Case Study You are the district collector of a region known for its rich biodiversity and tribal communities. A major pharmaceutical company has approached the government with a proposal to establish a research facility in your district. The company claims they have discovered a rare plant species in the local forest that could potentially lead to a breakthrough in cancer treatment. They are offering significant economic benefits, including job creation and infrastructure development. However, the proposed location for the facility would require clearing a portion of the forest that is considered sacred by the local tribal community and is home to several endangered species. The tribal leaders have expressed strong opposition to the project, citing their ancestral rights and the cultural significance of the land. Environmental activists are also protesting, warning about the potential ecological damage. On the other hand, many locals see this as an opportunity for employment and development in the economically backward region. As the district collector, you must decide whether to recommend approval for the project or reject it. Your decision will have far-reaching consequences for the local economy, environment, and cultural heritage of the tribal community. 1. What are the stakeholders involved in this situation? 2. What ethical dilemmas do you face as the district collector in deciding whether to approve or reject the pharmaceutical company’s proposal? 3. What approach would you take to resolve this conflict, considering the competing interests of economic development, environmental conservation, and cultural preservation?

Case Study Vikram is an environmental officer working with a state government’s department responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations in the construction and industrial sectors. Recently, a large real estate company has proposed a new residential complex on the outskirts of the city, and Vikram’s department is tasked with evaluating the environmental impact of the project. The company has submitted the required Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report, which states that the construction will have minimal impact on the local environment. While reviewing the report, Vikram notices several discrepancies and omissions. Key details about the impact on local wildlife, soil quality, and water sources have either been underrepresented or completely ignored in the report. Vikram’s initial analysis suggests that the construction could have significant adverse effects on the local ecosystem, but the developers have provided a large donation to a local charity that Vikram's department is associated with. The charity has funded several environmental initiatives in the past, and Vikram is aware that this donation will enhance the department’s reputation and attract further funding. Furthermore, Vikram’s superior, the head of the department, has publicly praised the development as a much-needed project for the city’s growth and has hinted that the real estate company might receive expedited approval if the environmental report is favorable. Vikram feels torn between his duty to uphold environmental regulations, his concern about the long-term ecological consequences, and the pressure to support the development in exchange for future funding opportunities for his department. Questions: a) What should Vikram’s course of action be in this situation to ensure the integrity of the environmental review process? b) How can Vikram justify his decision if the real estate company pressures him to approve the report despite the discrepancies? c) How do personal interests and external pressures compromise environmental ethics in this case, and what measures can be taken to prevent such conflicts in future projects?

Case Study Arvind Mehta, a senior public servant, currently heads the Budget Division in the Ministry of Finance. His division is presently involved in allocating budgetary support to various states, four of which are scheduled to hold assembly elections within the current financial year. As per the latest Union Budget, more than Rs 8,300 crore was allocated to the National Housing Scheme (NHS), a key centrally sponsored welfare programme aimed at providing affordable housing to weaker sections. By June, Rs 775 crore had already been disbursed under the scheme. Parallelly, the Ministry of Commerce had been pursuing the establishment of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in a southern state to promote exports. After nearly two years of consultation between the Centre and the state, the Union Cabinet gave its approval in August, and the process for acquiring land has since begun. In another development, a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) had proposed a natural gas processing plant in a northern state to support the regional gas grid, an essential element of the country's energy security strategy. The land for the project is already available, and after three rounds of global bidding, the contract was awarded to M/s XYZ Hydrocarbons, a multinational company. The first tranche of payment is scheduled for December. To meet the funding requirements of these two major development projects, an additional Rs 6,000 crore is required. It has been proposed that this amount be re-appropriated from the NHS budget. The file seeking approval for this re-allocation was sent to the Budget Division for examination and processing. On reviewing the file, Arvind Mehta became concerned. He realised that diverting funds from the NHS could delay its implementation, a scheme widely promoted by senior political figures and closely linked to electoral commitments. On the other hand, delaying fund allocation to the SEZ and the gas plant could lead to significant financial losses and reputational damage at both national and international levels. Upon raising the issue with his superiors, Arvind was advised that the matter is politically sensitive and must be expedited without delay. Question: a) Identify the ethical issues involved in reallocating funds from a welfare programme to development projects. b) In light of the responsibility to ensure prudent use of public resources, what options are available to Arvind Mehta? Would resigning from his post be a reasonable or ethical course of action?

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?

Case Study Ritika, an IAS officer posted as the Public Information Officer (PIO) in a state department, has been facing mounting challenges due to widespread mismanagement in handling RTI requests. Citizens frequently report delays exceeding statutory limits, incomplete disclosures, and arbitrary denials citing vague exemptions. Several RTI applications relate to public procurement, environmental clearances, and fund utilization, raising concerns about corruption and administrative opacity. Despite repeated reminders and follow-ups, the backlog of pending RTI cases has grown substantially. Some senior officials in the department discourage timely compliance, fearing that disclosure might expose irregularities and implicate influential contractors or political patrons. A few junior officers have expressed fear that strict adherence to the RTI Act could attract harassment, transfers, or litigation. Meanwhile, civil society organizations and media outlets demand transparency, timely responses, and public accountability. The state government, concerned about negative publicity and political fallout, has subtly instructed Ritika to “avoid unnecessary disclosure” and focus on maintaining departmental harmony. At the same time, the Central Information Commission and local courts are actively monitoring compliance, with some PILs filed questioning delays and partial disclosures. Questions: A. What are the ethical dilemmas faced by Ritika in this situation? B. Evaluate the options available to her and their possible consequences. C. Suggest the most appropriate course of action for Ritika based on administrative accountability and citizen-centric governance. D. Propose long-term systemic reforms to improve RTI implementation, reduce backlogs, and protect officials from retaliation while ensuring transparency and participatory governance.

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?

Suppose you are an officer-in-charge of implementing a social service scheme to provide support to old and destitute women. An old and illiterate woman comes to you to avail the benefits of the scheme. However, she has no documents to show that she fulfils the eligibility criteria. But after meeting her and listening to her you feel that she certainly needs support. Your enquirers also show that she is really destitute and living in a pitiable condition. You are in a dilemma as to what to do. Putting her under the scheme without necessary documents would clearly be a violation of rules. But denying her the support would be cruel and inhuman. Can you think of a rational way to resolve this dilemma? Give your reasons for it.