Mains Practice Questions

Introduction:

The case reflects the growing ethical challenges in urban governance and environmental stewardship. Rapid urbanisation in India has intensified environmental stress, with air pollution emerging as a major public health emergency. Municipal administrators today must navigate the complex intersection of development, political pressures, and environmental responsibilities.

• In this backdrop, Arun Mehta’s situation illustrates a classic ethical conflict where an officer must balance constitutional duties, public welfare, and stakeholder resistance while upholding integrity and administrative courage.

Body :

A. Key Ethical Dilemmas Faced by Arun Mehta

• Public Health vs. Developmental Interests: Arun must choose between protecting citizens’ right to clean air and allowing construction activity that supports employment and political interests.
• Administrative Integrity vs. Political Pressure: He faces pressure from politicians and business lobbies who oppose strict enforcement, creating a dilemma between upholding law and maintaining political harmony.
• Long-term Environmental Sustainability vs. Short-term Economic Costs: Immediate restrictions may slow development, but inaction can aggravate health crises and harm future generations.
• Professional Duty vs. Personal Safety and Reputation: Media criticism and backlash may threaten his career prospects, testing his administrative courage.
• Welfare of Municipal Workers vs. Budgetary Constraints: Workers lack protective gear, raising questions of occupational ethics and duty of care.

B. Conflicting Values and Principles

• Constitutional Morality vs. Political Expediency: Article 21 guarantees the right to a healthy environment, but politicians prioritize electoral gains and economic narratives.
• Rule of Law vs. Discretion: Pollution control norms mandate compliance, yet vested groups demand leniency, creating a conflict.
• Integrity and Courage vs. Conformity and Compliance: Arun’s ethical convictions conflict with pressure to avoid confrontation.
• Utilitarian Welfare vs. Individual/Industry Interests: Strict action benefits maximum number of citizens, while businesses emphasize economic losses.
• Professional Ethics vs. Reactive Governance: The formation of a committee to “study” the issue delays action, clashing with the need for proactive public service.

C. The possible courses of action available to Arun and their likely consequences

• Option 1 — Strict and Immediate Enforcement
  • Pros:
    • Quick reduction in pollution from major construction and transport violators.
    • Sends a strong message that public health, environmental norms, and rule of law cannot be compromised.
    • Establishes Arun’s integrity and reinforces institutional credibility.
  • Cons:
    • May trigger political backlash, administrative resistance, and media criticism.
    • Temporary slowdown in construction activity could affect livelihoods and local economy.
    • Requires strong enforcement capacity and legal support.
  • Ethical Evaluation: Morally robust as it prioritises right to life (Article 21) and long-term welfare over short-term pressures. However, it demands significant ethical courage.
  • Overall Assessment: Highly effective but politically risky; should be supported by strong documentation and transparent communication.
• Option 2 — Gradual, Consultative, and Negotiated Approach
  • Pros:
    • Reduces confrontation with political actors, business groups, and unions.
    • Creates space for participatory solutions and voluntary compliance.
    • Minimises immediate economic disruption, protecting vulnerable workers.
  • Cons:
    • High likelihood of delays, weak enforcement, and manipulation by vested interests.
    • Continued exposure of citizens—especially children and elderly—to toxic air.
    • Could project the officer as indecisive or compromising on public interest.
• Option 3 — Balanced Hybrid Strategy (Targeted Crackdown + Supportive Measures)
  • Pros:
    • Immediate action against high-impact polluters protects public health quickly.
    • Provides phased compliance time for smaller firms with capacity constraints.
    • Enhances trust through fairness, transparency, and proportionality.
    • Minimises socio-economic disruption while upholding environmental standards.
  • Cons:
    • Requires coordinated effort across municipal departments, pollution boards, and police.
    • Demands technological and human resources for continuous monitoring.
• Option 4 — Passive Postponement or Committee-led Delay
  • Pros:
    • Temporarily reduces confrontation and political heat.
    • Allows the government to buy time for broader consultations.
  • Cons:
    • Citizens continue suffering due to worsening pollution levels.
    • Weakens rule of law and encourages violators.
    • Damages public trust and invites judicial intervention.
  • Reflects ethical abdication and failure of administrative duty.

D. Recommended Ethical and Administratively Sound Course of Action

• A balanced, legally firm, and welfare-oriented strategy is most suitable:
  • Immediate enforcement of critical violations impacting PM2.5 levels, especially at high-polluting construction sites.
  • Issue time-bound compliance notices with clear penalties under municipal and environmental laws.
  • Engage stakeholders—construction firms, transport unions, citizen groups—for collaborative mitigation (e.g., sprinklers, dust nets, C&D waste processing).
  • Enhance worker safety through protective gear and improved SOPs.
  • Launch public awareness campaigns with scientific data to counter “anti-growth” narratives.
  • Use technology—real-time air quality dashboards, drone surveillance, e-challan systems.
  • Submit a formal report to the state government emphasising constitutional duty, health risks, and economic cost of inaction.
• Ethical Justification
  • This course of action upholds the primacy of public welfare, honouring the constitutional mandate of Article 21 and the civil servant’s duty to protect life and health.
  • It balances integrity, justice, and fairness by taking firm action against major violators while ensuring that genuine stakeholders are supported through phased compliance.

Conclusion:

Arun’s decision must reflect the highest ideals of public service—courage, impartiality, and commitment to long-term welfare. By enforcing environmental norms firmly yet fairly, engaging with stakeholders, and grounding decisions in evidence and constitutional values, he can protect citizens’ health while enabling responsible development. In doing so, he affirms the ethical duty that “the true measure of leadership is the ability to safeguard the vulnerable,” ensuring governance that is humane, lawful, and future-oriented.