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).

- 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.

(Answer in 250 words)
(a) Options before Vikas and appropriate balance
1. Strict biometric-only authentication: Ensures fiscal discipline and limits duplication, but may exclude genuine beneficiaries because of biometric failure or connectivity problems.
2. Unrestricted distributor discretion: Prevents immediate denial of food but creates opportunities for impersonation, favouritism and diversion.
3. Controlled alternative authentication — Preferred: Permit clearly documented fallback mechanisms such as OTP, offline authentication, identity documents or certification by designated local officials.
Vikas should adopt the third approach by:
- ensuring no genuine beneficiary is denied food solely because of technological failure;
- maintaining registers and subsequent verification of exception transactions;
- prescribing supervisory approval for repeated biometric failures;
- improving connectivity and biometric equipment;
- conducting social audits and surprise inspections to detect leakages.
Thus, fiscal probity should regulate discretion, not eliminate compassion. Food security and dignity under Article 21 must remain the primary objective of PDS administration.
(b) Ethics of technology as a welfare gatekeeper
Technology can improve transparency, efficiency, portability and accountability, reducing ghost beneficiaries and corruption. However, making technology the exclusive gateway creates ethical concerns:
1. Exclusion: Technical failures disproportionately affect elderly, disabled and manual workers.
2. Digital inequality: Connectivity and literacy gaps disadvantage remote populations.
3. Dehumanisation: Algorithmic compliance may replace contextual administrative judgment.
4. Privacy: Biometric databases raise concerns of surveillance and data misuse.
5. Accountability: Citizens should not bear the cost of state technological failure.
Therefore, technology should remain an enabler rather than an absolute gatekeeper, supported by human oversight, grievance redressal and reliable offline alternatives.