A Public Information Officer has received an application under the RTI Act. Having gathered the information, the PIO discovers that the information pertains to some of the decisions taken by him, which were found to be not altogether right. There were other employees also who party to these decisions were. Disclosure of the information is likely to lead to disciplinary action with the possibility of punishment against him as well as some of his colleagues. Non-disclosure or part disclosure or camouflaged disclosure of information will result in lesser punishment or no punishment. The PIO is otherwise an honest and conscientious person but this particular decision, on which the RTI application has been filed, turned out to be wrong. He comes to you for advice.The following are some suggested options. Please evaluate the merits and demerits of each of the options: The PIO could refer the matter to his superior officer seek his advice and act strictly in accordance with the advice, even though he is not completely in agreement with the advice of the superior. The PIO could proceed on leave and leave the matter to be dealt with by his successor in office or request for transfer of the application to another PIO. The PIO could weigh the consequences of disclosing the information truthfully, including the effect on his career, and reply in a manner that would not place him or his career in jeopardy, but at the same time, a little compromise can be made on the contents of the information. The PIO could consult his other colleagues who are party to the decision and take action as per their advice.Also please indicate (without necessarily restricting to the above options) what you would like to advise, giving proper reasons.

Introduction This case highlights the conflict between personal consequences and the duty to uphold transparency and the rule of law under the RTI Act. The PIO's crisis of conscience stems from the dilemma of duty vs. self-preservation, echoing recent controversies surrounding information disclosure in public projects. This dilemma can be best analyzed through a deontological lens, focusing on the PIO's duty regardless of personal consequences.Stakeholder Identification PIO, colleagues involved in the decision, applicant, the PIO's superior officer, and the public.Evaluation of Options: Referring to Superior Officer: * Merit: Ensures adherence to institutional hierarchy and potentially diffuses responsibility, promoting professionalism. * Demerit: May not uphold transparency if the superior advises against full disclosure, compromising the integrity of the RTI process and potentially violating the applicant's right to information. This also risks dereliction of duty by both officers. Proceeding on Leave/Transferring Application: * Merit: Avoids direct involvement in the potentially damaging disclosure, prioritizing self-preservation. * Demerit: Shows lack of professional ethics and integrity by evading responsibility. It also delays the applicant's right to information and undermines the spirit of the RTI Act, obstructing due diligence in information access. Compromising Information Disclosure: * Merit: Offers a seemingly balanced approach between protecting personal interests and partially fulfilling the RTI request. * Demerit: Directly violates the principles of transparency and integrity under the RTI Act. This act of camouflaging information constitutes a breach of the public trust and undermines the rule of law, setting a dangerous precedent for future information manipulation. Consulting Colleagues: * Merit: Fosters a sense of collective responsibility and shared decision-making. * Demerit: Creates potential for conflict of interest and may lead to biased advice, prioritizing self-interest over the public's right to information. This could further escalate the violation of transparency and due diligence.Recommended Course of Action: Upholding Duty and Transparency: The PIO should prioritize their duty to disclose information truthfully under the RTI Act, upholding transparency and the rule of law. This demonstrates integrity and professionalism, even in the face of personal consequences. This aligns with the deontological approach, emphasizing duty above personal gain. The PIO's virtue of conscientiousness should guide him towards lawful action. Seeking Legal Counsel: The PIO should consult legal counsel to understand the legal ramifications of the decision and explore options for mitigating potential disciplinary action. This ensures a measured and informed response, demonstrating due diligence. Transparency with Superior Officer: The PIO should inform their superior officer about the situation and the intent to disclose the information fully, fostering accountability and open communication within the institution. This aligns with the virtue approach, emphasizing honesty and integrity. Documenting Everything: The PIO should meticulously document all actions and communications related to the RTI application and the decision in question, maintaining transparency and ensuring a clear record for future scrutiny. This promotes accountability and protects against potential accusations of secrecy or manipulation.Conclusion This case underscores the critical importance of integrity, transparency, and the rule of law in upholding the RTI Act. The recent push for greater transparency in government tenders reflects a growing societal emphasis on these values. The PIO's choice to prioritize duty over self-preservation strengthens public trust in institutions and reinforces the efficacy of the RTI Act. A proactive approach involving regular ethics training for public officials and clear guidelines on handling potentially damaging information can prevent similar ethical dilemmas in the future. This fosters a culture of accountability and strengthens the framework for responsible information governance.

