Day 33 – Q. 3. Mr. Raghav Verma, an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, has recently been posted as the District Collector of Lakshmipur, a backward but ecologically sensitive district in central India. A powerful conglomerate has proposed setting up a large cement manufacturing unit in the region. The proposed project promises to generate over 4,000 jobs and improve local infrastructure, and has received political backing at the state level. However, environmental assessments conducted by a neutral research body raise serious concerns. The region falls within an elephant corridor and includes tribal villages dependent on forest-based livelihoods. The plant’s operations may lead to irreversible groundwater depletion and air pollution. Raghav receives unofficial calls from state-level officials urging him to push through the final clearance. Simultaneously, he is visited by tribal elders and local activists who plead with him to protect their land and forests. Raghav is caught between the lure of rapid development, intense political pressure, and the ethical responsibility to safeguard the environment and the rights of vulnerable communities. Questions What are the different options available to Raghav in this situation? What are the ethical implications of each option? In your opinion, what should Raghav do? Justify your answer with suitable ethical reasoning.  How can public servants ethically balance economic development with sustainable governance in such high-pressure roles? (250 words, 20 marks)

Q. 3. Mr. Raghav Verma, an Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer, has recently been posted as the District Collector of Lakshmipur, a backward but ecologically sensitive district in central India. A powerful conglomerate has proposed setting up a large cement manufacturing unit in the region. The proposed project promises to generate over 4,000 jobs and improve local infrastructure, and has received political backing at the state level.

However, environmental assessments conducted by a neutral research body raise serious concerns. The region falls within an elephant corridor and includes tribal villages dependent on forest-based livelihoods. The plant’s operations may lead to irreversible groundwater depletion and air pollution. Raghav receives unofficial calls from state-level officials urging him to push through the final clearance. Simultaneously, he is visited by tribal elders and local activists who plead with him to protect their land and forests.

Raghav is caught between the lure of rapid development, intense political pressure, and the ethical responsibility to safeguard the environment and the rights of vulnerable communities.

Questions

1. What are the different options available to Raghav in this situation? What are the ethical implications of each option?
2. In your opinion, what should Raghav do? Justify your answer with suitable ethical reasoning.
3.  How can public servants ethically balance economic development with sustainable governance in such high-pressure roles? (250 words, 20 marks)

Introduction 

The proposed cement plant in Lakshmipur offers economic growth but threatens local  ecology and tribal livelihoods. The District Collector faces political pressure while balancing  developmental goals with environmental ethics, legal obligations, and justice for vulnerable  communities.  

Body  

a. Options Available to Raghav and Their Ethical Implications  Raghav must evaluate his choices based on their legal, ethical, and long-term societal  consequences.

1. Grant Approval Without Obstruction: 

 Pros: Boosts short-term employment and infrastructure.  

 Cons: Violates environmental principles and tribal rights. Risks irreversible ecological  damage and erodes public trust.  

 Ethical Concern: Utilitarianism wrongly applied at the cost of vulnerable groups. Violates  Rawls’ difference principle.  

2. Reject the Project Entirely: 

 Pros: Upholds environmental ethics, tribal rights, and legal procedures. 

 Cons: May delay economic progress and attract political backlash.  

 Ethical Justification: Aligns with Kantian ethics — protecting individuals as ends in  themselves. Reinforces Article 21 and 48A of the Constitution. 

3.Demand Modifications to the Project (e.g., relocation, stricter safeguards):

 Pros: Balances development with conservation and justice.  

 Cons: May slow implementation and face resistance from the conglomerate or political  actors.  

 Ethical Merit: Reflects proportionality and precautionary principles. Demonstrates  inclusive governance.  

4. Delay the Decision and Seek Expert/Legal Opinions: 

 Pros: Builds stronger institutional legitimacy. Reduces personal risk and pressure. 

 Cons: May be seen as indecisiveness or evasion.  

 Ethical Trade-off: Buys time to explore lawful and sustainable alternatives. Upholds  democratic deliberation.  

Hence, each option has trade-offs. Raghav must choose one that respects both  development and distributive justice.  

b. What Raghav Should Do and Why Raghav should adopt a legally compliant, ethically sound, and balanced approach rooted in  constitutional morality and sustainable development.  

1. Uphold Environmental and Tribal Rights Laws: 

 Ensure mandatory Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Gram Sabhas under PESA  and FRA.  

 Prevent ecological harm through full implementation of the precautionary principle. 

 Safeguard Article 21 (Right to life and clean environment) and 48A (Protection of  environment).  

2. Facilitate Alternatives, Not Blind Rejection: 

 Recommend project relocation outside eco-sensitive zones.  

 Advocate for nature-based or forest-compatible industries to promote green jobs. 

3. Follow Transparent and Participative Procedures: 

 Make impact assessments public and invite scrutiny.  

 Engage local communities in genuine consultation, respecting their agency. 

4. Resist Political Pressure through Legal Shielding: 

 Use institutional procedures and past precedents (e.g., Samatha judgment) to justify  decisions.  

 Document every step taken to avoid arbitrary misuse of power.  

Ethical Justification  

This approach aligns with Rawls’ theory of justice, Gandhian ethics of trusteeship, and  constitutional values of inclusive, equitable governance. Raghav’s role is not merely  administrative — it is moral and civic.  

c. Balancing Development and Sustainability: Ethical Duties of Public Servants  

High-stakes decisions require ethical clarity, courage, and systems-thinking from public  servants.  

1. Enforce Legal Mandates Transparently:  

 Ensure Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs), Forest Rights Act (FRA), and PESA  norms are not bypassed.  

 Insist on free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) from affected communities and make  public hearings meaningful.  

2. Mandate Corporate Environmental Accountability:  

 Bind investors to strict environmental compliance through Environmental Management  Plans (EMP).  

 Include cost for environmental restoration and social impact mitigation in project  feasibility.  

3. Institutionalize Local Participation:  

 Set up District Environmental and Tribal Rights Monitoring Committees involving civil  society, scientists, and panchayat leaders.  

 Implement participatory budgeting and planning mechanisms to align development with  ground realities.  

4. Promote Low-Impact, High-Return Alternatives: 

 Encourage industries based on local resources — agro-processing, bamboo, or herbal  industries in tribal areas — to create green jobs.  

 Use public-private partnerships (PPPs) to fund eco-tourism, renewable energy parks, and  skill centres for sustainable livelihoods.  

5. Use Technology and Data-Driven Decision Making:  

 Utilize GIS and satellite imagery to monitor forest cover and groundwater depletion in  real time.  

 Leverage data analytics to assess long-term ecological costs of each developmental  proposal.  

6. Build Bureaucratic Coalitions and Shields:  

 Collaborate with like-minded officials, legal experts, and watchdog bodies (like the CAG  or NGT) to resist undue political interference collectively.  

 Document every communication and decision, invoking constitutional and legal  safeguards to protect oneself and the public interest.  

By taking these specific steps, public servants can anchor decisions in law, ethics, and  foresight — ensuring development does not come at the irreversible cost of nature.  

Conclusion 

Raghav must act in a way that honours ecological responsibility, tribal dignity, and  constitutional values. Ethical governance requires both firmness and fairness. True  development does not sacrifice the vulnerable — it uplifts them while protecting our planet.