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 outline

Introduction

The PDS is a lifeline for the poor in remote districts. Biometric authentication was introduced to stop leakage, but in hilly areas with weak networks, the same tool can exclude genuine beneficiaries.

(a) Options

• Strict compliance: no grain without biometric match; protects the exchequer but denies food to genuine beneficiaries, risking hunger among children, labourers and the elderly.
• Leave it to distributors' discretion: keeps food flowing but invites diversion and favouritism with no audit trail.
• Balanced exception handling: biometric first, then documented alternatives, with records reviewed later.

Balancing probity with empathy

• Alternative authentication: iris scanners, mobile OTP, or authentication by a designated nominee for the elderly and disabled.
• Offline or deferred mode during network failure, with transactions recorded and reconciled once connectivity returns.
• Manual override only with a written register, photo or witness (ration committee or panchayat member) and random verification by officials.
• Fix the root causes: improve connectivity at fair price shops, update biometrics of children through enrolment camps, use social audits and vigilance committees.
• Grievance redress: a helpline and a time bound complaint process; make clear that no eligible beneficiary is to be denied grain for authentication failure.

(b) Ethics of technology as gatekeeper

• Benefits: reduces duplicate and ghost beneficiaries, improves targeting and transparency, enables portability across states.
• Risk of exclusion error: a false rejection denies a basic need; the cost falls on the poorest, not on the system that failed.
• Dignity and burden of proof: technology shifts the burden onto the citizen to prove identity again and again.
• Accountability: when an algorithm says no, there must be a human who can say yes on recorded reasons.
• Ethical design: technology should be an enabler, with inclusion by default, alternatives built in and a human in the loop; Gandhi's talisman of thinking of the poorest person applies.

Conclusion

Fiscal probity and compassion are not opposites: a well designed system protects public money by tracking exceptions, not by refusing them. Vikas should make technology serve the beneficiary rather than stand between her and her food.