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.
🧭 How to think about this question · directive: “what / how / discuss”
Decode the demand
- Three directives: 'what options' (list and weigh them), 'how should he balance' (a reasoned course with values), 'discuss the ethics' (both sides of technology as gatekeeper, then a principle).
- The issue in one line: a biometric check built to stop leakage is turning away children, labourers and the elderly; dealer discretion is the unsafe fix.
- The trap: choosing probity or empathy. The examiner wants a design that keeps both, with legal backing (NFSA, Aadhaar Act, the 2018 judgment) for every step.
- Your seat: District Collector with a decade of service; write orders you could actually issue tomorrow.
Think in a structure
- Open with both values defined in one line each, then the NFSA entitlement that makes grain a right, not charity.
- Options as a table with merits and demerits, then a one-line verdict; balance as points that pair a fact on leakage with a fact on exclusion, then the lawful fallback hierarchy drawn as a flowchart.
- Part (b) in dimensions: accountability, distributive justice, dignity, digital divide, privacy; a thinker inside each point; end with a design test, Gandhi's talisman.
- Close from the Collector's seat with measures anchored in the NFSA's own sections, then a constitutional anchor.
Facts checked at source (10)· open
- PIB, 5 February 2021: the Department of Food and Public Distribution said clear instructions had been issued to all States/UTs that, until the extended Aadhaar-linking deadline of 31 March 2021, no genuine beneficiary be denied entitled foodgrains under NFSA for want of Aadhaar or for failure of biometric authentication due to network or technical reasons.Cancellation of ration card due to non-seeding with Aadhaar — PIB, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, 5 February 2021 ↗“shall not be denied from their entitled quota of foodgrains under NFSA, on the ground of not possessing an Aadhaar number, failure of biometric authentication due to network/ connectivity/ linking issues or any other technical reasons”
- The National Food Security Act, 2013 makes subsidised TPDS grain a legal entitlement for as much as three-quarters of rural and half of urban residents.National Food Security Act — NFSA portal, Department of Food and Public Distribution ↗“The Act legally entitles upto 75% of the rural population and 50% of the urban population to receive subsidized foodgrains under Targeted Public Distribution System.”
- DBT and governance reforms in the PDS (cumulative to March 2025): deletion of 6.36 crore duplicate and fake or non-existent ration cards, with estimated savings of Rs 3,12,977.81 crore.Estimated Benefits/Gains from DBT and Other Governance Reforms (up to March 2025) — DBT Mission, Government of India ↗“Department of Food and Public Distribution PDS 2,49,972.53 63,005.28 3,12,977.81 Deletion of 6.36 crore duplicate and fake/ non-existent Ration Cards.”
- UIDAI's figures recorded in the Aadhaar judgment (2018): fingerprint authentication failed for 6.00% and iris for 8.54% of unique IDs; agencies are obliged to provide exception handling.Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar), Supreme Court judgment of 26 September 2018 — UIDAI's answers recorded in the judgment ↗“Authentication failure rate at national level is as below: Modality Unique UID Failed Unique ID Failed Percentage Participated IRIS 1,08,50,391 9,27,132 8.54% FINGER 61,63,63,346 3,69,62,619 6.00% It must be stated that authentication failures do not mean exclusion or denial from subsidies, benefits or services since the requesting entities are obliged under the law to provide for exception handling mechanisms.”
- UIDAI's exception methods (recorded in the Aadhaar judgment, 2018): family-based authentication for PDS, and alternate modalities such as iris or OTP (if allowed by policy).Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar), Supreme Court judgment of 26 September 2018 — UIDAI's answers recorded in the judgment ↗“Possible methods to implement the exception process include: (i) Family Based Authentication: Family based applications such as PDS or Health applications may allow authentication by family members to allow resident to avail services. (ii) Alternate Modalities: Some applications may use different modalities for exception handling. Alternate modalities include: (a) Iris Authentication (b) OTP Authentication (if allowed by policy)”
- Gandhi's talisman: in doubt, recall the face of the poorest and most helpless person and ask whether the step contemplated will be of any use to him.70. The Gandhi Talisman — This Was Bapu, mkgandhi.org (Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal and Gandhi Research Foundation) ↗“I will give you a talisman. Whenever you are in doubt, or when the self becomes too much with you, try the following expedient: "Recall the face of the poorest and the most helpless man whom you may have seen and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him.”
- NFSA, 2013, Section 15 (quoted by the Supreme Court in Swaraj Abhiyan, 2017): the State Government shall appoint or designate a District Grievance Redressal Officer for each district.Swaraj Abhiyan (V) v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 857 of 2015, Supreme Court, 21 July 2017 ↗“Section 15 of the NFS Act provides that “The State Government shall appoint or designate, for each district, an officer to be the District Grievance Redressal Officer”
- NFSA, 2013, Sections 28 and 29 (quoted in Swaraj Abhiyan, 2017): periodic social audits by local authorities, and Vigilance Committees in every State for the transparency and accountability of the TPDS.Swaraj Abhiyan (V) v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 857 of 2015, Supreme Court, 21 July 2017 ↗“shall conduct or cause to be conducted periodic social audits……” 8. Similarly Section 29 of the NFS Act provides that “For ensuring transparency and proper functioning of the Targeted Public Distribution System and accountability of the functionaries in such system, every State Government shall set up Vigilance Committees”
- Swaraj Abhiyan (2017): these NFSA provisions are mandatory, yet almost four years after the Act some States had not fully implemented them.Swaraj Abhiyan (V) v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 857 of 2015, Supreme Court, 21 July 2017 ↗“The provisions in the NFS Act mentioned above are mandatory and yet almost four years down the line they have not been fully implemented by some States.”
