Case Study The municipal corporation of a city approved felling of trees to develop public transport infrastructure. Amidst the concrete jungle of the district, area X is a treasured green patch. With increasing environmental awareness, people have come on the streets to spread the message of conservation and stand against the indiscriminate felling of trees. The Municipal Corporation is of the view that developing viable public transport infrastructure will dissuade people from using private vehicles and ultimately reducing the carbon footprint. Meanwhile, activists say it is the sole surviving natural floodplain of the area, whose reclamation through construction and felling of trees would lead to greater inundation during the monsoon. The state government alarmed by widespread public protest against the felling of trees has constituted a committee to look into the matter and suggest alternatives for this project. You are appointed as the chairperson of this committee, What course of action will you recommend to the government for assuaging public concern and limiting environmental impact?

Chulbul was a close aide of a minister in his constituency. He is known for his hooliganism. Once he got into a fracas in a mall and badly beat up a shop owner’s son. Normally, Chulbul had his way in such matters. However, the shop owner took a firm stand and registered a case against Chulbul. The police officer in charge was new and was proceeding according to law. He refused to dilute the case against him. He makes appeals to the minister for not interfering in the matter. However, the minister tells him that he will transfer the police officer. Further, it is rumored, that a close relative of the minister will be joining as his replacement. Imagine yourself as the police officer who is to be transferred. Discuss the different options available and how will you respond in this case?

Case Study You work in a government office, and due to your expertise and trustworthiness, you have been selected to serve on election duty. Your role involves ensuring a fair and transparent electoral process by overseeing the polling station operations, maintaining the voting machines, and monitoring the conduct of election officials. During the election, you observe a fellow election official who happens to be your good friend engaging in misconduct. The official is manipulating the voting process by favouring a particular political party, allowing unauthorized individuals to vote multiple times, and suppressing votes from certain demographics. You are aware that the actions of this official compromise the integrity of the election and violate the principles of fairness and impartiality. How do you balance your duty to the election process with potential personal consequences?

Maruti is working as deputy secretary in Uttar Pradesh’s revenue department, dealing with grants of government land for various purposes. As land has become very scarce and very expensive, such grants have to be carefully made. The government has formulated a policy for the grant of its land for public purposes. The Government’s policy has been that government lands can be granted for purposes such as public educational institutions, hostels, hospitals, charitable institutions, government offices and rural infrastructure. Further, land could be given to private parties in a few cases for institutions that undertake programmes of education, health and skill up-gradation for weaker sections of society. One day a proposal for granting land to a cultural centre proposed in a prime urban location reached Maruti’s desk. The centre was not proposed by the state culture department, but by a private group. As Maruti was reading the file, he received a phone call from the Revenue minister’s private secretary that the person who wants to set up the centre is closely related to a prominent central leader of the ruling political establishment. The private secretary added that the proposal was cleared by the lower levels in the department and that Maruti should also endorse it positively. Maruti saw that the proposal could not be cleared under the government’s policy. The lower level staff justified the proposal since the official policy resolution contained a residual phrase that grants can be made for “other public purposes as may be decided by the government”. Maruti feared that the grant of valuable land to a private person with political connections could lead to controversy. In this situation, what should be the correct course of action and why?

Case Study As the Superintendent of Police in Reasi, you have just received a distressing report about a terrorist attack on a bus carrying pilgrims. The strike, which claimed the lives of nine civilians, has sent shockwaves through the region, shattering the relative calm that had prevailed in recent years. The timing of the attack could not be more precarious, as the region gears up for the upcoming assembly elections. You now find yourself at a critical juncture, tasked with immediate relief measures and devising a comprehensive strategy to address this resurgence of terrorist activities while maintaining law and order and ensuring the safety of civilians. Political tensions are running high, and any misstep in your response could have far-reaching consequences for the entire Union Territory. 1. What are the key stakeholders involved in this case? 2. What will be your immediate course of action as the Superintendent of Police? 3. What will be your long-term strategy to address the resurgence of terrorist activities and maintain peace in the region?