Case Study Mr. Aditya Sharma is serving as the District Magistrate of a rapidly growing district where the state government has recently introduced an AI-based system to identify beneficiaries for welfare schemes such as housing subsidies, scholarships, and pension benefits. The system uses multiple datasets—income records, property ownership, electricity consumption, and bank transactions—to automatically generate a list of eligible beneficiaries. The government promotes the system as a major reform to improve efficiency, reduce corruption, and ensure objective targeting of welfare benefits. Initially, the new system significantly reduces manual processing and speeds up the delivery of benefits. However, during public grievance hearings, Mr. Sharma begins receiving numerous complaints from genuinely poor families who have been excluded from the beneficiary list. Upon investigation, he discovers that the algorithm relies heavily on digital and financial data. As a result, many informal-sector workers, migrant families, and people without regular digital footprints are being wrongly classified as “ineligible.” At the same time, some relatively well-off households with incomplete or outdated records have been included in the beneficiary list. Civil society organisations accuse the administration of creating “digital exclusion”, arguing that excessive reliance on automated decision-making ignores ground realities. When Mr. Sharma raises these concerns with higher authorities, he is advised to continue using the system because it is a flagship governance reform that demonstrates the government's commitment to transparency and technology-driven administration. Officials argue that questioning the system may undermine public confidence in digital governance. Meanwhile, media reports and social activists are increasingly highlighting cases of exclusion, portraying the administration as insensitive to the needs of vulnerable populations. Mr. Sharma must decide how to address these concerns while balancing technological efficiency, fairness, and accountability in welfare delivery. Questions 1. Identify the ethical issues involved in the above case. 2. What options are available to Mr. Sharma? Evaluate the merits and demerits of each option. 3. What course of action should Mr. Sharma adopt to ensure both administrative efficiency and ethical governance? Justify your answer.

You are the director of a department that has recently been engulfed in the #MeToo campaign when two of the deputy directors working under you have been publicly named as sexual predators by two women in the department. As directed by the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, you are to initiate a committee of inquiry and submit the report within 90 days. Before initiating the committee you are faced with two narratives, first, that this is not the first time both women have come forward with similar accusations; second, that you have known both the deputy directors and their families for quite some time now, and you have noticed nothing in their behaviour that says they could have been the sexual predators as alleged. Now, while the women want you to begin the inquiry process at the earliest, the deputy directors deny all charges and say that they want to pursue defamation cases against their main accusers. In all this, public pressure is against you, with the media discussing the case on a regular basis. (a) As a director of a department what will be your course of action for starting an official investigation? State the merits and demerits of whatever course of action you decide to follow. (b) Do you also agree that the sexual nature of a crime makes the crime ethically different and difficult (to handle) from other crimes? Give valid reasons to support your views.

Case Study With the latest trend of layoffs by big-tech companies across the globe due to various reasons like continuation of Russia-Ukraine war, fall in consumer demand and slowing economic growth. Considering this global situation, there is an Indian Ed-tech company which is also suffering from slowing of demand, capital crunch etc. Therefore, the company needs to take a slew of measures to navigate through this rough phase of recession. Manish is working as Human Resource (HR) head in this company and there is pressure from investors to fire a major chunk of the workforce. Further, he was informed by management that dismissing employees is essential for the company's existence and instructed him to inform the employees of this decision as soon as possible. Q. With the ethical dilemmas in mind, what should Manish do in this scenario?

Case Study You are a senior officer in a state government responsible for overseeing appointments to key public positions. Recently, the government has initiated a recruitment process for a high-ranking post in the education department, critical for implementing the state's education reforms. The selection committee has shortlisted two candidates. One is highly qualified with an impeccable track record, but they have been vocal in criticizing some government policies. The second candidate is less experienced but enjoys strong political backing and is perceived as loyal to the ruling party. You are aware that the first candidate could significantly contribute to the education sector's growth due to his expertise, but his independent stance might lead to friction with the political leadership. On the other hand, selecting the second candidate could ensure smoother relations with the political leadership but may compromise the quality of governance. Your decision will have a lasting impact on the state's education policy and its future outcomes. 1. What are the stakeholders involved in this situation? 2. What are ethical dilemmas in this case and what principles will guide your decision in this scenario? 3. How would you balance professional competence and political considerations in making a fair and just decision?

