Ashutosh, a highly respected and principled official in the department, was recently appointed to spearhead the revision of the state’s outdated excise policy. Given his reputation for integrity and trustworthiness, he was tasked with drafting a new policy to replace the old one.
Kartavya Desk Staff
Q7. Ashutosh, a highly respected and principled official in the department, was recently appointed to spearhead the revision of the state’s outdated excise policy. Given his reputation for integrity and trustworthiness, he was tasked with drafting a new policy to replace the old one. As part of the consultation process, Ashutosh arranged a meeting with a group of stakeholders who had expressed interest in discussing the policy changes. During this meeting, the group proposed a controversial alteration to the existing excise policy. Specifically, they suggested increasing the commission/fee for wholesale distributors from the existing 5 percent to 12 percent under the new policy. This proposed change was aimed at facilitating kickbacks and bribes, thereby significantly benefiting the distributors at the expense of the government and consumers.
Ashutosh, known for his cautious and ethical approach, did not react immediately to the group’s proposal or make any commitments. He simply acknowledged their views and promised to consider their input. However, it soon became apparent that the minister and the group were conspiring to use this policy revision to create an environment that would ensure the unjust enrichment of wholesale distributors. This scheme involved manipulating the policy to generate illicit gains, part of which would be funneled back as bribes.
As the situation developed, the minister summoned Ashutosh to his office later that evening. During this meeting, the minister pressured Ashutosh to incorporate the group’s proposal into the new policy. The minister warned Ashutosh that if he did not acquiesce to these demands, he would face a transfer to a less significant and less influential department within the government. This threat was intended to coerce Ashutosh into compromising his principles and succumbing to the unethical demands of the minister and the stakeholders. (20 M)
In the given circumstance answer the following?
• Identify the stakeholders and ethical issues involved in the case. What options are available to Ashutosh in this situation? Which option should Ashutosh choose? What measures can be taken to reduce the influence of corruption and bribery in policy-making processes?
• Identify the stakeholders and ethical issues involved in the case.
• What options are available to Ashutosh in this situation? Which option should Ashutosh choose?
• What measures can be taken to reduce the influence of corruption and bribery in policy-making processes?
Difficulty Level: Medium
Reference: InsightsIAS
Why the question The application of ethical principles like integrity, courage, and accountability in public service when faced with coercion and institutional corruption. It also probes systemic reforms to reduce unethical influence in policymaking. Key Demand of the question Identify key stakeholders and ethical issues involved in the situation, evaluate all ethical options available to the officer, and recommend measures to institutionalise integrity in policymaking processes. Structure of the Answer: Introduction Briefly highlight the moral conflict faced by a public servant when ethical integrity clashes with institutional coercion, supported by a moral principle like Kant’s duty ethics or the Nolan principles. Body Stakeholders and ethical issues involved – Mention key actors and ethical principles compromised, such as fairness, abuse of power, and public trust. Options available and justified choice – Evaluate all ethical alternatives Ashutosh can take and select the most morally and professionally sound course of action. Measures to reduce corruption in policymaking – Suggest legal, institutional, and ethical mechanisms like stricter anti-corruption laws, transparency in lobbying, civil society involvement, and protection for whistle-blowers. Conclusion Assert that upholding ethics under duress reinforces institutional integrity and deters future corruption. Reinforce with a quote or principle, e.g., “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”
Why the question The application of ethical principles like integrity, courage, and accountability in public service when faced with coercion and institutional corruption. It also probes systemic reforms to reduce unethical influence in policymaking.
Key Demand of the question Identify key stakeholders and ethical issues involved in the situation, evaluate all ethical options available to the officer, and recommend measures to institutionalise integrity in policymaking processes.
Structure of the Answer:
Introduction Briefly highlight the moral conflict faced by a public servant when ethical integrity clashes with institutional coercion, supported by a moral principle like Kant’s duty ethics or the Nolan principles.
• Stakeholders and ethical issues involved – Mention key actors and ethical principles compromised, such as fairness, abuse of power, and public trust.
• Options available and justified choice – Evaluate all ethical alternatives Ashutosh can take and select the most morally and professionally sound course of action.
• Measures to reduce corruption in policymaking – Suggest legal, institutional, and ethical mechanisms like stricter anti-corruption laws, transparency in lobbying, civil society involvement, and protection for whistle-blowers.
Conclusion Assert that upholding ethics under duress reinforces institutional integrity and deters future corruption. Reinforce with a quote or principle, e.g., “Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do.”