Mains Practice Questions

Introduction

Abhishek, a senior civil services officer, is posted as Director of the Home Department in a sensitive border state. While dealing with personal stress, his mother’s cancer and his children's schooling, he uncovers a serious security breach involving illegal migration and corruption among border officials. After submitting a report, he is pressured by the Additional Home Secretary to withdraw it, with implicit threats to his job and position.

(a) What ethical dilemmas is Abhishek facing in this situation?

• Integrity vs. Personal Interests: Abhishek faces a conflict between his duty to uphold the law and national security and the desire to protect his career and family stability.
  • With his mother’s health concerns and his children’s education at stake, he is under pressure to choose between his personal life and his professional obligations.
• Public Interest vs. Institutional Pressure: The illegal migration and corruption that Abhishek has uncovered are critical issues affecting national security, yet the pressure to withdraw the report from higher authorities conflicts with his duty to serve the public and ensure transparency.
• Rule of Law vs. Loyalty to Bureaucratic Hierarchy: Abhishek is tasked with exposing illegal actions within the system but faces an ethical dilemma between loyalty to his seniors (the Additional Home Secretary) and his constitutional duty to report illegal acts.

(b) What choices does Abhishek have in his position as Director of the Home Department in a border state?

Option 1: Withdraw the Report under Pressure

• Pros: Protects personal and family interests, including stability in his job and career and ensures continued posting in the state capital and a promotion.
• Cons: Violates his constitutional duty and ethical responsibility (Article 51A of the Indian Constitution)and encourages corruption and illegality, which undermines public trust.
  • Risks compromising national security and public welfare by hiding the truth and contravenes Civil Services Conduct Rules.

Option 2: Escalate the Matter to Higher Authorities (e.g., Chief Secretary, Governor, or Central Government)

• Pros: Upholds national security and integrity by addressing corruption and illegal migration. Demonstrates ethical leadership, fostering accountability and transparency.
  • Uses institutional mechanisms (e.g., Central Vigilance Commission, Ministry of Home Affairs) to resolve the issue.
  • It demonstrates moral courage and commitment to rule of law, even if it may delay immediate action or attract bureaucratic pushback.
• Cons: Escalates tensions within the department, potentially damaging his relationship with superiors. High personal risk such as possibility of stagnated career growth or discriminatory actions against him.
  • Bureaucratic hurdles may slow down the resolution of the issue.

Option 3: Modify the Report and Continue Investigation Discreetly

• Pros: Allows time to manage personal and professional commitments while still addressing the issue. Avoids open confrontation with senior officials, thus minimizing immediate fallout.
• Cons: Partial truths or omissions may weaken the integrity of the investigation.
  • Likely to undermine long-term accountability by not addressing systemic issues directly.

Option 4: Refuse to Withdraw and Prepare for Possible Repercussions

• Pros: Upholds constitutional morality and civil service ethics and protects national interest, ensuring that the illegal migration issue is thoroughly addressed.
  • Aligns with 2nd ARC recommendations on ethical governance.
• Cons: High personal cost, may result in job loss, transfer, or disciplinary action.
  • Disrupts family life due to potential professional instability and personal sacrifices.

(c) Which option should Abhishek choose, and why?

Abhishek should pursue a combination of Option 2 and Option 4.

• He should refuse to withdraw the report, as doing so would violate his professional duty and compromise national security. Simultaneously, he should escalate the matter to higher authorities such as the Chief Secretary, Governor, or Central Government.
• This would allow him to document the issue thoroughly while protecting himself legally and seeking institutional support.
• By doing so, he ensures that transparency is maintained and that illegal actions are addressed, even at the cost of his personal and career interests.

Conclusion

Refusing to withdraw the report and escalating the matter satisfies constitutional obligations, ethical expectations, and the long-term interests of the state and public. Though personally challenging, this approach is aligned with the principles of good governance and ethical leadership that the civil services are meant to uphold. As Kautilya rightly said in Arthashastra: "The welfare of the people is the supreme law." Abhishek, in his capacity as a civil servant, must ensure that his actions uphold the public good above all.