Mains Practice Questions

Introduction:

This case presents a classic administrative dilemma involving the conflict between immediate welfare delivery and long-term institutional integrity. Ms. Riya Malhotra faces the challenge of dismantling a corrupt nexus without harming the very beneficiaries the system is meant to protect.

Body:

1. Ethical Issues Involved

• Integrity vs. Political Expediency: The core conflict is between upholding probity in governance (taking action against corruption) and yielding to "informal" political pressure to avoid controversy.
• Retributive Justice vs. Distributive Justice: Punishing the guilty (Retributive) must be balanced against ensuring the continuous flow of food grains to the hungry (Distributive).
  • Immediate suspension of dealers might disrupt the supply chain, harming the poor in the short term.
• Public Trust vs. Administrative Collusion: The connivance of revenue officials represents a breach of fiduciary trust.
  • Failing to act would validate the public's cynicism toward the administration.
• Compassion vs. Procedural Rigidity: The "digital compliance" masks "ground reality."
  • Relying solely on data (exclusion errors) versus listening to beneficiary testimonies highlights the need for compassion and empathy in administration.
• Accountability: The SDM is accountable not just to her superiors but to the Constitution and the people. Ignoring the irregularities would amount to administrative complicity.

2. Options Available to Ms. Malhotra

Option 1: Immediate & Strict Action (Suspend all accused dealers and officials instantly)

• Merits:
  • Upholds the rule of law and Zero Tolerance to Corruption.
  • Restores public trust and pacifies Civil Society/Media.
  • Sends a strong deterrent message to other corrupt elements.
• Demerits:
  • Humanitarian Crisis: Sudden closure of shops may disrupt food supply during the lean season, causing hunger.
  • Political retaliation: Potential for transfer or harassment before the investigation is complete.

Option 2: "Handle Sensitively" / Inaction (Warn informally and maintain status quo)

• Merits:
  • Ensures uninterrupted food supply.
  • Avoids confrontation with political heavyweights.
  • Maintains administrative "peace."
• Demerits:
  • Moral Moral Hazard: Encourages further corruption, the "nexus" gets emboldened.
  • Dereliction of Duty: Violates the Code of Conduct and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
  • Loss of Credibility: Media exposure will eventually lead to public unrest and loss of reputation for the officer.

Option 3: Strategic Action (Secure Supply-Chain First, then Enforce Accountability)

• Merits:
  • Protects the Vulnerable: Ensures food security is not compromised.
  • Procedural Fairness: Builds a watertight case that stands in court, making political intervention difficult.
  • Sustainable Reform: Fixes the systemic loopholes rather than just punishing individuals.
• Demerits:
  • Time-consuming, might be perceived as "slow" by the media initially.

3. Course of Action

Ms. Malhotra should adopt Option 3 (Strategic Action). Her approach must be guided by the Gandhian Talisman (focusing on the poorest) and the principle of "Antyodaya."

Step-by-Step Plan:

• Phase 1: Immediate Corrective Measures (The "Citizen-First" Approach)
  • Alternative Supply Chain: Before suspending the corrupt dealers, she must map nearby Fair Price Shops (FPS) or government warehouses to "tag" the affected beneficiaries to the nearest functional/honest shop.
  • Buffer Stock Release: Coordinate with the District Magistrate to release emergency buffer stocks through mobile vans or temporary distribution centers managed directly by the Revenue Department (Tehsildars/Naib Tehsildars) for 15 days.
• Phase 2: Enforcement and Accountability
  • Suspension and FIR: Once the alternative supply is stabilized (within 48–72 hours), she must suspend the errant dealers and the "lower-level officials" involved.
  • Show-Cause Notices: Issue formal notices to the supply officials, ensuring "Due Process" to prevent them from getting a stay order from a court later.
  • Digital Audit: Conduct a third-party social audit to reconcile the "compliant" digital records with actual ground reality to gather foolproof evidence.
• Phase 3: Systemic Reform & Transparency
  • Grievance Redressal: Set up a dedicated helpline or "Jan Sunwai" (Public Hearing) in the block to allow excluded households to register their names instantly.
  • Community Oversight: Form "Vigilance Committees" comprising local SHGs (Self-Help Groups) and retired teachers to monitor future distributions.

Justification of the Action

• In Terms of Ethical Values
  • Compassion and Empathy: By ensuring an alternative supply before taking "police action," she prioritizes the lives of the drought-prone population.
  • Fortitude (Courage): Resisting "informal messages" and political pressure demonstrates the strength of character required in a civil servant.
  • Probity: Upholding the highest standards of honesty by refusing to "handle the matter sensitively" (a euphemism for a cover-up).
• In Terms of Public Interest
  • The Greatest Good for the Greatest Number (Utilitarianism) is achieved. While a few corrupt officials suffer, thousands of families receive their rightful entitlement.
  • Restoring Public Trust in the state machinery is vital, especially when the media and civil society are skeptical.
• In Terms of Administrative Responsibility
  • Constitutional Morality: As an SDM, her primary loyalty is to the Preamble's promise of "Social and Economic Justice."
  • Accountability: Under the Essential Commodities Act and the National Food Security Act (NFSA), she is legally bound to prevent leakages.
  • Objectivity: Her decisions are based on "ground verification and beneficiary testimonies" (facts) rather than "informal advice" (opinion).

Conclusion

Ms. Malhotra’s duty is not just to manage the status quo but to serve the public interest. By securing the food supply before striking the corrupt nexus, she adheres to the ethical maxim of "Minimizing Harm" while upholding "Retributive Justice." This approach ensures that the stomachs of the poor are full, while the pockets of the corrupt are empty.