Case Studies on Conflict of Interest and Political Pressure

Theme

Conflict of interest arises when an officer's private interest – family, friends, investments, future jobs – could influence, or appear to influence, an official decision. Political pressure arises when elected representatives push officers to act against rules. Both test integrity, impartiality, non-partisanship and courage. The two cases below show how to respond firmly without becoming confrontational.

Case 1: The brother-in-law's firm

Case. You are the Director of a State health department, responsible for buying medical equipment for district hospitals. A purchase of ventilators worth ₹40 crore is due. You discover that one of the bidders is a company in which your brother-in-law is a director and part-owner. He has not contacted you. Your family expects you to "at least not stand in his way". Your department is under pressure to finish the purchase quickly because of a rise in respiratory illnesses.

Model answer

*Stakeholders:* patients and hospitals, taxpayers, bidders including the relative's firm, my family, the department, me.

*Ethical issues:*

• Conflict of interest – actual and perceived.
• Impartiality and objectivity in procurement.
• Family loyalty vs public duty.
• Urgency vs due process – patients need ventilators soon.
• Transparency – public confidence in a large health purchase.

*Options:*

1. Continue to handle the purchase and treat all bidders equally. Merit: no delay. Demerit: even if I am fair, the decision will appear biased; violates norms of disclosure. Rejected.
2. Ask the relative's firm to withdraw. Merit: removes conflict. Demerit: unfair to a possibly competent bidder; misuse of position in reverse. Rejected.
3. Disclose the interest in writing and recuse from the process. Merit: protects integrity and the process, keeps competition. Demerit: some administrative adjustment.
4. Cancel the tender. Merit: none significant; delays urgent supplies. Rejected.

*Course of action:*

• Immediately declare the relationship in writing to the Principal Secretary and request that another officer of equal rank handle the evaluation and award.
• Recuse from all discussions, files and meetings on this purchase; instruct staff not to route related files to me.
• Suggest strengthening the process: technical evaluation by an independent committee, e-tendering, published criteria, and a third-party inspection of delivered ventilators.
• Speed: propose emergency rate contracts or GeM purchase for an interim quantity if patients' needs are urgent, through the officer now in charge.
• Family: explain kindly but firmly that I cannot help or hinder; the firm will be judged like any other.
• Record the disclosure in my annual property and interest returns where relevant.

*Conclusion:* The Nolan principle of integrity requires that public officials avoid any obligation that might influence them. Disclosure plus recusal lets justice be done and be seen to be done.

Case 2: The MLA and the encroachment drive

Case. You are the Deputy Commissioner of a district. Under High Court orders, you must remove encroachments from a lake bed that floods the city every monsoon. Most encroachments are large commercial buildings, but about 200 poor families also live in shanties on the edge. The local MLA, from the ruling party, tells you to "go slow" on the commercial buildings – some belong to his supporters – and to "clear the slums first so that the court sees action". Opposition parties are planning protests either way. The court has fixed a deadline of three months.

Model answer

*Stakeholders:* city residents affected by floods, the 200 poor families, commercial owners, the MLA, opposition, the court, the administration.

*Ethical issues:*

• Rule of law and contempt of court – the order must be obeyed.
• Equality before law (Article 14) – the powerful cannot be spared while the poor are targeted.
• Compassion and dignity for poor families (Article 21, right to shelter as interpreted in *Olga Tellis*, 1985).
• Political pressure vs non-partisanship.
• Public safety from floods.

*Options:*

1. Follow the MLA – clear slums first. Merit: avoids conflict with the ruling party. Demerit: discriminatory, unjust, may still be contempt if commercial encroachments remain. Rejected.
2. Bulldoze everything at once. Merit: fast compliance. Demerit: inhuman for poor families, risk of violence, likely legal challenges. Rejected.
3. Delay and seek extension. Merit: more time. Demerit: floods continue; court may see it as evasion. Use only if genuinely needed.
4. Phased, impartial removal with rehabilitation for the poor. Merit: lawful, fair, humane. Demerit: requires planning and firmness.

*Course of action:*

• Survey and notice: complete a survey of all encroachments within two weeks; issue legal notices to all, commercial and residential alike, giving the time required by law.
• Priority by impact and legality, not by power: start with the large commercial structures that block water flow most, as identified by the irrigation and urban development engineers.
• Rehabilitation: identify eligible poor families for housing under PMAY-Urban or State schemes; arrange transit accommodation, school transfers for children and livelihood support before removal of their homes.
• Communication: hold meetings with residents, traders and all parties; explain the court order and the plan; publish the timeline.
• Handle the MLA: explain respectfully that the court order and Article 14 require equal treatment; record his instructions in writing and inform the Divisional Commissioner and Chief Secretary.
• Law and order: coordinate with police; videograph the drive; ensure women officers are present.
• Report to the court with a compliance plan and progress.

*Conclusion:* Equal application of law is the core of impartiality. As Ambedkar warned, democracy requires that the constitutional machinery work fairly for all; compassion for the poor and firmness with the powerful together express that ideal.

Key lessons from both cases

• Disclose and recuse for conflicts of interest.
• Record oral pressure in writing.
• Equal treatment – never let the poor bear the burden while the powerful escape.
• Compassion through rehabilitation and dignity.
• Communicate – transparency reduces suspicion and protest.

Short practice case

Case. You are a member of an interview board for recruitment of junior engineers. On the morning of the interviews, you notice that one of the candidates is the son of your close friend from college. The board chairperson says it does not matter as long as you mark fairly.

Hints for your answer: a reasonable observer could doubt your impartiality, so disclose the relationship in writing to the chairperson and the recruiting authority, and request that you be excused from interviewing that candidate (or from the whole board if marking is relative). Do not contact the candidate or your friend about the process. This protects the candidate too, because any later selection will not be open to challenge. Conclude that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done.

Mains practice question

As a newly appointed Superintendent of Police, you find that the son of a senior politician is accused in a hit-and-run case that killed a labourer. You receive calls from political leaders and a senior officer to "handle it sensitively". What would you do? (250 words)

Answer framework

• Issues: rule of law, equality, justice to the victim's family, pressure.
• Options: dilute case, delay, strict but fair investigation.
• Action: register FIR correctly, preserve CCTV and medical evidence, arrest as per law, compensation for the family (victim compensation scheme), record pressure, update superiors and media factually.
• Conclude: the law applies equally – "be you ever so high, the law is above you".