Case Study Your friend Ritwik hails from a village whose surrounding areas were submerged due to floods during the monsoon last year. Government assisted the affected people by giving them cash doles to purchase household goods, seeds to replant crop and cash to compensate for loss of standing crop. Ritwik had his house site on high ground and suffered no loss of personal effects. Luckily, his agricultural land being relatively far away from the flooded river escaped the ravages of the flood. Normally, government machinery is unable to thoroughly assess the damage suffered by each individual family. As a result, people take advantage by making extravagant and often fictitious claims. Ritwik has made false claims like others in the village. As a close friend of Ritwik, what do you think about his action? Is it a right thing to do? what would be your appropriate response to Ritwik’s conduct?

Case Study: You are the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) of a flood-affected district. Thousands of people have been displaced in the recent floods. The state government has sent an emergency relief fund that is significantly lower than what is required. You are instructed to distribute it “based on urgency and vulnerability.” However, you face the following situation: 1. Village A is politically influential. The local MLA pressures you to allot a major share of relief funds there. He hints that “future cooperation” will depend on your decision. 2. Village B is severely affected, but it has poor road connectivity. Delivering aid there will take extra time and resources. 3. Village C has fewer casualties but houses a large migrant labour population that lacks documents required for official relief distribution. 4. Your field staff privately suggests that you divert some funds for logistics (vehicles, fuel, meals). Official guidelines prohibit this, but without these expenses, delivery to remote areas will be delayed. 5. The media is reporting that the administration is “slow and careless,” adding further pressure. You must decide how to allocate the limited resources fairly, efficiently, and ethically, while handling political pressure, administrative constraints, and humanitarian concerns. Question: Q1. Identify the major ethical issues involved in this situation. Q2. As the SDM, outline the options available to you. Evaluate each option using ethical principles. Q3. What would be your final course of action? Justify your decision with proper reasoning, referencing ethical theories and principles of public service.

From ‘rat-hole mining’ to ‘open cast mining’, India has witnessed major mining disasters. The main reason behind these calamities is the unscientific, illegal and unsafe mining in India. As and when such disasters are in the news, the incumbent governments and administration address it at the immediate level. But there is indifference to providing sustainable solutions which frequently causes such disasters. After such calamities, an administrative tendency has also been observed which puts the blame on victims. The tacit consensus of the government and administration to unsafe mining activities in India and the attraction of miners are mainly linked to revenue and employment realization. But such activities also lead to widespread loss to the public exchequer and environmental degradation. Therefore, there should be a holistic preparedness to prevent such calamities and to comprehensively cope if they occur. Identify the underlying ethical issues in the above case. As competent authority, discuss some of the feasible strategies to prevent and combat such calamities.

Case Study Ravi, an IAS officer, is serving as the District Magistrate in a politically sensitive district. A massive political rally, expected to attract nearly two lakh people, was organised by the ruling party to showcase its strength. Senior leaders were to attend, and the event had been widely publicised. Although Ravi’s office had earlier issued advisories on barricading, evacuation routes, deployment of police, and medical preparedness, many instructions were ignored by the organisers, citing budgetary constraints and urgency. On the day of the rally, the situation turned chaotic. Entry and exit points were overcrowded, there was no proper crowd management, and medical facilities were insufficient. During the rally, a sudden push by people wanting to move closer to the stage created panic, leading to a stampede. Several lives were lost, many were injured, and the incident triggered widespread anger. Different stakeholders reacted sharply. Families of victims demanded justice, accountability, and immediate compensation. Civil society groups and the media accused the administration of negligence. Opposition parties claimed the government had put lives at risk for political gain. The ruling party, however, pressured Ravi to downplay the incident and present it as an “unavoidable tragedy.” Some officials also suggested that highlighting lapses could invite unrest and even threaten Ravi’s career. Ravi now faces a dilemma. As the administrative head of the district, he is responsible for public safety and upholding the rule of law. At the same time, he faces political pressure, the risk of transfers, and personal threats. His choices will have consequences not just for his career but also for the credibility of governance and the trust of the people. Questions: 1. What are the ethical dilemmas faced by Ravi in this situation? 2. Evaluate the options available to Ravi and the possible consequences of each. 3. Suggest the most appropriate course of action for Ravi in light of constitutional values and principles of good governance. 4. What systemic reforms can be introduced to improve crowd management and ensure accountability in large political and public events in the long run?