GS4 · 20 marks · 250 words

A State Government in the northeastern part of the country has launched a series of anti-encroachment drives across forest areas, wetlands, and revenue lands. Under the directions of the Chief Minister, the administration has intensified efforts to reclaim public land, particularly in areas reserved for ecological protection and critical infrastructure development. Most of the time, these actions have been backed by court orders and have resulted in the recovery of thousands of hectares of land. However, in certain regions, the implementation of such drives is fraught with social and political complexities. In several districts, settlements have existed for decades and are inhabited by marginalized communities with limited access to legal rights or formal rehabilitation measures. These areas are often politically sensitive and influenced by local leaders and pressure groups. Simanta is posted as Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) in one such district. Over the past year, the district administration has attempted to align eviction measures with welfare outreach, including the provision of temporary shelters, relocation assistance, and public consultations. Recently, a major operation was scheduled to clear encroachments from over 140 hectares of forest land within a Reserved Forest, primarily to curb rising instances of human-elephant conflict and to restore ecological balance. Anticipating eviction, some residents approached the High Court seeking a stay. However, the court refused to grant it and directed the administration to proceed with the eviction following due process. Notices were served, and a detailed roadmap was prepared to carry out the operation, which was expected to last 2–3 days due to the scale and remote location. On the first day, Simanta led a team comprising forest officials, municipal workers, and police personnel. Demolitions were conducted peacefully and without major resistance. However, on the second day, when the team returned to the site, a large group of agitated residents—primarily women and children—had gathered. They raised slogans and formed human chains to prevent further evictions. The atmosphere grew tense when some individuals began throwing stones, resulting in serious injury to a municipal worker. The crowd grew increasingly volatile and emotionally charged, demanding an immediate halt to the operation. The police contingent present on the ground was outnumbered by the crowd. Faced with this crisis, some team members pleaded with Simanta to call off the operation, fearing threats to their life and the possibility of a violent escalation. Simanta attempted to contact his superior officer (the Deputy Commissioner), but due to poor mobile connectivity in the forested area, communication could not be established. Meanwhile, several local journalists had arrived and begun reporting on the incident. Simanta is in a dilemma as to what to do. a. Evaluate the options available with Simanta to cope with the situation. b. Which of the above options would be the most appropriate for Simanta and why? c. What are the ethical dilemmas being faced by Simanta? d. Examine the qualities of a public servant which will be required to manage such situations.

Answered by 7 toppers · CSE 2025

Syllabus: Case Studies on above issues.

How toppers approached it

From 5 of the 7 answers · about 330 words.

Opening

  • No separate opening80%
  • A quotation20%

Body

  • Points60%
  • Points and prose40%

Close

  • No separate close80%
  • A summary20%

The toppers’ answers

A R RajahAIR 7 · CSE 2025 · 337 wordsTheir whole copy

Opening

The above mentioned case study reflects the ethical dilemma faced by civil servants in day to day functionings, whether to follow orders objectively and rationally or to assess the ground situation and delay orders.

Body · points

a) Options available to Simanta

Option 1 - Calling off the operation

  • PROS → Saving staff → preventing agitation
  • CONS → Going against HC order. → Going against Duty Principle.

Option 2 → Continuation of Operation. PROS → Ensures HC-Order is upheld → Completing duty → objectively. CONS → Increases agitation. → loss of lives can occur.

Option 3 → calling off operation temporarily and making active engagement peacefully with better man power.

b) Option-3 is the most appropriate

PROS ① Ensures immediate de-escalation of the incident. ② Ensures the safety of the personnel. ③ Helps in taking time to strategise. ④ Can lead to better planning and coming with a larger manpower to prevent escalation. ⑤ Buys time for peaceful negotiations with the local leaders.

(6) Shows compassion and empathy towards the women and children.

CONS → Very limited, possible refurcussions from H.C. and Superior officer, but ground reality would warrant safety to Simanta for not doing her job.

Justification :- (1) Pros outweigh cons (Utilitarianism) (2) Duty of ensuring safety of team upheld (Kant's Principle). (3) Negotiations ensures Rawlsian Justice for the clearing of tribal people. (4) Values shown → Courage, compassion and servitude ↳ Tactical thinking ↳ "Quick on feet" approach ↳ "Stakeholder-based" approach.

Ethical Dilemmas

  1. Following Duty vs. Welfare of team.
  2. Following Orders vs. Solving escalation.
  3. Women & children welfare vs. Doing Job.
  4. Media handling vs. Job Pressure.
  5. Waiting for Superior's Orders vs. Taking a self-made decision.

Values and Qualities

  1. Ability to stay calm and composed → Emotionally intelligent.
  2. Intuitive thinking-ensuring of de-escalation.
  3. Better planning before hand to handle such situations.
  4. Ensuring satisfaction of all stakeholders.
  5. Preventing loss of life → by ensuring peaceful confrontation.

Close

Thus, civil servants should come out of the "iron cage of rationality".

More on Crisis Decision Making

Deciding under time pressure with incomplete information, and the ethics of acting or waiting.

All GS4 questions on Crisis Decision Making