Public Service Values and Probity — Practice Questions

Introduction: The RTI Act, 2005, born of grassroots movements such as the MKSS’s public hearings in Rajasthan, gives every citizen the right to access information held by public authorities. It turned citizens from petitioners into auditors.

Body:

• Instrument of probity:
  • Exposes irregularities in welfare schemes, ration distribution and public works.
  • Proactive disclosure (Section 4) reduces discretion and rent-seeking.
  • Time-bound replies (Section 7) and appeals make officials answerable.
  • Deters wrongdoing because decisions may be scrutinised.
  • Empowers the poor to track their own entitlements.
• Challenges:
  • Pendency in Information Commissions; vacancies.
  • Weak proactive disclosure and poor record management.
  • Threats and violence against RTI users.
  • Overuse of exemptions; tension with the Official Secrets Act.
  • Changes to commissioners’ service conditions (2019) and to the personal-information exemption (2023) raise debate on autonomy and scope.

Conclusion: RTI is the master key to good governance, as the Second ARC called it. Its promise depends on strong commissions, proactive disclosure and protection of those who use it.

Introduction: Corruption — the abuse of entrusted power for private gain — persists in India despite a strong legal framework, because its roots lie in both administrative design and social attitudes.

Body:

• Administrative causes: excessive discretion, complex procedures, delays in punishment, weak internal vigilance, opaque procurement.
• Political causes: election financing, patronage, politicisation of postings.
• Social causes: tolerance of “speed money”, kinship loyalties, status attached to wealth regardless of source, low civic trust.
• Multi-pronged strategy:
  • Legal: Prevention of Corruption Act (2018 amendment), Lokpal — enforced swiftly; the Whistle Blowers Protection Act, 2014 operationalised.
  • Administrative: reduce discretion through e-governance, DBT, e-procurement; rotate sensitive posts.
  • Institutional: independent and well-staffed CVC, Lokpal, CAG.
  • Social: RTI, social audit, citizen’s charters, media scrutiny.
  • Ethical: codes of ethics, value-based training, leaders who model integrity.

Conclusion: Laws punish corruption; systems prevent it; values reject it. Only all three together can reduce it.

Introduction: The realist view holds that States act on power and interest, leaving little room for ethics. The idealist view holds that universal values should guide relations among States. Practice lies between them.

Body:

• Why ethics matters:
  • Legitimacy and soft power: ethical conduct builds trust and influence.
  • Global problems — climate change, pandemics — need cooperation and fairness (common but differentiated responsibilities under the UNFCCC, 1992).
  • Human rights and humanitarian law limit the conduct of war.
• Examples: Panchsheel (1954) on peaceful coexistence; India’s Vaccine Maitri supplies (from 2021); humanitarian assistance after disasters in the neighbourhood.
• Tensions: sanctions that hurt civilians; humanitarian intervention misused for strategic ends; aid with political conditions; refugee protection versus security.
• Synthesis: pursue national interest within ethical limits — international law, non-intervention balanced with responsibility to protect, transparency in funding.

Conclusion: Ethics does not replace national interest but shapes how it is pursued. Enlightened national interest is ethical in the long run.

Stakeholders: commuters and residents who will use the bridge; Ravi and his family; the executive engineer and other officials; the contractor; the department and the State government; taxpayers.

Ethical issues:

• Public safety versus pressure and personal security.
• Integrity — refusing a bribe and a false certificate.
• Loyalty to superiors versus duty to the public.
• Corruption and misuse of public funds.
• Whistle-blowing and fear of retaliation.

Options:

Course of action:

1. Refuse the bribe and refuse to sign; record the specific defects with test results and photographs in an inspection note.
2. Submit a written report to the superintending engineer and the department’s vigilance wing, recommending independent quality testing before opening.
3. If the matter is suppressed, make a written complaint to the State vigilance authority or the Lokayukta, requesting that his identity be protected, and keep copies of all records.
4. Inform his family and seek support from trusted colleagues or professional bodies.
5. Suggest systemic fixes: third-party quality audits and mandatory test reports before inauguration.

Conclusion: No inauguration date justifies risking lives. By using documented, lawful channels, Ravi upholds integrity and public safety while protecting himself as far as possible.