Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

Ananya, a civil servant, faces an ethical dilemma while implementing a DBT scheme under ICDS in a tribal district of Jharkhand. Aadhaar-based biometric authentication, though meant for transparency, is excluding over 30% of beneficiaries due to technical glitches. Protests and claims of Article 21 violation have emerged, while Ananya must balance strict guidelines with the urgent needs of tribal families.

Body

(a) Identify and discuss the ethical dilemma involved in the case

• Inclusivity vs. Procedural Compliance: Ananya faces a conflict between adhering to procedural mandates (Aadhaar-based biometric authentication for transparency) and ensuring the inclusivity and dignity of vulnerable beneficiaries.
  • While the system aims to prevent leakages, its technical failures disproportionately exclude marginalized groups, undermining the core objective of nutritional support.
  • Strict compliance may protect administrative integrity but risks violating Article 21 by denying essential aid, challenging the balance between rule-based governance and compassionate public service.
• Transparency vs. Trust: While biometric authentication aims to ensure accountability by eliminating ghost beneficiaries, its failure to deliver funds to genuine recipients undermines public trust.
  • This paradox challenges the very purpose of transparency in welfare delivery.
• Administrative Autonomy vs. Hierarchical Pressure: State directives restrict Ananya’s discretion, weakening decentralized governance.
  • Her inability to adapt solutions locally, reflects a systemic reluctance to trust field-level leadership.
• Process vs. Public Welfare: Delays in disbursing critical nutrition support due to procedural bottlenecks directly harm maternal and child health. Prioritizing process over outcomes questions the moral responsibility of welfare administration.

(b) What are the options available to Ananya? Evaluate each of them. What would be the most appropriate course of action?

Option 1: Strictly Follow Central Guidelines (Biometric Authentication Only)

• Pros: Ensures compliance with central policy, minimizing risks of audit objections or disciplinary action. Maintains transparency and avoids administrative conflicts with higher authorities.
• Cons: Excludes 30% of beneficiaries, worsening nutritional distress and violating Article 21. Fuels protests, impacting public trust and the administration’s credibility.
  • Neglects empathy, prioritizing rules over human welfare.

Option 2: Implement Alternative Verification Methods Without Approval

• Pros: Ensures immediate relief for excluded beneficiaries, addressing urgent nutritional needs. Demonstrates empathy and responsiveness, potentially calming protests and rebuilding trust.
  • Upholds inclusivity, aligning with Article 21 and social justice principles.
• Cons: Violates central guidelines, risking disciplinary action, audit objections, or legal challenges.
  • May introduce vulnerabilities to fraud if not strictly monitored, undermining accountability.

Option 3: Advocate for Policy Flexibility with Evidence-Based Proposals

• Pros: Balances compliance with inclusivity, seeking systemic change within legal bounds. Leverages evidence-based governance, strengthening advocacy with data on exclusion rates.
• Cons: Time-consuming, potentially delaying relief for beneficiaries. Success depends on higher authoritie’s willingness, which is uncertain.

Option 4: Collaborate with Stakeholders for Immediate Facilitation

• Pros: Enhances inclusivity within existing guidelines, reducing exclusion rates. Builds public trust by engaging NGOs and communities, diffusing protests.
  • Demonstrates proactive governance, addressing immediate needs without violating rules.
• Cons: Resource-intensive, requiring funds and staff that may be limited. May not fully resolve issues like worn fingerprints or remote access.
  • Temporary fix, not addressing systemic policy flaws.

Most Appropriate Course of Action (Combination of Options 3 and 4)

Ananya should adopt a dual strategy combining advocacy for policy flexibility (Option 3) with stakeholder collaboration for immediate relief (Option 4):

• Immediate Steps:
  • Establish temporary facilitation centers with NGOs and Anganwadi workers to provide functional biometric devices, mobile connectivity, and trained staff to assist elderly caregivers and remote beneficiaries.
  • Launch an awareness campaign in tribal languages to explain the process, address NGO concerns,.
• Advocacy and Documentation:
  • Compile a detailed report on exclusion issues (e.g., 30% failure rate, fingerprint mismatches, connectivity gaps) with inputs from ASHAs and beneficiaries.
  • Propose a hybrid verification model (e.g., OTP, physical ID for exceptional cases) to the State Department and Ministry of Women and Child Development, citing Article 21 and nutritional urgency.
• Follow-Up:
  • Monitor facilitation centers to ensure transparency and prevent fraud. Push for infrastructure upgrades ( internet connectivity, secure devices) to prevent future failures.

Rationale: This approach balances empathy and inclusivity with procedural discipline, ensuring immediate relief while seeking systemic change. It leverages Ananya’s authority, engages stakeholders, and mitigates risks of non-compliance, aligning with ethical governance and public welfare.

(c) What steps can be taken by public institutions to ensure that the use of technology in governance does not exclude the vulnerable?

• Inclusive Technology Design:
  • Conduct pre-implementation pilots to identify local challenges (e.g., biometric issues, connectivity gaps) in tribal and rural areas.
  • Develop multimodal authentication (e.g., OTP, facial recognition, physical IDs) to accommodate diverse groups like the elderly or disabled.
• Strengthened Digital Infrastructure:
  • Accelerate BharatNet and 4G/5G rollout to ensure reliable connectivity in remote areas.
  • Deploy offline authentication tools and portable biometric devices for areas with poor internet.
• Capacity Building and Community Engagement:
  • Train frontline workers (e.g., ASHAs, Anganwadi staff) to troubleshoot technical issues and assist beneficiaries with dignity.
  • Run vernacular awareness campaigns to educate communities, reducing dependency on intermediaries. E.g: Digital Sakhi programs empower women to guide rural users in e-governance.
• Ethical and Legal Safeguards:
  • Enforce Article 21 and Article 14 (equality) to ensure no one is denied welfare due to technological barriers.

Conclusion

Ananya Singh needs to strike a delicate balance between technological efficiency and human-centric governance. By combining stakeholder collaboration with evidence-based advocacy, she can ensure immediate relief for tribal beneficiaries while pushing for inclusive policy reforms. Long-term, public institutions must prioritize context-specific design, infrastructure upgrades, and transparent oversight to make technology an enabler, not a barrier, for welfare delivery.