Mains Practice Questions

Introduction:

This case highlights an emerging ethical challenge in public administration ,the use of social media by civil servants in exercising authority. While transparency and public engagement are desirable, excessive public display of enforcement actions risks intimidation, erosion of dignity, and loss of public trust. The dilemma lies in balancing visibility with restraint, and individual enthusiasm with institutional propriety.

Stakeholders Involved:

• District Collector (Self) : Responsible for administrative integrity and institutional culture
• SDM (Raghav) : A young, enthusiastic officer seeking impact and visibility
• Citizens & Shopkeepers :Subjects of enforcement actions and public perception
• Junior Staff :Subordinates whose dignity and morale may be affected
• Political Executive (MLA) :Concerned about conduct and public backlash
• Media & Social Media Audience :Amplifiers of administrative actions
• District Administration as an Institution :Reputation, trust, and legitimacy.

Q1. Identify The Core Ethical Issues Involved And Their Relevance

• Transparency vs Intimidation: While sharing administrative actions promotes transparency, repeatedly showcasing surprise inspections and punitive actions can create fear rather than trust.
  • Public administration must remain approachable and citizen-friendly, not coercive.
• Propriety in Use of Authority: Public display of authority, especially with strong captions and visuals of tense subordinates, risks turning governance into spectacle.
  • This violates the principle of propriety expected from civil servants.
• Dignity of Individuals: Viral videos of sealing shops or showing anxious staff may humiliate individuals.
  • This conflicts with Kant’s principle of treating people as ends in themselves, not as means for publicity.
• Personal Branding vs Institutional Neutrality: Over-projection of individual action weakens institutional character and undermines Weberian bureaucratic neutrality, where authority flows from office, not personality.
• Procedural Fairness vs Public Perception: Even if legal procedures were followed, justice must also be seen to be done. Perceived high-handedness erodes public confidence in administration.

Q2. Does The Sdm’s Use Of Social Media Raise Ethical Concerns? Justify

The SDM’s conduct raises ethical concerns despite being legally permissible.

From the perspective of public service ethics:

• Propriety: Celebratory or aggressive portrayal of enforcement actions violates restraint expected of public office.
• Dignity: Citizens and staff appear as subjects of power rather than rights-bearing individuals.
• Objectivity: Selective depiction of actions may distort reality and promote fear-based compliance.
• Compassion: Citizens hesitate to approach the SDM’s office, undermining trust and accessibility.

According to the Nolan Principle of Integrity, public power must not be used for personal visibility. Applying Gandhiji’s Talisman, if the weakest citizen feels intimidated rather than empowered, the conduct fails the ethical test. Thus, while legal, the conduct is ethically problematic.

Q3. Steps to Address The Situation

• Short-Term Measures
  • Confidential Counselling
    • Hold a one-to-one discussion with the SDM, appreciating his enthusiasm while sensitising him to the unintended consequences of fear-based visibility. This reflects emotional intelligence and ethical leadership.
  • Immediate Advisory on Social Media Use
    • Direct the SDM to avoid posting punitive actions, images of subordinates or citizens, and strong captions. Encourage informational and service-oriented communication instead.
  • Reinforcing Procedural Transparency
    • Ensure future enforcement actions clearly document notice, hearing, and compliance processes to reinforce natural justice and public confidence.
• Long-Term Measures
  • District-Level Social Media Guidelines
    • Frame clear SOPs for official social media use, encouraging institutional accounts over personal handles for enforcement communication.
  • Capacity Building and Mentorship
    • Conduct workshops on ethical communication, power restraint, and citizen-centric governance, especially for young officers.
  • Promote a Culture of Quiet Effectiveness
    • Reward outcomes and service delivery rather than optics or virality, strengthening institutional credibility.

Q4. Suggested Code Of Conduct For Civil Servants’ Use Of Social Media

Foundational Principles

• Public Service First: Official social media use should prioritise public interest and public service, and should not be used for personal popularity, branding, or self-promotion.
• Dignity and Respect: It is advisable that all citizens, subordinates, and stakeholders featured directly or indirectly are treated with dignity and respect, irrespective of alleged violations.
• Institutional Supremacy over Individual Visibility: Administrative actions should be projected as actions of the institution rather than of individual officers, as excessive personal visibility may erode institutional trust.

Suggested Objectives of Official Social Media Use

• Informative, Not Performative: Social media communication should ideally focus on policy awareness, service delivery updates, citizen facilitation mechanisms, and outcomes, rather than on performative or force-centred actions.
• Outcome-Based Communication: Officers are encouraged to emphasise compliance achieved, public benefits realised, and corrective measures taken, instead of highlighting punitive moments or surprise actions.

Suggested Restrictions on Content

• Avoid Live or Sensationalised Enforcement: It is recommended that surprise inspections, raids, demolitions, or sealing operations are not live-streamed or dramatized. If enforcement visuals are shared, they should preferably be post-facto, anonymised, and adequately contextualised.
• Protection of Identity and Presumption of Innocence: Care should be taken to avoid revealing faces, names, shop boards, or other identifying markers unless legally mandated. Language used should not imply guilt prior to completion of due process.
• Avoid Display of Subordinate Intimidation: Content should not depict junior staff in situations of fear, silence, or humiliation. Leadership communication is expected to convey professionalism and confidence rather than coercion.

Conclusion:

In the digital age, authority amplified without restraint can unintentionally become intimidation. Ethical governance requires balancing transparency with empathy and visibility with humility. By guiding the SDM constructively rather than punitively, the District Collector preserves institutional integrity while nurturing a promising officer. True public service lies not in online applause, but in sustained public trust.