"In doing a good thing, everything is permitted which is not prohibited expressly or by clear implication." Examine the statement with suitable examples in the context of a public servant discharging his/her duties. (150 words)

Understanding the Statement

The statement essentially advocates for a utilitarian approach, where the morality of an action is determined by its outcome. If a public servant believes an action, even if unconventional, will lead to a positive result, the statement suggests it’s permissible as long as it doesn’t violate explicitly stated laws or clearly understood principles. However, ‘clear implication’ is subjective and open to interpretation, creating a grey area.

Positive Applications – Justifiable Actions

Consider a situation during the 2013 Uttarakhand floods. A District Magistrate, facing communication breakdown and logistical nightmares, authorized the use of private helicopters (not formally contracted) to evacuate stranded pilgrims. While technically bypassing established procurement procedures, the action saved countless lives. This could be argued as permissible under the statement, as the ‘good thing’ – saving lives – outweighed the procedural irregularity. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2023), many public servants expedited vaccine procurement and distribution, sometimes bending rules to ensure timely access, prioritizing public health.

Negative Applications – Potential for Abuse

However, the statement’s broadness can be exploited. A corrupt officer might justify accepting a bribe (not expressly permitted, but not explicitly prohibited in every circumstance) by claiming it will enable them to fund a public welfare project. This is a clear abuse of power. Another example could be a police officer exceeding lawful force during an investigation, justifying it by claiming it was necessary to extract information and prevent a larger crime. The 2G spectrum allocation scam (2010) demonstrated how bending rules, even with perceived good intentions, can lead to massive corruption and loss of public revenue.

The Role of Established Rules and Accountability

While pursuing positive outcomes is vital, public servants operate within a framework of established rules and regulations designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability. These rules aren’t arbitrary; they are often the result of years of deliberation and legal precedent. Completely disregarding them, even with good intentions, undermines the rule of law and creates a dangerous precedent. The principle of ‘due process’ and the need for independent oversight are crucial safeguards against abuse. The Right to Information Act, 2005, is a key mechanism for ensuring transparency and holding public servants accountable for their actions.

Balancing Act: Ethical Considerations

A responsible public servant must navigate a complex ethical landscape. The statement should not be interpreted as a license for arbitrary action. Instead, it highlights the need for ethical reasoning and a careful weighing of consequences. When faced with a situation where strict adherence to rules might hinder a greater good, a public servant should:

• Document the rationale for deviating from standard procedures.
• Seek guidance from superiors or ethical advisory bodies.
• Ensure transparency and be prepared to justify their actions.
• Prioritize the long-term public interest over short-term gains.