Vikas is a government officer with over a decade of service in public administration. He has recently moved as the District Collector (DC) of Nainipura, a remote hilly district bordering a forest. Due to Nainipura's low levels of economic development, one of his major duties is to ensure proper functioning of the Public Distribution System (PDS) amongst the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

During his on-site visits, Vikas was apprised of a typical administrative challenge in operating the PDS. To prevent leakages, all distributors were required to carry out real-time biometric identification of the beneficiaries, whose fingerprints were tallied with identity card records. This was creating problems as the operating system sometimes rejected fingerprint matching in the cases of growing children, manual labourers and senior citizens. The problem was further compounded in periods of low WiFi connectivity. The distributors, in such cases, resorted to personal discretion when they could identify the recipient.

Vikas had to address this problem on priority. Strictly adhering to government regulations would ensure fiscal probity but would greatly trouble the proposed beneficiary, i.e., EWS. It may even impinge on their fundamental right to life as per Article 21 of the Constitution. Conversely, leaving the resolution solely to the discretion of the distributors could lead to misuse and leakages.

(a) What are the options open to Vikas? How should he balance fiscal probity with empathy towards the designated beneficiaries?
(b) Discuss the ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes.

Ethics

Ethics: Case Study

2026

20 Marks

The case highlights the technological-ethical divide in welfare delivery, where the pursuit of fiscal probity through biometric systems inadvertently threatens the Right to Life (Article 21) for vulnerable groups. It reflects the struggle between procedural integrity and substantive justice in governance.

Key Stakeholders in Public Distribution and Welfare Delivery

a) Options open to Vikas and balancing fiscal probity with empathy

Vikas has three primary courses of action to address the authentication crisis:

Option 1: Strict enforcement of existing biometric rules without exceptions.

Pros	Cons
Ensures 100% fiscal probity and prevents leakages.	Violates Right to Food for those with worn fingerprints.
Maintains standard operating procedures (SOPs).	Leads to high exclusion errors and public resentment.

Option 2: Allowing distributors full personal discretion for identification.

Pros	Cons
Ensures immediate relief to the hungry and vulnerable.	High risk of corruption, ghost beneficiaries, and diversion.
Demonstrates immediate administrative empathy.	Lack of accountability and audit trails for the state.

Option 3: Implementing a multi-modal authentication and "Exception Handling" mechanism.

Pros	Cons
Balances Rule of Law with Compassion (Aristotle's Golden Mean).	Requires initial technical setup and training of FPS owners.
Utilizes UIDAI guidelines for alternative authentication.	Slightly higher administrative oversight required initially.

Balancing Probity and Empathy:

Vikas should adopt the utilitarian approach of "greatest good for the greatest number" by implementing the SMART-PDS framework (2026). He must ensure that while every grain is accounted for (probity), no citizen goes hungry due to technical failure (empathy). This is achieved by using Iris scans or OTP-based authentication for those whose fingerprints fail, and maintaining a physical "Exception Register" countersigned by local Panchayat members to ensure transparency without denying food.

b) Ethics of using technology as a gatekeeper for welfare schemes

Technology as a gatekeeper presents a dual-edged ethical reality:

Instrumental Rationality vs. Human Rights: While technology promotes Efficiency and Transparency (2nd ARC), it lacks the Virtue of Compassion. If the "gatekeeper" becomes a barrier, it defeats the Antyodaya (serving the last person) philosophy.
Exclusion of the Vulnerable: The Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (2025) noted that biometric failures disproportionately affect the elderly and manual laborers. Ethically, a system that penalizes people for their physical labor (worn fingerprints) or age is discriminatory and violates Equity.
The Digital Personal Data Protection Act (2023): Rules notified in 2026 emphasize that individuals should not be penalized for refusing or failing biometric checks. Legally and ethically, there must be a "Human-in-the-loop" to exercise discretion when technology fails.
Data Justice: Forcing remote, forest-dwelling populations to rely on low-connectivity systems without offline backups is an administrative failure. As per Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, welfare cannot be denied solely due to technical glitches.

Vikas must follow the SARTHAK-PDS (2026) guidelines by integrating AI-driven real-time registries while providing offline synchronization for hilly areas. By adopting Face Authentication (as done in Delhi/HP), he can ensure that technology serves as an enabler of rights rather than a tool of exclusion.

"The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others," and in administration, this service must be both technically sound and deeply humane to ensure Sarvodaya.

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.