It was Assembly election times, and you were deputed to a constituency on election duty where one of your responsibilities was to monitor candidates' campaign expenses and supervise the campaigns' videography. As you take charge and start working, you realise the challenge you have got into. Two of the candidates had a criminal background, and the whole contest was more or less between these two only. As the campaigns picked pace, you noticed that both the candidates indulged in inciting the voters on caste and religious grounds. Further, they were doling out monetary inducements in blatant violation of the election code of conduct. You had all of it on record, thanks to your videographer. You decided to warn them before taking any strict action, so you called them and confronted them with the evidence. Much to your relief, they quietly accepted the mistake and promised to comply with the codes. Two days after the meeting, you get the news that one of your videographers was severely beaten by the goons of one of the candidates. And the beating of the videographer was meant as a warning to you. Further, the same evening you get a call threatening you with dire consequences if you interfere with the campaigns. You realise that your decisions are proving to be dangerous for the people working with you. You didn't feel good about endangering the safety of your staff. 1. What are the issues involved in the above case? 2. Is it ethically justified to be devoted to duty at the cost of the personal safety of the staff? Discuss. 3. How will you go about doing your election duties without compromising the safety of your staff? Explain.

1. Issues involved in case

(1) Incitement of violence based on caste & religious grounds (2) Blatant violation of Code of Conduct (3) Criminalisation of politics ↳ threat to democracy. (4) Obstruction of free & fair election process. (5) Beating & threat to election staff doing their duty. (6) Erosion of public trust and depletion of democracy. (7) Personal safety vs Public duty.

1. Justification of devotion to duty at cost of safety of staff -

Arguments in favour - (1) Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism - ↳ compromising safety of few people for greater good for greater number - (2) To usher justice and democracy, ↳ election officers need to do duty faithfully.

Arguments against - (1) Rights Approach - can't compromise rights of staff. (2) Compromising human lives is not the wise approach. (3) Need to find alternate mechanisms to perform duty without compromising safety. (4) Safety of election staff is necessary to carry free & fair election & to maintain faith in election machinery.

1. There is a need of multifaceted approach to resolve issue without compromising staff's safety.

First, submission of videographic evidence to Election Commission of India.

Second, involvement of NGOs like ADR, to bring forth criminal records and Model Code of Conduct violation using RTI.

Third, awareness in public using data and evidences and putting public pressure & media pressure on candidates to refrain from illegal means.

Next, based on above report, voters will make informed choices to prevent criminals entering into politics.

Since, here NGOs and public is involved, so safety of staff is ensured.

In long term, I will request ECI to start awareness campaign and voter education.

An educated and aware voter can stop criminalisation of politics.

To ensure free & fair election, society must rely on issue-based politics instead of identity based politics.