- The proviso to Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, as quoted in the Supreme Court's Aadhaar judgment (2018), requires that an individual without an Aadhaar number be offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or service.Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India (Aadhaar), Supreme Court judgment of 26 September 2018 ↗“if an Aadhaar number is not assigned to an individual, the individual shall be offered alternate and viable means of identification for delivery of the subsidy, benefit or service”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2026, GS Paper IV — paper ↗. Guidance: Minimalist IAS, checked 8 Nov 2026 (how we verify). ·
Model answer· 650words · Minimalist IAS
Fiscal probity guards the taxpayer's rupee; empathy guards the hungry citizen's plate. The National Food Security Act, 2013 makes subsidised grain a legal entitlement for up to 75% of rural people, so Vikas must design a system where a failed fingerprint never becomes a failed meal.
Stakeholders and the dilemma
- Stakeholders: children, labourers and the elderly (food, dignity); ration dealers (discretion, margins); the State (legality, leakage); taxpayers (probity).
- The dilemma: Kant's duty to follow the rule meets Mill's concern for consequences, and both meet Article 21 at the ration counter.
(a) Options open to Vikas
| Option | Merits | Demerits |
|---|---|---|
| Enforce strict biometrics only | Zero leakage, full audit trail | Hungry turned away; Article 21 at risk |
| Allow dealer discretion | Instant relief | Arbitrary; ghost cards return |
| Biometrics first, lawful audited fallbacks | Probity with inclusion | Needs monitoring and capacity |
- Verdict: the third option keeps the rule's purpose, stopping leakage, while serving its moral object, feeding the entitled.
(a) Balancing fiscal probity with empathy
- Probity has a case: leakage steals from the poor too; every ghost card is grain denied to a real household.
- DBT and PDS reforms deleted 6.36 crore duplicate and fake ration cards up to March 2025.
- Exclusion is equally real: biometric failure is a known system error, not the beneficiary's fault, so the law demands exception handling.
- UIDAI data in the Aadhaar judgment (2018): fingerprint authentication failed for 6% of users who tried it.
- Legality supports empathy: the Aadhaar Act itself obliges alternate identification; following it is probity, not laxity.
- Section 7 proviso: a person without Aadhaar must be offered alternate and viable means of identification for the benefit.
- Immediate course, lawful fallbacks: authentication by a family member, iris or OTP where policy allows, exactly as UIDAI listed.
- Department of Food and Public Distribution (2021): no genuine beneficiary to be denied grain for failed biometric authentication.
- Accountable discretion, not free discretion: the dealer records the reason, the beneficiary signs, an SMS reaches the household, shop-wise exception rates are audited monthly.
- Gandhi's talisman: recall the poorest face, here the labourer whose fingerprints have worn away, and ask whether the step helps him.
- Fingerprint fails
- Try iris, OTP or family member
- Dealer logs exception, beneficiary signs
- SMS to household
- Monthly audit by Grievance Officer
- Camp updates biometrics
(b) Ethics of technology as a gatekeeper for welfare
- Accountability and transparency (for): audit trails remove ghost beneficiaries and shrink dealer rent-seeking, serving the Nolan principle of openness.
- Distributive justice (against): errors fall on those with the least voice; Rawls asks that any design be judged by its effect on the worst-off.
- Sen's entitlement failure: grain sits in the shop while the poor lack the means to claim it.
- Dignity: Kant treats the citizen as an end; making her prove her existence to a machine inverts the burden onto the vulnerable.
- Digital divide: hilly, low-connectivity districts are penalised for geography, offending substantive equality under Article 14.
- Privacy and proportionality: Puttaswamy (2017) requires that data collection be necessary and proportionate to the welfare aim.
- Design test: technology should enable delivery, not decide eligibility; every gate needs a human door, and exclusion must be measured as seriously as leakage.
What I would do as District Collector
- Standing order: no denial for authentication failure; the fallback hierarchy pasted in the local language at every fair-price shop.
- Activate the NFSA's own machinery: District Grievance Redressal Officer (Section 15), social audits (Section 28), vigilance committees (Section 29).
- Swaraj Abhiyan (2017): the Supreme Court found these mandatory provisions still unimplemented in some States.
- Publish exclusion beside leakage: a district dashboard of failed authentications and exceptions, so both errors are visible and owned.
- Repair the root cause: biometric-update camps for children and workers, mobile vans for remote villages, offline authentication where connectivity fails.
Welfare technology is ethical only when its errors land on the system, not on the plate; Ambedkar's constitutional morality asks Vikas to read Article 21 into every rule he enforces.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 8 Nov 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
