. What are the ethical dilemmas faced by Anita in this situation?
B. What options are available to her? Critically examine the consequences of each.
C. What course of action would you recommend? Support your answer with ethical reasoning.
Approach:
- Recognize the conflicting ethical principles such as public welfare vs. privacy, integrity vs. political pressure, and transparency vs. secrecy.
- Discuss the various options available to Anita and evaluate the potential consequences, considering legal, ethical, and professional standards.
- Provide a clear recommendation with ethical reasoning, emphasizing the importance of integrity, accountability, and public trust.
Introduction:
Anita, an IAS officer in charge of the State Digital Governance Mission, is overseeing a project that integrates citizen data for better governance. However, issues regarding data privacy, lack of consent, and misuse of citizen data create significant ethical dilemmas for Anita.
Body:
Stakeholders:
Stakeholder
Role/Interest
Anita
Director of SDGM, responsible for ensuring ethical implementation of the project.
Civil liberties groups
Advocate for privacy and data protection.
Data privacy advocates
Concerned about misuse and citizen consent issues.
Private vendor
Managing data analytics and outsourcing part of the project.
Foreign subcontractor
Outsourcing data analytics without informing the department.
Seniors in the department
Pressuring Anita to overlook issues due to political backing.
Citizens
Potential beneficiaries or victims of data misuse.
Commercial companies
Interested in using data for targeted advertising.
A. Ethical Dilemmas Faced by Anita:
- Anita faces several ethical dilemmas in this situation:
- Privacy vs. Public Welfare: The project aims to enhance service delivery but threatens citizens' privacy by potentially misusing personal data without clear consent.
- Integrity vs. Political Pressure: Anita is under pressure from her seniors to approve the project, despite knowing it may violate ethical standards regarding data protection.
- Transparency vs. Secrecy: The lack of transparency about outsourcing and monetization of citizen data creates conflicts with her responsibility to ensure accountability in governance.
- Accountability vs. Misuse: The misuse of data for commercial purposes without explicit consent is unethical and risks eroding public trust in government initiatives.
B. Options Available to Anita & Consequences:
- Option 1: Approve the Project Without Raising Concerns
- Consequences: This could advance the project as politically backed, but it compromises ethical integrity, privacy, and transparency. If the issue comes to light later, it could result in public backlash and legal challenges.
- Option 2: Raise Concerns to Higher Authorities/Whistleblow
- Consequences: Anita could raise concerns with higher authorities or whistleblow. This would uphold ethical integrity, but it could invite political friction, potential retaliation, and career risks. However, it would protect citizens' privacy and prevent misuse of data.
- Option 3: Request Revisions to Address Concerns
- Consequences: Anita could request that the project be revised to include proper data protection mechanisms and citizen consent protocols. This may delay the project but could lead to better public trust and transparency. However, it may face bureaucratic resistance and could be politically unpopular.
C. Recommended Course of Action:
- I recommend that Anita choose Option 2: Raise concerns to higher authorities or whistleblow. This is the most ethically responsible course of action, as it aligns with principles of public accountability, transparency, and integrity.
- Although it may carry personal and professional risks, Anita’s duty is to protect citizens’ privacy and ensure that government actions uphold the public trust. Additionally, raising the concerns would force a review of the project, ensuring ethical governance and compliance with data protection laws.
- This decision is grounded in ethical reasoning, as it upholds fundamental rights and prevents the exploitation of citizens' data for commercial gain. By ensuring transparency and accountability, Anita would safeguard the integrity of the project and foster long-term public trust in governance.
Conclusion:
As Immanuel Kant wisely stated, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." This idea of ethical duty should guide Anita's actions, ensuring that her decisions prioritize privacy, integrity, and fairness, reflecting principles that are universally applicable.
