Mains Practice Questions

Arvind Mehta, a reputed public servant heading the Budget Division in the Finance Ministry, faces conflict over reallocating ₹6,000 crore from the National Housing Scheme (NHS), to two major development projects, a SEZ and a natural gas plant. While the NHS supports marginalized communities, the development projects hold significant economic and diplomatic importance. Arvind is directed to expedite the fund reallocation without delay, despite his concerns.

(a) Identify the ethical issues involved in reallocating funds from a welfare programme to development projects.

• Public Interest and Political Pressure: Arvind faces conflict between upholding the welfare of marginalized communities through the National Housing Scheme (NHS) and complying with political directions that prioritize development projects for economic and diplomatic gains.
• Rule of Law: Reallocating funds from a welfare scheme risks undermining constitutional commitments to social justice (Directive Principles under Articles 38 and 39).
  • Arvind faces ethical conflict between adhering to constitutional values and yielding to expedient, politically motivated actions.
• Transparency vs Administrative Compliance: The pressure to expedite fund diversion without thorough due diligence challenges principles of transparency and accountability.
  • Arvind experiences an ethical discord between maintaining public trust and succumbing to internal administrative pressures.
• Utilitarian Dilemma vs Economic Gains: Arvind grapples with whether the long-term economic and diplomatic benefits of SEZ and energy infrastructure development can ethically justify the short-term harm caused by delaying the NHS, which directly impacts vulnerable populations.
• Professional Integrity vs Career Security: The situation tests Arvind’s professional integrity, pitting it against considerations of personal career advancement and stability.
  • Upholding ethical governance may invite professional risks, while compliance could compromise his moral responsibility as a public servant.

(b) In light of the responsibility to ensure prudent use of public resources, what options are available to Arvind Mehta? Would resigning from his post be a reasonable or ethical course of action?

Option 1: Approve Re-appropriation as Directed

• Pros: Re-appropriating funds ensures timely financial resources for urgent welfare programs like food distribution, healthcare, and education, addressing short-term cash flow issues and preventing delays in essential services.
• Cons: By reallocating funds from other sectors, it disrupts the original budget allocation and undermines the integrity of long-term financial planning. This can lead to unforeseen financial deficits in other areas in the future.

Option 2: Refuse to Approve and Record Objections Officially

• Pros: Upholds ethical responsibility, transparency, and duty to weaker sections and protects Arvind legally by recording dissent under Civil Services Conduct Rules,1964.
  • Respects parliamentary accountability for budgetary allocations.
• Cons: Risks administrative displeasure, transfer, or career stagnation.
  • May cause delays in decision-making.

Option 3: Seek Alternative Solutions ( Phased Re-appropriation, Additional Funding Sources)

• Pros: Alternative solution such as phased re-appropriation, additional Funding sources balances both welfare and development goals and demonstrates creative problem-solving and leadership.
  • Minimizes harm to vulnerable groups.
• Cons: Alternative solution may not satisfy political urgency and requires complex inter-ministerial coordination, delaying immediate decisions.

Option 4: Resign in Protest

• Pros: Arvind resigns from post, upholds absolute moral high ground and sends a strong message against unethical practices.
• Cons: Removes Arvind from an influential position where he could continue making ethical decisions.
  • Could be seen as abandoning the opportunity to reform the system from within.

Recommended Course of Action:

• Officially record his objections to the reallocation proposal, citing violation of welfare priorities and potential backlash for the government itself if the NHS suffers.
• Propose alternative financial arrangements, such as phased funding or identifying non-critical expenditures elsewhere, thereby upholding fiscal prudence.
• Communicate transparently: With higher authorities about the constitutional and ethical risks involved in diverting welfare funds.

Conclusion

As Chanakya wisely stated, “The king shall protect the people as if they were his own children.” In Arvind’s case, this principle is especially relevant, as a leader, Arvind must prioritize the welfare of marginalized communities, even when political pressures suggest otherwise. By resisting the unethical diversion of funds and focusing on practical solutions, Arvind can ensure that both the development goals and the welfare of the disadvantaged are protected.