- Filter By :
- Theoretical Questions
- Case Studies
-
Case Study
Ritika Sharma, the District Magistrate of a rapidly developing district, is confronted with worrying reports of a steady rise in drug use among students and young professionals. Over the past few weeks, multiple incidents have raised alarms: five college students were admitted to the district hospital after consuming synthetic drugs at a birthday party; police intercepted a courier parcel containing narcotics disguised as health supplements; and several school counsellors reported behavioural changes and absenteeism linked to possible substance abuse.
Preliminary investigations reveal that drugs are being distributed through encrypted messaging apps and anonymous digital wallets. Intelligence inputs point toward a network involving a local nightclub owner, a few influential businessmen, and some college staff who allegedly “look the other way” during campus events. Ritika proposes a plan involving targeted NDPS enforcement, surprise inspections, mandatory counselling sessions in institutions, and collaboration with parents and community groups.
However, as soon as the proposal is made public, pushback begins. Parents’ associations accuse the administration of “criminalising youth experimentation” and argue that harsh action may stigmatise students. The nightclub and hospitality lobby warns that raids and strict policing will harm the district’s business climate. A few NGOs frame the administration’s approach as intrusive and insist that addiction should be treated primarily as a health and rights-based issue. Local media channels run debates portraying the crackdown as moral policing rather than a public safety necessity. Politically connected individuals try to influence Ritika, advising her to avoid taking decisions that may create controversy before the upcoming local elections.
Simultaneously, the district’s anti-narcotics unit warns that delay could allow the emerging drug network to become entrenched. Medical professionals highlight a sharp increase in substance-related emergency cases and caution that untreated early-stage addiction can quickly escalate. Ritika finds herself torn between safeguarding youth welfare and respecting personal freedoms, between enforcing the law firmly and adopting a compassionate, rehabilitation-oriented approach. She is aware that her decision will have long-term implications for public health, administrative credibility, and trust between the youth and the state.
Questions
1. What are the main ethical dilemmas Ritika faces in this situation?
2. Identify and analyse the conflicting values and principles involved in this case.
3. Evaluate the possible courses of action available to Ritika and their likely consequences.
4. What should be Ritika’s most ethical and administratively sound course of action to address the rising drug problem?
21 Nov, 2025 GS Paper 4 Case StudiesIntroduction:
The rising drug use in Ritika Sharma’s district presents a complex governance challenge involving public health risks, organised crime, youth welfare, and socio-political pressures. As District Magistrate, Ritika must balance law enforcement with compassion, while ensuring long-term social trust and administrative credibility.
Body :
1. Ethical Dilemmas
- Public safety vs. individual freedom: Strict NDPS enforcement is necessary to safeguard youth, yet harsh actions may be seen as criminalising experimentation, violating autonomy and privacy.
- Enforcement vs. rehabilitation: Medical experts emphasise early treatment, whereas punitive measures may deter students from seeking help. Ritika must choose between a retributive and reformative approach.
- Administrative neutrality vs. political pressure: Politically influential individuals advise restraint before elections, challenging Ritika’s integrity and impartiality.
- Economic interests vs. social responsibility: Nightclub and hospitality sectors fear revenue loss due to raids, whereas unchecked drug abuse threatens long-term human capital.
- Short-term popularity vs. long-term societal welfare: Media criticism and NGO opposition may deter decisive action, but delay could enable the drug network to entrench itself.
2. Conflicting Values and Principles
- Rule of Law: NDPS Act mandates action against trafficking and enabling institutions.
- Public Health & Beneficence: Protection of vulnerable youth from escalating addiction.
- Justice & Accountability: Ensuring that suppliers, enablers, and complicit staff face consequences.
- Autonomy & Privacy: Respecting dignity of students and avoiding unnecessary stigma.
- Non-maleficence: Avoiding harm from excessive policing, moral panic, or economic disruption.
- Administrative Integrity: Resisting political pressure and upholding impartiality.
- Trust and Social Cohesion: Ensuring community confidence in state action.
3. Evaluation of Possible Courses of Action
- Option 1: Strong, punitive NDPS crackdown
- Pros: Dismantles drug networks swiftly; deters future offenders.
- Cons: May stigmatise youth, provoke backlash, damage business reputation, and be portrayed as moral policing.
- Option 2: Purely health-oriented, rights-based approach
- Pros: Encourages voluntary treatment; protects youth dignity; aligns with modern addiction-care models.
- Cons: Insufficient to curb trafficking; allows organised networks to expand.
- Option 3: Delay or minimal action due to social/political pressure
- Pros: Avoids short-term controversy.
- Cons: Ethically unacceptable; network becomes entrenched; public trust erodes; drug abuse escalates.
- Option 4: Balanced, multi-pronged action
- Pros: Combines law enforcement with rehabilitation; targets suppliers, protects students; secures community support; maintains administrative legitimacy.
- Cons: Requires coordination, communication, and stakeholder management.
4. Recommended Ethical and Administratively Sound Action
- Targeted enforcement under NDPS:
- Focus on traffickers, nightclub owners, corrupt businessmen, and complicit staff.
- Conduct transparent, SOP-based inspections to avoid allegations of moral policing.
- Youth-friendly rehabilitation framework:
- Mandatory counselling, campus helplines, mental-health support, and referral to de-addiction centres.
- Ensure that first-time users are diverted towards care, not criminalisation.
- Digital surveillance & intelligence coordination:
- Track encrypted messaging networks, anonymous wallets, and courier channels with cyber units.
- Community engagement & communication:
- Involve parents, schools, NGOs and students in awareness drives.
- Use media briefings to explain that the initiative aims at protecting youth, not penalising them.
- Ensure integrity and neutrality:
- Document decisions, resist political pressure, and uphold fairness and transparency.
Conclusion
The most ethical approach is one that protects public health while respecting individual dignity. By integrating firm action against drug networks with compassionate, community-driven rehabilitation for youth, Ritika can uphold rule of law, safeguard the district’s future, and maintain the trust of citizens.
To get PDF version, Please click on "Print PDF" button.
Print PDF
