Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

Puneet, the Director of the State Sports Council, faces an ethical dilemma involving favoritism and corruption in the selection process for a prestigious international sports event. Despite receiving credible complaints and strong evidence of malpractice, he faces political pressure and career threats to ignore the issue.

• Meanwhile, public outrage and media scrutiny intensify, demanding transparency and justice for deserving athletes.

Body

1. What are the ethical dilemmas faced by Puneet in this situation?

• Integrity vs. Compliance with Superiors
  • Puneet has a duty to uphold fairness and transparency in athlete selection. However, his superiors are pressuring him to ignore the malpractice due to political influence.
  • Following their advice would mean compromising his integrity, while resisting could invite personal and professional repercussions, such as transfers or sidelining.
• Justice for Athletes vs. Political Pressure
  • The rightful candidates are being denied opportunities, which contradicts the principles of fairness and meritocracy.
  • Exposing corruption could rectify the injustice, but it would also challenge powerful political and administrative figures, leading to institutional resistance.
• Public Interest vs. National Prestige
  • Addressing corruption ensures long-term reforms and credibility in the sports system, benefitting future athletes.
  • However, taking immediate action may delay the selection process, potentially preventing India from participating in the prestigious international event. This could harm national prestige and athlete morale.
• Whistleblowing vs. Organizational Loyalty
  • Revealing insider information to the journalist could expose corruption and force accountability, leading to positive systemic changes.
  • However, it may also breach official confidentiality norms and invite disciplinary action, damaging his career prospects.
• Short-Term Consequences vs. Long-Term Reforms
  • Punishing those responsible could deter future corruption but may take time, affecting current athletes.
  • Ignoring the issue for short-term convenience would allow systemic corruption to persist, harming the sports sector in the long run.

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.

• Take a Strong Stand and Initiate Official Action Against Corruption
  • Steps Involved: Lodge a formal complaint with anti-corruption agencies or the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
    • Seek legal action against those involved, ensuring transparency in the selection process.
    • Engage with honest senior officials and seek institutional support.
  • Merits:
    • Upholds integrity, fairness, and meritocracy in sports administration.
    • Sends a strong message against corruption, deterring future malpractice.
    • Restores athletes’ trust in the system and ensures the best talent is selected.
  • Consequences:
    • Could lead to career repercussions (frequent transfers, sidelining, or professional isolation).
    • Risk of institutional resistance, as politically powerful individuals may attempt to suppress the inquiry.
    • The selection process may be delayed, impacting national participation in the event.
• Seek Internal Reforms Without Immediate Confrontation
  • Steps Involved: Conduct a transparent review process within his jurisdiction.
    • Establish independent oversight committees for fair selection.
    • Propose long-term policy changes to reduce political interference.
  • Merits:
    • Allows a practical, less confrontational approach, reducing the risk of backlash.
    • Lays the foundation for systemic reform without immediate disruption.
    • Ensures continuity in team selection, minimizing the risk of India’s disqualification.
  • Consequences:
    • Does not immediately punish corrupt officials, allowing them to remain in the system.
    • Athletes who were wronged may not get justice in the short term.
• Blow the Whistle by Leaking Information to the Media
  • Steps Involved: Provide evidence to a reputed journalist to expose corruption.
    • Use public pressure to force authorities to take action.
  • Merits:
    • Ensures transparency and accountability, forcing systemic reforms.
    • Public and media support can protect Puneet from personal retaliation.
  • Consequences:
    • May breach official confidentiality norms, leading to disciplinary action against Puneet.
    • Could polarize the issue politically, leading to administrative deadlock.
    • The selection process may be stalled, risking India's participation.
• Follow Superiors’ Advice and Ignore the Issue
  • Steps Involved: Maintain silence or comply with existing corrupt practices.
  • Justify inaction by prioritizing national interest and organizational loyalty.
  • Merits:
    • Avoids personal and professional risks.
    • Ensures India’s uninterrupted participation in the event.
    • Maintains Puneet’s position, allowing him to work for reforms later.
  • Consequences:
    • Violates ethical principles of honesty and justice.
    • Allows corruption to continue, denying deserving athletes their opportunities.
    • Erodes public trust in the sports administration.
• Balance Reform with Pragmatism – A Middle Path Approach
  • Steps Involved: Conduct an immediate internal review and correct wrongful selections where possible.
    • Allow team selection to proceed but ensure better transparency through independent scrutiny.
    • Submit a confidential report to anti-corruption authorities after the event to ensure accountability.
  • Merits:
    • Ensures short-term participation while working for long-term reform.
    • Avoids unnecessary political confrontation while still upholding fairness
    • Reduces risks to Puneet’s career while promoting systemic change.
  • Consequences:
    • Does not immediately expose all corruption, allowing some guilty officials to go unpunished temporarily.
    • Requires careful handling to prevent political retaliation.

Most Optimum Course of Action:

The most balanced approach is the middle path (Option 5 that assimilate some parts of Option 2)—ensuring transparency in selection without disrupting the event, while simultaneously initiating long-term anti-corruption reforms.

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?

Institutional-Level Reforms (Top-Down Systemic Changes)

• Transparent & Merit-Based Selection: Independent selection panels, and live-streamed assessments to ensure fairness.
• Anti-Corruption & Whistleblower Protection: Establish a Sports Integrity Commission, enforce whistleblower safeguards, and impose strict penalties on corrupt officials.
• Independent Oversight & Governance: Enforce term limits, mandate RTI compliance for federations, and restrict political interference.
• Financial & Infrastructure Support: National Sports Scholarship Fund, mandatory corporate sponsorship via CSR, and performance-based financial aid.
• Legal & Ethical Framework: Enforce a Sports Ethics Charter and create fast-track arbitration courts for dispute resolution.

Grassroots-Level Reforms (Bottom-Up Athlete Empowerment)

• Universal Sports Access:‘One District, One Sports Hub’ initiative, mobile training units, and local talent scouting at grassroots levels (while equally focusing on other sports as well).
• Integration in Education: Mandatory sports hours in schools, merit-based university sports quotas, and structured grassroots coach training.
• Women & Minority Inclusion: Exclusive coaching centers, financial and social support for women athletes, and special programs for ST/SC/OBC and minority communities.
• Digital & Technological Reforms: National Sports Talent Portal, AI-based performance analytics, and blockchain-based athlete records for transparency.

Conclusion

Puneet must uphold integrity, fairness, and transparency while balancing pragmatism and national interest. A balanced approach: ensuring immediate corrective action, safeguarding athlete rights, and initiating long-term reforms: would help restore trust in sports governance.