Case Study You are a young field athlete, proudly representing India in your debut at an international championship. While staying at the athletes' village, you accidentally enter the common restroom and see a few senior team members injecting themselves with an unidentified substance. Suspicious, you ask them about it. They explain that it's a ‘recovery booster, a performance-enhancing drug (PED) that supposedly helps with endurance and muscle repair. They further suggest that using it is common practice, especially in global competitions, and if you want to remain competitive and secure your place in the team, you should consider taking it too. Later, while contemplating whether to approach the coach, you learn from another junior athlete that the team coach is not only aware but has allegedly recommended its use, citing ‘national interest’ and ‘medal pressure.’ Questions: (a) What are the key ethical dilemmas involved in this situation? (b) What are the possible courses of action available to you in this scenario? (c) What course of action would you choose and why?

Case Study Puneet is a young and dynamic officer serving as the Director of the State Sports Council. His mandate is to promote sports at the grassroots level, improve infrastructure, and ensure fair selection of athletes for national and international competitions. During his tenure, Puneet receives multiple complaints from young athletes and coaches about rampant favoritism and corruption in the selection process for a prestigious international sports event. Allegations suggest that several underqualified candidates were selected due to political connections and bribes , while talented athletes, especially from economically weaker backgrounds, were ignored. Upon investigation, Puneet finds strong evidence of malpractice involving senior officials, influential politicians, and sports federation members. When he raises the issue with his superiors, he is advised to “look the other way” as the individuals involved are politically powerful. Some officials warn him that exposing the issue could lead to career repercussions, frequent transfers, or administrative sidelining. Athletes and their families have intensified their protests, demanding justice and transparency, sparking mass public outrage. The issue has gained widespread media attention, putting significant pressure on the authorities to act. Meanwhile, a well-known journalist approaches Puneet, seeking insider information to expose the scandal. However, Puneet faces a dilemma: taking action against the malpractice could delay the team selection process, potentially jeopardizing the country’s participation in the prestigious event, while inaction would compromise his integrity and the principles of fairness and accountability. Questions: 1. What are the ethical dilemmas faced by Puneet in this situation? 2. Evaluate the possible courses of action Puneet can take in this scenario. Discuss the merits and consequences of each approach in light of his ethical responsibilities and the public interest. 3. What institutional and grassroots-level reforms can be implemented to prevent favoritism and corruption in sports governance and ensure fair opportunities for athletes, especially those from economically weaker backgrounds?

Case Study: You are the Managing Director of "XYZ Biotech", a rapidly growing pharmaceutical firm based in India, with operations in several developing countries. Your company has recently developed a breakthrough mRNA-based vaccine for a rapidly mutating tropical disease affecting large sections of the population in Sub-Saharan Africa and parts of South Asia. The vaccine has demonstrated 94% efficacy in Phase III clinical trials and has the potential to save thousands of lives. However, the vaccine is expensive to manufacture, requiring specialized cold-chain storage, and proprietary biotechnology inputs licensed from international partners. The pricing strategy proposed by your Board is to recoup R&D investments and generate profit by pricing the vaccine at Rs. 3000 per dose, which makes it unaffordable for many low-income populations in target regions. Meanwhile, several NGOs, global health organizations, and even a few governments are urging you to waive your patent rights, or adopt tiered pricing to allow cheaper versions or voluntary licensing for public-sector manufacture. You are also under pressure from investors, who expect high returns due to the innovation. Some stakeholders suggest cutting costs by outsourcing trials to countries with weaker regulatory standards, while others propose delaying access in poorer countries to focus on wealthier clients first. Your own conscience is conflicted—you believe in public health as a right, but also have obligations to shareholders, employees, and long-term sustainability of the firm. a) Identify and discuss the ethical issues involved in this case. b) What would be your immediate response to the situation described above? c) If a global health coalition asks for voluntary licensing of your vaccine, how would you respond both ethically and strategically? d) As a conscientious public-spirited executive, suggest a balanced strategy that ensures innovation, affordability, and ethical integrity.