-
01 Aug 2025
GS Paper 4
Case Studies
Day 41: You are a senior officer serving as the Public Information Officer (PIO) in the State Urban Development Department. One day, you receive an RTI application from a journalist requesting details of tenders and financial allocations made to a high-profile Smart City project over the past three years. The requested documents include internal file notings, approval memos, correspondence with private contractors, and minutes of meetings.
On going through the documents, you find that some of the files could reveal procedural lapses, cost escalations, and internal disagreements between officers and ministers. One file, in particular, includes a note where you yourself raised ethical concerns about vendor selection, but the project was cleared regardless. Releasing the documents may expose these irregularities and embarrass senior officials and elected representatives.
You are unofficially approached by a senior bureaucrat who advises you to delay the reply or “lose” some sensitive files, citing “larger administrative stability” and reputational risks. You also fear possible transfers or career stagnation if you act against unwritten expectations. Meanwhile, the journalist is following up regularly and plans to publish a story that could trigger public outrage.
A. What are the ethical dilemmas involved in this case?
B. What are the options available to you in this situation?
C. Evaluate each of these options and choose the one that you would adopt, providing justifications for your choice. (250 words)
Approach :
- Briefly introduce the situation to establish context.
- Identify the ethical dilemmas involved.
- Mention the options available to you in this situation.
- Evaluate each of these options and choose the one that you would adopt.
- Provide justifications for your choice.
- Conclude with a quote from a moral thinker or ethical theory.
Introduction:
As a Public Information Officer (PIO) in the Urban Development Department, I am legally empowered under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to provide information in the public interest. A journalist has filed an RTI seeking documents related to a Smart City project. The request uncovers procedural irregularities and ethical concerns, including a file containing my own objections to vendor selection. However, senior bureaucrats are unofficially pressuring me to delay or suppress the release of sensitive files.
This situation presents a classic ethical dilemma involving legal duties, professional risks, and personal conscience.
Body :
A.Ethical Dilemmas Involved
- Transparency vs. Institutional Pressure:
- Upholding transparency would align with the RTI Act and constitutional values.
- But succumbing to institutional advice means compromising on legal and ethical standards.
- Public Interest vs. Administrative Stability:
- Full disclosure of information might lead to reforms and accountability.
- However, it could cause reputational damage to the department and possibly disrupt governance.
- Integrity vs. Career Security:
- Acting ethically may risk transfer or stagnation.
- Conversely, obeying unofficial instructions preserves career comfort but compromises integrity.
- Conflict of Conscience:
- I had earlier flagged unethical practices. Suppressing these documents would betray my moral stand.
B.Options Available
Option 1: Delay or “Lose” Files as Advised
- Pros: Protects self from political or administrative backlash; maintains superficial institutional calm.
- Cons:
- Violates Sections 6 & 7 of the RTI Act.
- Damages public trust in governance.
- Breaches ethical conduct and legal responsibility.
- Sets a precedent for non-compliance and erosion of institutional norms.
Option 2: Partially Disclose Information
- Pros: Balances information disclosure while avoiding embarrassment to superiors.
- Cons:
- Selective disclosure is misleading and undermines accountability.
- It may be challenged legally.
- Violates the spirit of the RTI Act and my ethical responsibility.
Option 3: Full Disclosure of Information as per RTI Norms
- Pros:
- Upholds constitutional values and public interest.
- Strengthens democratic institutions through transparency.
- Aligns with personal conscience and earlier ethical objections raised.
- Ensures legal compliance and shields against penal action under RTI laws.
- Cons: May attract personal risks such as transfer or administrative hurdles.
C.Chosen Course of Action: Full and Truthful Disclosure
- I would choose Option 3: Full disclosure of all relevant documents, subject to exemptions permitted under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
- Justification:
- Legal Mandate: The RTI Act does not allow withholding information unless exempted. As a PIO, I must act as per law, not on oral advice.
- Ethical Duty: Conscience and integrity demand truthfulness, especially when public resources are involved.
- Public Good: Citizens deserve to know how development projects are executed and whether accountability is ensured.
- Whistleblower Responsibility: By previously raising ethical concerns, I have already accepted the moral obligation to act.
- If threatened, I would document every step taken, inform higher authorities in writing, and approach the Information Commission if necessary.
Conclusion :
Decisions in governance must aim at the greatest good for the greatest number, while safeguarding individual rights. As John Stuart Mill argued, “A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature.” Ethical action often demands personal risk for public benefit.
