- Filter By :
- Theoretical Questions
- Case Studies
-
Case Study
Ritika, an IAS officer posted as the Public Information Officer (PIO) in a state department, has been facing mounting challenges due to widespread mismanagement in handling RTI requests. Citizens frequently report delays exceeding statutory limits, incomplete disclosures, and arbitrary denials citing vague exemptions. Several RTI applications relate to public procurement, environmental clearances, and fund utilization, raising concerns about corruption and administrative opacity.
Despite repeated reminders and follow-ups, the backlog of pending RTI cases has grown substantially. Some senior officials in the department discourage timely compliance, fearing that disclosure might expose irregularities and implicate influential contractors or political patrons. A few junior officers have expressed fear that strict adherence to the RTI Act could attract harassment, transfers, or litigation. Meanwhile, civil society organizations and media outlets demand transparency, timely responses, and public accountability.
The state government, concerned about negative publicity and political fallout, has subtly instructed Ritika to “avoid unnecessary disclosure” and focus on maintaining departmental harmony. At the same time, the Central Information Commission and local courts are actively monitoring compliance, with some PILs filed questioning delays and partial disclosures.
Questions:
A. What are the ethical dilemmas faced by Ritika in this situation?
B. Evaluate the options available to her and their possible consequences.
C. Suggest the most appropriate course of action for Ritika based on administrative accountability and citizen-centric governance.
D. Propose long-term systemic reforms to improve RTI implementation, reduce backlogs, and protect officials from retaliation while ensuring transparency and participatory governance.
17 Oct, 2025 GS Paper 4 Case StudiesApproach :
- Briefly describe the situation to establish context.
- Identify and discuss the ethical dilemmas faced by Ritika in this case.
- Evaluate the options available to her and the possible consequences of each option.
- Suggest the most appropriate course of action for Ritika based on administrative accountability and citizen-centric governance.
- Propose long-term systemic reforms to improve RTI implementation.
- Conclude with a suitable way forward.
Introduction:
Ritika, an IAS officer serving as the Public Information Officer (PIO), faces a complex ethical and administrative crisis. The department is plagued by delays, incomplete responses, and arbitrary denials of RTI requests—many concerning sensitive issues like procurement, environmental clearances, and fund utilization. Senior officials discourage transparency to shield corrupt practices, while civil society and judicial bodies demand accountability. Ritika stands at the crossroads between professional ethics, legal duty, and political pressure.
Body :
A.Ethical Dilemmas Faced by Ritika
- Transparency vs Organisational Loyalty: Revealing sensitive information upholds citizens’ right to know but may anger superiors and disrupt departmental harmony.
- Rule of Law vs Political Pressure: The RTI Act mandates disclosure within statutory limits, while political instructions urge concealment.
- Integrity vs Self-Interest: Adhering strictly to RTI norms may invite harassment, transfers, or career stagnation.
- Public Accountability vs Bureaucratic Conformity: Ethical duty to citizens conflicts with the culture of secrecy within bureaucracy.
- Professional Responsibility vs Fear of Reprisal: Junior officers’ reluctance reflects a larger ethical climate of fear that Ritika must address responsibly.
B.Evaluation of Options and Possible Consequences
Option 1: Fully comply with the RTI Act and disclose all permissible information
- Pros: Upholds legality, transparency, and public trust; aligns with constitutional values and CIC directives.
- Cons: May lead to backlash, political isolation, or punitive transfers; could expose systemic corruption.
Option 2: Partially disclose information under vague exemptions (as advised by seniors)
- Pros: Maintains departmental harmony and political goodwill.
- Cons: Violates the RTI Act, erodes public trust, encourages corruption, and risks legal consequences or contempt of CIC orders.
Option 3: Delay action citing administrative constraints
- Pros: Temporarily avoids confrontation.
- Cons: Contravenes statutory deadlines, invites judicial reprimand, and reflects ethical cowardice.
Option 4: Seek guidance and institutional backing
- Pros: Consulting the State Information Commission, Chief Secretary, or DoPT strengthens legitimacy; fosters collective accountability.
- Cons: May slow decisions but protects against arbitrary blame.
C. Most Appropriate Course of Action
- Ritika should uphold the spirit and letter of the RTI Act through:
- Strict compliance with disclosure norms, ensuring transparency without compromising legitimately exempt information.
- Documentation of all communications with superiors to ensure procedural integrity and personal protection.
- Engaging with higher authorities such as the Information Commission for guidance and reporting unethical interference.
- Encouraging subordinates by fostering an ethical work culture based on openness, fearlessness, and fairness.
- Her actions should reflect values of integrity, accountability, courage, and commitment to constitutional morality, reaffirming that a civil servant’s primary loyalty lies with the law and citizens, not transient political interests.
D. Long-Term Systemic Reforms
- Digital RTI Portals: End-to-end online processing to minimize discretion and delay.
- RTI Capacity Building: Regular training on legal provisions and ethical conduct for officers.
- Whistleblower and PIO Protection: Institutional safeguards against punitive transfers or harassment.
- Performance Metrics: Include RTI responsiveness in annual performance appraisals.
- Proactive Disclosure: Departments should publish routine data on procurement, finances, and clearances under Section 4 of the RTI Act.
- Independent Oversight: Strengthen State Information Commissions with adequate staff and resources.
Conclusion :
Ritika’s dilemma symbolises the tension between ethics and expediency in governance. Her morally courageous adherence to the RTI Act will reinforce citizens’ faith in democracy and legality. Long-term reforms must institutionalise transparency, protect honest officers, and ensure that information truly becomes a tool of empowerment, not intimidation. Upholding ethical governance is not only her duty but a cornerstone of participatory democracy.
To get PDF version, Please click on "Print PDF" button.
Print PDF