A Public Information Officer has received an application under the RTI Act. Having gathered the information, the PIO discovers that the information pertains to some of the decisions taken by him, which were found to be not altogether right. There were other employees also who party to these decisions were. Disclosure of the information is likely to lead to disciplinary action with the possibility of punishment against him as well as some of his colleagues. Non-disclosure or part disclosure or camouflaged disclosure of information will result in lesser punishment or no punishment. The PIO is otherwise an honest and conscientious person but this particular decision, on which the RTI application has been filed, turned out to be wrong. He comes to you for advice.

The following are some suggested options. Please evaluate the merits and demerits of each of the options:

1. The PIO could refer the matter to his superior officer seek his advice and act strictly in accordance with the advice, even though he is not completely in agreement with the advice of the superior.
2. The PIO could proceed on leave and leave the matter to be dealt with by his successor in office or request for transfer of the application to another PIO.
3. The PIO could weigh the consequences of disclosing the information truthfully, including the effect on his career, and reply in a manner that would not place him or his career in jeopardy, but at the same time, a little compromise can be made on the contents of the information.
4. The PIO could consult his other colleagues who are party to the decision and take action as per their advice.

Also please indicate (without necessarily restricting to the above options) what you would like to advise, giving proper reasons.

Ethics

Ethics: Case Study

2013

20 Marks

Introduction This case highlights the conflict between personal consequences and the duty to uphold transparency and the rule of law under the RTI Act. The PIO's crisis of conscience stems from the dilemma of duty vs. self-preservation, echoing recent controversies surrounding information disclosure in public projects. This dilemma can be best analyzed through a deontological lens, focusing on the PIO's duty regardless of personal consequences.

Stakeholder Identification PIO, colleagues involved in the decision, applicant, the PIO's superior officer, and the public.

Evaluation of Options:

Referring to Superior Officer:
- Merit: Ensures adherence to institutional hierarchy and potentially diffuses responsibility, promoting professionalism.
- Demerit: May not uphold transparency if the superior advises against full disclosure, compromising the integrity of the RTI process and potentially violating the applicant's right to information. This also risks dereliction of duty by both officers.
Proceeding on Leave/Transferring Application:
- Merit: Avoids direct involvement in the potentially damaging disclosure, prioritizing self-preservation.
- Demerit: Shows lack of professional ethics and integrity by evading responsibility. It also delays the applicant's right to information and undermines the spirit of the RTI Act, obstructing due diligence in information access.
Compromising Information Disclosure:
- Merit: Offers a seemingly balanced approach between protecting personal interests and partially fulfilling the RTI request.
- Demerit: Directly violates the principles of transparency and integrity under the RTI Act. This act of camouflaging information constitutes a breach of the public trust and undermines the rule of law, setting a dangerous precedent for future information manipulation.
Consulting Colleagues:
- Merit: Fosters a sense of collective responsibility and shared decision-making.
- Demerit: Creates potential for conflict of interest and may lead to biased advice, prioritizing self-interest over the public's right to information. This could further escalate the violation of transparency and due diligence.

Recommended Course of Action:

Upholding Duty and Transparency: The PIO should prioritize their duty to disclose information truthfully under the RTI Act, upholding transparency and the rule of law. This demonstrates integrity and professionalism, even in the face of personal consequences. This aligns with the deontological approach, emphasizing duty above personal gain. The PIO's virtue of conscientiousness should guide him towards lawful action.
Seeking Legal Counsel: The PIO should consult legal counsel to understand the legal ramifications of the decision and explore options for mitigating potential disciplinary action. This ensures a measured and informed response, demonstrating due diligence.
Transparency with Superior Officer: The PIO should inform their superior officer about the situation and the intent to disclose the information fully, fostering accountability and open communication within the institution. This aligns with the virtue approach, emphasizing honesty and integrity.
Documenting Everything: The PIO should meticulously document all actions and communications related to the RTI application and the decision in question, maintaining transparency and ensuring a clear record for future scrutiny. This promotes accountability and protects against potential accusations of secrecy or manipulation.

Conclusion This case underscores the critical importance of integrity, transparency, and the rule of law in upholding the RTI Act. The recent push for greater transparency in government tenders reflects a growing societal emphasis on these values. The PIO's choice to prioritize duty over self-preservation strengthens public trust in institutions and reinforces the efficacy of the RTI Act. A proactive approach involving regular ethics training for public officials and clear guidelines on handling potentially damaging information can prevent similar ethical dilemmas in the future. This fosters a culture of accountability and strengthens the framework for responsible information governance.

Answer Length

Model answers may exceed the word limit for better clarity and depth. Use them as a guide, but always frame your final answer within the exam’s prescribed limit.

In just 60 sec