- Filter By :
- Theoretical Questions
- Case Studies
-
Case Studies
You are Rahul, an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer posted as the District Development Officer in an agrarian district hit by seasonal unemployment and distress migration. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) has been a lifeline here—providing wage employment and creating rural assets. Recently, however, local activists and a whistleblower collective have compiled a dossier alleging massive corruption in MNREGA implementation across several Gram Panchayats.
The dossier alleges the following irregularities: ghost beneficiaries and fake job-cards on muster rolls; inflated measurement and bills for rural works (roads, water harvesting structures) with poor or no physical progress; collusion between local contractors, panchayat functionaries and a few junior officials who split commissions; delayed wage payments that force workers to accept bribes for expedited pay; and deliberate misclassification of work to route funds to private contractors. A recent Social Audit showed many assets either not created or of sub-standard quality. Previous audit notes from the State Rural Development Department had flagged similar issues but resulted in token action.
A Central Ministry team is scheduled to visit the district next week to assess MNREGA outcomes. You are instructed by your political superiors and some senior district officials to present reports that attribute shortfalls to “operational constraints” and natural factors (poor monsoons, migration) while avoiding mention of systemic corruption. You are warned that exposing the truth may lead to transfer, adverse remarks in your record, and targeted political backlash against your family. Conversely, if you comply, millions of workers will continue to be deprived, and corruption will persist.
Local villagers, labour unions, and civil society groups demand a full, transparent public report, prosecution of culprits, timely wage payments, and restoration of genuine MNREGA works. National-level media and a public interest petition in the High Court have also drawn attention to the district’s problems.
Questions
1. What are the ethical dilemmas faced by Rahul in this case?
19 Sep, 2025 GS Paper 4 Case Studies
2. Evaluate the options available to him and the possible consequences of each option.
3. Suggest the best course of action for Rahul.
4. Justify your recommendation with ethical reasoning and principles of good governance.
(250 words)Introduction:
Rahul, an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer posted as District Development Officer, faces a complex ethical dilemma in a district grappling with seasonal unemployment and distress migration. The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MNREGA) has been critical in providing wage employment and creating rural assets.
However, a whistleblower dossier and social audits reveal widespread corruption, including ghost beneficiaries, inflated bills, collusion between contractors and officials, delayed wages, and substandard works. Political and senior official pressure instructs Rahul to conceal these irregularities, posing a conflict between personal safety and public duty.
Body:
1. Ethical Dilemmas
- Integrity vs. Career Risk: Reporting the truth may invite transfer, adverse remarks, and political backlash, while concealing corruption preserves personal safety.
- Public Interest vs. Compliance: Villagers, labor unions, civil society, and courts demand transparency, conflicting with directives to attribute shortfalls to operational constraints.
- Accountability vs. Obedience: Rahul’s duty to ensure effective MNREGA implementation clashes with instructions to suppress evidence of systemic corruption.
- Short-term Expediency vs. Long-term Governance: Concealment may avoid immediate conflict but perpetuates corruption, undermining institutional credibility.
- Moral Responsibility to Vulnerable Populations: Millions of workers depend on MNREGA for livelihood; concealing corruption harms them directly.
2. Evaluation of Options and Consequences
- Complying with directives: Temporarily protects Rahul’s career and family, but perpetuates corruption, violates legal and ethical duties, and undermines public trust.
- Reporting full truth: Upholds integrity, transparency, and accountability, but carries risks of transfer, political backlash, and personal targeting.
- Partial disclosure/nuanced reporting: Highlights operational challenges while flagging irregularities, balancing risk and ethical duty but may dilute accountability.
- Alternative mechanisms: Leveraging social audits, civil society, media, and legal frameworks increases transparency while minimizing personal exposure, though impact may be slower.
3. Recommended Course of Action:
- Rahul should meticulously document all evidence of irregularities, submit an official report highlighting operational constraints alongside verified corruption, and facilitate independent oversight by the Central Ministry team.
- Engaging civil society, labor unions, and leveraging social audits ensures accountability.
- Legal avenues, including PILs or whistleblower protection, can provide additional safeguards.
- This approach preserves integrity, promotes transparency, and mitigates personal risk.
4. Ethical Justification:
- Integrity: Upholds truthfulness in reporting, even under pressure.
- Accountability: Ensures public funds serve their intended purpose.
- Public Interest: Prioritizes the welfare of MNREGA workers over personal or political convenience.
- Rule of Law: Aligns with MNREGA provisions, social audits, and anti-corruption statutes.
- Utilitarian Perspective: Maximizes benefits for the largest number of people—millions of workers.
- Deontological Ethics: Fulfills duty as a civil servant to report wrongdoing, independent of consequences.
Conclusion:
Rahul’s decision must reflect Rawls’ idea of justice as fairness. MNREGA is designed to benefit the most disadvantaged, and corruption undermines their entitlements. Ensuring transparency and accountability ensures that the “least advantaged” (rural workers, migrants) receive their rightful share, thereby aligning governance with equity and fairness.
To get PDF version, Please click on "Print PDF" button.
Print PDF
