Mains Practice Questions

Stakeholders Involved

• Ms. Leena Chatterjee (Principal Secretary, Urban Development): She is the key decision-maker responsible for balancing development goals, ethical governance, sustainability, and administrative accountability.
• Urban Commuters and Future Citizens: Daily users of the metro who may face safety risks in the future if climate-resilience measures are ignored.
• Residents of Flood-Prone Areas: Vulnerable communities who could be disproportionately affected by inadequate flood-adaptation in infrastructure.
• Climate Scientists and Environmental Experts: Professionals advocating evidence-based policymaking and long-term climate resilience.
• Civil Society Organisations (CSOs): Groups representing public interest, environmental justice, and inter-generational equity.
• Political Executive and Elected Representatives: Focused on timely project completion and political visibility before elections.
• Senior Bureaucrats and Implementing Agencies: Concerned about procedural delays, litigation, and administrative feasibility.
• International Development Funding Agency: Financial stakeholder prioritising project timelines and cost discipline.
• Taxpayers and the State Exchequer: Bear the financial burden of cost overruns or future disaster-related damages.

Question 1: What are the ethical issues involved in this case?

Ethical Issues Involved in the Case

• Public Safety vs Administrative Convenience: At the heart of the case is the ethical responsibility to protect public life.
  • While the project meets existing clearances, ignoring updated climate-adaptation standards may expose commuters to serious risks.
  • Ethical governance demands prioritising human safety over procedural comfort or deadlines.
• Short-Term Political Gains vs Long-Term Public Interest: Political executives are focused on inauguration before elections, reflecting short-termism.
  • In contrast, ethical administration requires long-term vision, sustainability, and resilience, especially in climate-sensitive infrastructure.
• Legal Compliance vs Moral Responsibility: Although the project is legally compliant, ethics goes beyond legality.
  • This raises the issue of moral courage, whether a public servant should act merely as a rule-follower or as a trustee of public welfare.
• Inter-Generational Equity: Ignoring updated climate standards transfers risk and cost to future generations. This violates the ethical principle of inter-generational justice, a key pillar of sustainable development.
• Accountability to International Commitments: The state has committed to climate-resilient infrastructure.
  • Ethical inconsistency between policy commitments and administrative action undermines credibility and integrity in governance.
• Pressure vs Professional Integrity: Ms. Chatterjee faces pressure from political leadership and funding agencies. Yielding to such pressure may compromise bureaucratic neutrality, integrity, and independence.
• Risk of Precedent Setting: Proceeding without adaptation may normalise bypassing updated standards, creating a moral hazard for future projects.

Question 2: What options are available to Ms. Chatterjee? Evaluate the merits and demerits of each.

Options Available to Ms. Chatterjee

Option 1: Proceed with the Project as Planned (Ignore New Guidelines)

• Merits
  • Ensures timely completion and avoids funding withdrawal
  • Prevents litigation and bureaucratic delays
  • Aligns with political expectations and administrative continuity
• Demerits
  • Compromises public safety and climate resilience
  • Violates principles of precaution and sustainability
  • Weakens ethical leadership and public trust
  • Risks future disaster-related losses and reputational damage
• Ethical Assessment: Legally defensible but ethically weak.
• Option 2: Fully Incorporate New Climate-Adaptation Measures
  • Merits
    • Prioritises safety, sustainability, and scientific evidence
    • Upholds inter-generational equity and precautionary principle
    • Demonstrates moral courage and ethical leadership
  • Demerits
    • Significant cost escalation and delays
    • Risk of funding withdrawal
    • Possible litigation and administrative paralysis
    • Ethical Assessment: Ethically ideal but administratively risky if done abruptly.
• Option 3: Seek a Middle Path (Phased or Selective Adaptation)
  • Merits
    • Balances sustainability with feasibility
    • Introduces critical flood-resilience features immediately
    • Minimises delays and cost escalation
    • Demonstrates practical wisdom (phronesis)
  • Demerits
    • May attract criticism for partial compliance
    • Requires careful technical prioritisation
  • Ethical Assessment: Balanced and pragmatic, aligns ethics with governance realities.
• Option 4: Escalate the Matter with Full Transparency
  • Merits
    • Ensures collective decision-making
    • Protects Ms. Chatterjee from unilateral blame
    • Enhances transparency and accountability
  • Demerits
    • Time-consuming
    • Risk of politicisation
  • Ethical Assessment: Institutionally sound but needs complementary action.

Ms. Chatterjee should adopt a balanced, ethically defensible, and administratively prudent course of action, combining Option 3 and Option 4.

Question 3: Which course of action should Ms. Chatterjee adopt to balance public interest, sustainability, and administrative responsibility? Justify your answer.

Preferred Course of Action: Phased Climate Adaptation with Transparent Escalation

Steps:

• Prioritise Critical Adaptation Measures: Identify the most essential climate-resilient features, such as flood barriers or drainage improvements, that mitigate the highest risks for commuters. Implement these immediately without waiting for full-scale retrofitting.
• Phased Upgradation: Plan the remaining adaptation measures in phases to limit cost escalation and avoid significant delays, ensuring long-term sustainability is not compromised.
• Transparent Communication: Escalate the issue to the political leadership, funding agency, and relevant technical committees, presenting clear cost-benefit and risk analyses. Maintain detailed documentation to protect administrative accountability.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Involve civil society, climate experts, and community representatives to validate priorities, build consensus, and enhance public trust.
• Monitoring and Contingency Planning: Establish monitoring mechanisms to track the implementation of phased measures and prepare contingency plans for potential climate-related risks.

Justification

• Primacy of Public Interest: Public safety and resilience cannot be compromised. Selectively incorporating critical flood-resilience measures ensures risk reduction without derailing the project.
• Ethics of Responsibility (Max Weber): This approach balances moral intent with practical consequences—avoiding ethical absolutism while not surrendering to expediency.
• Sustainability without Paralysis: A phased approach prevents administrative paralysis while aligning infrastructure with evolving climate realities.
• Institutional Accountability: By placing facts transparently before political leadership and funding agencies, Ms. Chatterjee upholds procedural integrity and shared responsibility.
• Alignment with Constitutional Values:This approach reflects Article 21 (right to life), public trust doctrine, and the precautionary principle.
• Setting the Right Precedent: It signals that climate adaptation is not optional but negotiable only in form, not in spirit.

Conclusion

Ms. Chatterjee must act not merely as an administrator, but as a trustee of public welfare and future generations. By adopting a phased, transparent, and science-based approach, she can reconcile development goals with ethical governance, sustainability, and democratic accountability, embodying the true spirit of public service.